Latest on the Philly Baby-killer (aka Abortion doctor)

[Abbey Marie]

Just heard on the local news that one of Dr. Gosnell's assistants "played with" the totally viable, delivered, living, late-term baby, before killing it by snipping it's spinal cord with scissors.

You Obama supporters should be very proud- he's on record voting for partial-birth abortion.

[krisy]

Oh my gosh......

I don't think I know about this story,but what I just read is enough to shock me.

[Palin Rider]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.

[fj1200]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.

So after the baby was delivered the baby was still a fetus? But at least your agreeing with the "kill" part.

[Palin Rider]

So after the baby was delivered the baby was still a fetus?

Of course not; that's what delivery is all about. And no, when a fetus is prematurely removed so that it dies, that's not a delivery.

Do I need to explain the stork, too?

[fj1200]

Of course not; that's what delivery is all about. And no, when a fetus is prematurely removed so that it dies, that's not a delivery.

You conveniently ignore the OP which stated the viability of the baby and that abortion doesn't occur outside the womb.


Do I need to explain the stork, too?

Of course not you only need to explain your hypocrisy. I also noticed that you ignored half of my post. That tells me a lot.

[SassyLady]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.

If someone beats a pregnant woman until her "fetus" aborts itself or dies in utero, why is that person charged with murder, and not a "fetus" killing/abortion doctor?

[red states rule]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.

http://images3.cpcache.com/product/80250633v6_480x480_Front.jpg


Of course not; that's what delivery is all about. And no, when a fetus is prematurely removed so that it dies, that's not a delivery.

Do I need to explain the stork, too?

http://images1.cpcache.com/product/81334151v980_480x480_Front.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.

These were all late-term babies, born alive and at that point, viable. That is why he was charged with murder, even under our liberal abortion laws. Are you so pro-abortion, that you cannot even accept the facts of the story? Shame.

Here; I used CBS News so you wouldn't scream right-wing bias:


PHILADELPHIA (CBS/AP/KYW) Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.

Gosnell faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and were then killed with scissors, reports CBS affiliate KYW.
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20028896-504083.html

[NightTrain]

Abortion doctors are fetus-killers. Calling them baby-killers is deliberately confusing.


There are some subjects that even a worm like you shouldn't troll, you no-class little bastard.

[Palin Rider]

These were all late-term babies, born alive and at that point, viable. That is why he was charged with murder, even under our liberal abortion laws. Are you so pro-abortion, that you cannot even accept the facts of the story? Shame.

Here; I used CBS News so you wouldn't scream right-wing bias:

If those abortions were in fact illegal, then I certainly don't condone them. You might want to note, however, that the article just says that it's only what prosecutors are alleging. The court will decide.

[Kathianne]

If those abortions were in fact illegal, then I certainly don't condone them. You might want to note, however, that the article just says that it's only what prosecutors are alleging. The court will decide.

Do you have a problem with it, legal or illegal?

[Palin Rider]

Do you have a problem with it, legal or illegal?

I have a problem with abortions that are done for no reason other than personal convenience, yes. I think that's immoral and unethical in a society where it's fairly easy to find an adoptive parent.

[Kathianne]

I have a problem with abortions that are done for no reason other than personal convenience, yes. I think that's immoral and unethical in a society where it's fairly easy to find an adoptive parent.

Good for you!

[Palin Rider]

Good for you!

Thank you. My only point was that "fetuses" (even if they're viable) are still not "babies."

Both, however, are human beings, and nobody should think that taking another human life is a trivial decision.

[Abbey Marie]

If those abortions were in fact illegal, then I certainly don't condone them. You might want to note, however, that the article just says that it's only what prosecutors are alleging. The court will decide.

I just gave you a small article. There's lots of evidence already; so much so that the Health Dep't people are getting in big trouble, and the D.A. is going for the death penalty against the doctor. This is not the case you want to defend.

[red states rule]

Thank you. My only point was that "fetuses" (even if they're viable) are still not "babies."

Both, however, are human beings, and nobody should think that taking another human life is a trivial decision.

Not a baby eh?

http://pregnancy.jncissler.com/sonograms/12-weeks_2009-03-09_b.png

[red states rule]

http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/cartoon_500/cartoons/goodplacetostart.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course not; that's what delivery is all about. And no, when a fetus is prematurely removed so that it dies, that's not a delivery.


I thought they called that a C-section.....oh wait, they don't let it die in that situation, do they....

[PostmodernProphet]

I have a problem with abortions that are done for no reason other than personal convenience, yes. I think that's immoral and unethical in a society where it's fairly easy to find an adoptive parent.

from the research arm of Planned Parenthood....
74% of abortions are because "having a baby would dramatically change my life"
14% because of health problems of fetus
13% because of health problems of mother
1% because of rape
http://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf

[logroller]

Penn doesn't allow abortions after 24 wks, though most doctors won't perform them after 20. This case involves 6,7 and 8 month fetuses, which are viable. Regardless of the veracity of the charges, this clearly isn't a case on the ethics or legality of abortion, but cold-blooded murder.

[red states rule]

Penn doesn't allow abortions after 24 wks, though most doctors won't perform them after 20. This case involves 6,7 and 8 month fetuses, which are viable. Regardless of the veracity of the charges, this clearly isn't a case on the ethics or legality of abortion, but cold-blooded murder.

How is abortion NOT cold-blooded murder?

[fj1200]

How is abortion NOT cold-blooded murder?

State sanction. :(

[PostmodernProphet]

Penn doesn't allow abortions after 24 wks,

????....that can't be right, the courts have thrown out any restrictions on abortion up to full term......

[Missileman]

How is abortion NOT cold-blooded murder?

I guess we need to reclassify miscarriage as suicide...:rolleyes:

[krisy]

I guess we need to reclassify miscarriage as suicide...:rolleyes:

not funny or clever....

[Missileman]

not funny or clever....

Neither is the redefinition of murder.

[logroller]

????....that can't be right, the courts have thrown out any restrictions on abortion up to full term......

There are exceptions hinging upon the health of the mother. (I think such cases are exceptional, barring unethical MDs, which appears to be the case)

This is exerpted from Pennsylvania Title 18§§3201 to 3220


...M.D. must find, in his clinical judgment, that abortion must be necessary or that a "referring M.D." has sent a written signed statement saying so; after viability, 24 wks., necessary to preserve life of mother or prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of bodily function. Viability defined as when M.D., based on facts of particular case, finds reasonable likelihood of fetus' sustained survival outside the mother's body. Failing to adequately care for viable fetus, M.D. violating medical consultation provisions, finding abortion necessary, violation of 2nd M.D. requirement: Felony in 3rd degree ...
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/pennsylvania/

That's the law. In which cases was this not upheld in court?

[logroller]

Neither is the redefinition of murder.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought 18 U.S.C. § 1111.

Though your call for "reclassification" may have been in poor taste, it presents a preponderance: by what standard do classify something as alive, a necessary prerequisite to death?

I found a indepth essay on the subject listed below. Personally, I find the neurological definition to life the most scientific standard, devoid of morals which change significantly over time and between cultures.

The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life...
However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

[revelarts]

1st to the fetus v baby question. It doesn't mater, the question is, "is it a human being?".
To say, It's not a car, its a 1975 VW doesn't really say anything that changes it's value or it's status as a car.
And Fetus means "little one" in Latin anyway so the label, while an attempt to dehumanize the child, when it's defined does not.
Ragheads, VC , japs, Kruats, convenient in war to help soldiers overcome the obvious humanity of the enemy.



Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought 18 U.S.C. § 1111.

Though your call for "reclassification" may have been in poor taste, it presents a preponderance: by what standard do classify something as alive, a necessary prerequisite to death?

I found a indepth essay on the subject listed below. Personally, I find the neurological definition to life the most scientific standard, devoid of morals which change significantly over time and between cultures.


http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
I'll read the whole article later but on it's face that really doesn't make much sense. Just because there have been changing positions over time doesn't really speak to the issue. In this case science does have something real to say on the subject.
Science has clearly drilled down to the physical genesis of a human being. All other questions are metaphysical and debatable on that level but the Physical uniqueness and living humanity of the child is established. And since human physical life the ONLY Universally accepted ground for our laws on killing and harm go it's unshakably logical and Imperative to align our laws with the clear facts. Rather than continue metaphysical debates.
In metaphysical debates I think strong cases for prenatal life can be made and even PRE prenatal life with connected moral legal obligations.

However, others can and have given legal "moral" and practical reason why humans at nearly any stage of life should be killed.
If some want to argue for killing people, at least that's honest. (though ugly).
They've found practical reasons to kill the old in Oregon and Europe.
But lets not get bogged down with the lie that the zygote/fetus/baby is not human, it is.
No need to obfuscate, or twist into legal philosophical knots just to make that side of argument easier.

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gfgq7WiHbh4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gfgq7WiHbh4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>