Abortion Clinic / House of Horrors

[Xiahou]

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

This story is appalling on many levels- perhaps worst of all is how this clinic was allowed to continue to stay open after numerous complaints and investigations by the Dept of Health.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder
This story is appalling on many levels- perhaps worst of all is how this clinic was allowed to continue to stay open after numerous complaints and investigations by the Dept of Health.

So he's being accused of seven child murders, but why?

For me this just highlights the reality of abortion generally.

The idea that a babe is only alive once it draws breath is from the same era as the beliefs that women could not concieve without orgasm, and that male "sperm" contained everything needful to create a new life with the woman being no more than a field to be plowed.

Yet the support for abortion stems from exactly that sort of Ancient medical wisdom.

[PanzerJaeger]

The consequences of extreme pro-choice politics. And the proponents say outlawing it will drive women into squalid, back-alley abortions...

After 1993, there were no more inspections because the Pennsylvania health department "abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all," the grand jury reported. There was supposed to be an exception for "complaints dumped directly on the department's doorstep," yet the Women's Medical Society wasn't inspected in spite of repeated complaints about Dr. Gosnell, the report said.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The consequence of pro choice politics, but at least not the consequence of legalising abortion in general. This comment has the better measure of that:

clarese76

What’s at issue is that he performed illegal late term abortions, and wrote illegal scripts, just think how many more of these doctors would be out there if abortion were illegal, not to mention how many more dead and injured women. If a woman doesn’t want to deliver her baby she won’t, there are herbal remedies that have been used to create miscarriages for centuries.

That in Philadelphia they don't bother with proper medical “discipline” is another topic, and actually quite disturbing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

[Fragony]

Abortion should only be allowed in very special circumstances, much like euthanesia. There are plenty alternatives there's no need to end a life. it's sickening. I don't understand why people take it so lightly. Horror-house indeed, bah

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

While I oppose abortion and believe it to be wrongful death, I must note that ACIN's comment here is spot on. This incident is horrible independently of your views on the abortion issue itself. Linking the incident is poor argumentation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is no more horrific than abortion in general.

I have never heard one argument for abortion that hasn't been completely ridiculous.

[Fragony]

This is no more horrific than abortion in general.

I have never heard one argument for abortion that hasn't been completely ridiculous.

A woman could have been raped, and psychologically not up for it even when giving it up for abortion, choose her wellbeing then. A baby could have an illness that makes sure it's going to have a short and miserable life, would be cruel having it. I am 100% pro-choice though, and healthy unborn baby's don't have one. Use a condom.

[Greyblades]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

[Fragony]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

She can give it up for adoption, many a couple that wants a kid but can't have one. What are these 9 months when compared to a lifetime. Friend of mine is a rape-child his mom could be his sister, he has (serious) issues with that but he still prefers existence over nothing

[Greyblades]

I was thinking more 13-15 yrs old. I don't think bringing a child into the world is worth destroying the life of another.

[Fragony]

I was thinking more 13-15 yrs old

You do know they are illegal huh ;) Inform them better, but if they screw up.. Their life is not that more useful as the baby in their womb, why give them the choice on what isn't really theirs .

[Greyblades]

Illegal or not it happens and it will always happen, no matter what is done. I don't think anyone that young should ever go through that sort of trauma just because they were stupid like, well, a child.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

So why can't they just kill the baby once it's been born going by your logic? The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive. Or something like that... I can't understand it.

[The Stranger]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

thats not what he said.

he is talking about the thin line of when a baby is considered a living being and can thus be murdered and when it is a non-living being and can still be legally aborted... which is more like the thin-line between neccesary and excessive violence. i dont think that he argues that this case is obviously perverted.

[Greyblades]

So why can't they just kill the baby once it's been born going by your logic? The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive. Or something like that... I can't understand it.

What? Dude you'd have to be realy messed up to believe that.

[Lemur]

The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive.

The vast majority of people who support abortion access do not support late-term or partial-birth abortions. We've been around this tree before, and it's become obvious to this lemur that there is a sensible common ground that most Americans hold, and which no American politician will offer, for various legal and political reasons.

[rory_20_uk]

I'll play along...

The woman has cancer, which will become more aggressive in pregnancy as the immune system is downregulated. Odds are she will die without treatment for 9 months anyway.

Has structural heart abnormalities and her cardiovascular system will not cope with a pregnancy. Most likely she will die die to the pregnancy.
Has severe lung disease (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis) and most likely she will die due to the pregnancy.

And Lemur put the other half succinctly. No one here (bar you) is talking about late term abortions. For most things, 3 motnhs is adequate time.

[Greyblades]

And keep your misconceptions on partial birth abortions to yourself next time!

[Beskar]

Since a soul doesn't exist anyway...

Killing living beings in a brutal way is just degrading, when it is nothing more than a lump, and is as living as a mole on my backside, then there is absolutely no issue, though a condom and real protection is always the way forward, just to stop the spread of STD's. I know some posters cry about how sperm wasted in masturbation is the murder of thousands of children, but there are people here with some sensible positions.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The vast majority of people who support abortion access do not support late-term or partial-birth abortions. We've been around this tree before, and it's become obvious to this lemur that there is a sensible common ground that most Americans hold, and which no American politician will offer, for various legal and political reasons.

Why won't people take their beliefs to their natural conclusions?

I really don't understand this phenomenon these days where people have decided that taking the middle-ground on any issue is something good in and of itself. It's in your whole language... that "sensible common ground". While taking the middle-ground is usually seen as moderate, sensible, well thought-out it, there is no reason why this should be the case. To me, it seems like it is often intellectually dishonest, and the abortion debate is a classic example of this.

I mean... the right to life is an absolute value. You either have it or you don't, and it is either taken for you or it isn't. The problem with abortion is that the 'moderates' are taking this absolute principle, and trying to make it work for a scenario which they treat as being a grey area (eg when the baby counts as 'human' enough to have this human right).

This of course means that they accept abortion as taking away what they admit to be a human life in some form, or to some degree. Which then surely makes it murder to some degree.

The fact is that this is exactly what they admit they are doing unless they can provide a cut off point and say "right, now we have a human being with the right to life". At least the pro-abortion extremists do this, though their reasoning for their cut off point is bizarre (being when it pops out a vagina, because it can then survive by itself, or some other ridiculous argument).

I really wish people would get out of this habbit of going for the middle-ground just for the sake of it, presuming it is somehow going to be the 'right' way to go. It's something indoctrinated into us from birth these days, I blame communists.

Bah! You can read my sig to see what I think of taking the middle-ground just for the sake of it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

And Lemur put the other half succinctly. No one here (bar you) is talking about late term abortions. For most things, 3 motnhs is adequate time.

Nobody said we weren't, its all part of the parcel. Unless you only support some abortions, I've said what I think of that in the post above.

[rory_20_uk]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.

When has someone had a heart attack?
When is someone a diabetic?
When does the "person" effectively die from dementia?
Hell, when does a person die? When they're buried generally it's safe to say they are, yet when they came in to hospital they usually weren't. Is it flicking a switch? Sometimes yes - but other times they can be brought back, or placed in a death like state.

Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

[Husar]

I don't think bringing a child into the world is worth destroying the life of another.

Destroying? I think that term is often used where "inconveniencing the life of another" is a far more appropriate wording.
It's hyperbole to support a weak argument.

I don't think anyone that young should ever go through that sort of trauma just because they were stupid like, well, a child.

Getting a child is a trauma now?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.

When has someone had a heart attack?
When is someone a diabetic?
When does the "person" effectively die from dementia?
Hell, when does a person die? When they're buried generally it's safe to say they are, yet when they came in to hospital they usually weren't. Is it flicking a switch? Sometimes yes - but other times they can be brought back, or placed in a death like state.

Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

But there is of course a massive difference with the examples you gave, the one that is the heart of the matter.

When you assess whether or not someone has had a heart attack, you do that with one fundamental aim... treating them.
Same for when you assess if a person is diabetic.
I have enough personal experience with dementia to say that they are dead when their heart stops just like the rest of us, and hope others would see things the same way.
You might have a case with the death example but at the end of the day you would have to be cautious and not end their life is there was any life there.

The difference with abortion from all the above is that when you consider whether or not the baby has the right to life, you are not assessing what is best for it... you are considering whether it even deserves your treatment, or deserves not to be destroyed by you (to avoid saying killed).

[Greyblades]

Destroying? I think that term is often used where "inconveniencing the life of another" is a far more appropriate wording.
It's hyperbole to support a weak argument.

Hyperbole? Probably, but I've already said I was reffering to 13-15 year olds. I will admit that most of my information about the "life destroying" teenage pregnancies from those god-awfull special presentations I had to sit through during secondary school and yeah they were most likely biased. But I still dont believe that a person of that age should have to give birth if they don't want to, whatever stage the fetus is in.

Getting a child is a trauma now?

The amount of times people say men are lucky that we dont go through the pain of child birth I'd say yes, especially when the child is unwanted. Even afterwards when the child is born it wont just be an easy thing to just give it away for adoption due to natural instincts to keep it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hyperbole? Probably, but I've already said I was reffering to 13-15 year olds. I will admit that most of my information about the "life destroying" teenage pregnancies from those god-awfull special presentations I had to sit through during secondary school and yeah they were most likely biased. But I still dont believe that a person of that age should have to give birth if they don't want to, whatever stage the fetus is in.

The amount of times people say men are lucky that we dont go through the pain of child birth I'd say yes, especially when the child is unwanted. Even afterwards when the child is born it wont just be an easy thing to just give it away for adoption due to natural instincts to keep it.

All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.

[Greyblades]

So what, the mother should have no say in it?

[Beskar]

All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.

You also forget the fundamental right to die as well. Then there is the fundamental right to choice, as a prenatal cluster of cells is not a person, and the choice is to be conducted in a safe and legal manner.