Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This is a very interesting article on the Kermit Gosnell trial.

I know this will turn political quickly, and I have made clear before that I am not a big fan if abortion for personal moral (not religious) reasons. With that said, what do you guys think about the paradox in this case- that Gosnell could well be convicted and sentenced for doing something allowed under Roe?

If interested, read the whole thing. I think this guy does a pretty good job of noting that under the law, Gosnell really hasn't strayed very far out of bounds.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/ba ... ?nopager=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

If this is the Philly "doctor" that delivered babies and then murdered them, then he deserves punishment.

But what is the difference between "murder" and abortion in this instance?

Roe v Wade allows for late term abortion, and makes no stipulation for whether the baby dies in the womb or outside.



Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:This is a very interesting article on the Kermit Gosnell trial.

I know this will turn political quickly, and I have made clear before that I am not a big fan if abortion for personal moral (not religious) reasons. With that said, what do you guys think about the paradox in this case- that Gosnell could well be convicted and sentenced for doing something allowed under Roe?

If interested, read the whole thing. I think this guy does a pretty good job of noting that under the law, Gosnell really hasn't strayed very far out of bounds.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/ba ... ?nopager=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

Until a few weeks ago, I never gave Roe vs. Wade a good reading. I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

What this guy did was inhumane and criminal. I don't recall reading anywhere in the law that babies can be killed, legally, after delivery.

I'm fine with it. The point of the charges isn't to challenge Roe but to prosecute someone who has done things that would fit any reasonable definition of homicide. If that offends the cognitive dissonance of some extreme pro-abortion wackos then that's not the fault of the prosecution.

You know, Peter Singer takes a pretty extreme "pro-choice" position when it comes to abortion and has said that you have to do so to become logically consistent. Maybe he was on to something...

45 infant bodies stuffed into shoe boxes, cat litter containers, bags bottles. Some frozen. A dozen bottles with baby feet. a 7 pound living breathing baby on the counter, then slit its neck. Joking about a baby being born so big that it could have walked out, then snapped its neck.
Regardless of what side you find yourself on the abortion issue, THIS GUY IS A SICK FUCK!

-
Read the other day that they had to pull the toilet so they could clear the pipe of a dead baby

Still More Gruesome Horrors From Blacked-Out Abortionist Trial

The media loves anything lurid, yet it has blacked out the Kermit Gosnell trial despite testimony like this:
Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant” who worked at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic for four-and-a-half years, testified in a Philadelphia court [Thursday], telling of the horrors of babies who survived abortions only to have their necks snipped with scissors.

“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.

“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.

The baby “was like swimming,” she said. “Basically, trying to get out.”

Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.

If the media didn’t avidly support abortion, this would be billed as the Trial of the Century. But leftist ideology comes before everything — even before having an audience and making a buck.

Reserved seats in the trial for media

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:This is a very interesting article on the Kermit Gosnell trial.

I know this will turn political quickly, and I have made clear before that I am not a big fan if abortion for personal moral (not religious) reasons. With that said, what do you guys think about the paradox in this case- that Gosnell could well be convicted and sentenced for doing something allowed under Roe?

If interested, read the whole thing. I think this guy does a pretty good job of noting that under the law, Gosnell really hasn't strayed very far out of bounds.

http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/ba ... ?nopager=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

Until a few weeks ago, I never gave Roe vs. Wade a good reading. I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

What this guy did was inhumane and criminal. I don't recall reading anywhere in the law that babies can be killed, legally, after delivery.

So if someone is brain dead, but the heart is still beating..............

Bronco wrote:-
Read the other day that they had to pull the toilet so they could clear the pipe of a dead baby

Still More Gruesome Horrors From Blacked-Out Abortionist Trial

The media loves anything lurid, yet it has blacked out the Kermit Gosnell trial despite testimony like this:
Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant” who worked at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic for four-and-a-half years, testified in a Philadelphia court [Thursday], telling of the horrors of babies who survived abortions only to have their necks snipped with scissors.

“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.

“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.

The baby “was like swimming,” she said. “Basically, trying to get out.”

Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.

If the media didn’t avidly support abortion, this would be billed as the Trial of the Century. But leftist ideology comes before everything — even before having an audience and making a buck.

Reserved seats in the trial for media

How about listing your sources, Cronko?

D1B wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Until a few weeks ago, I never gave Roe vs. Wade a good reading. I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

What this guy did was inhumane and criminal. I don't recall reading anywhere in the law that babies can be killed, legally, after delivery.

So if someone is brain dead, but the heart is still beating..............

We're talking about aborting a fetus not a DUI crash victim. If they are brain dead, can we assume they are living only with the aid of machines?

Ibanez wrote:

D1B wrote:
So if someone is brain dead, but the heart is still beating..............

We're talking about aborting a fetus not a DUI crash victim. If they are brain dead, can we assume they are living only with the aid of machines?

Some of Gosnell's infants were "born" alive. Whether they could have survived or not is anybody's guess.

But here is the question- if it is OK to terminate an infant in the third trimester (and it is under Roe - read the article carefully), then what difference does it make if the baby is still inside the mother? What difference does it make if we use chemicals to terminate the fetus, or scissors to cut the spinal cord?

The article makes an intriguing point, that Gosnell only strayed afoul of a couple rules and procedures, but that in terms of the actual killings, he was performing abortions in accordance with Roe.

If Gosnell is a murderer, then what the other doctors who perform late term abortions while the fetus is still inside the mother? At worst, it seems to me that Gosnell is only guilty of botching the abortions; I.e.: the babies made it out of the mothers alive instead of dying in the birth canal.



Sent from the center of the universe.

D1B wrote:

Bronco wrote:-
Read the other day that they had to pull the toilet so they could clear the pipe of a dead baby




Reserved seats in the trial for media

How about listing your sources, Cronko?

Actually it was testimony from one of the janitors who said he regularly had to clear clogged plumbing of flesh and body parts.

His testimony was corroborated by two of Gosnell's clinic employees who said that one of his procedures was to administer abortifacients and then have the mothers sit on a toilet to push the fetuses out.

It isn't that surprising that many people don't know about this because there is a self imposed media blackout on the trial. There has been some coverage lately since FOX News (of course) called out the other networks on it. That said, the coverage was primarily those other networks justifying their inattention.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

There is no point at which it is "just a bunch of cells." This is where I think many people delude themselves: The idea that there is doubt about when there is "a life" present. There isn't. Biologically, we know exactly when the life of an individual begins. And it's not when there is a beating heart. It's at conception. It's at the point at which genetic recombination is complete. At that point a new individual,a living animal, a member of the species Homo sapiens, exists. It is a life. No quotation marks necessary. And when we talk about killing it it's not the woman's body we're talking about. Somebody kills it they end the life of a member of our species.

That's the objective truth. And nobody would be arguing that it isn't if it weren't for the fact that we want to maintain the option of abortion. An inconvenient truth for a culture that's become accustomed to the convenience of "ending pregnancies." But the truth.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

There is no point at which it is "just a bunch of cells." This is where I think many people delude themselves: The idea that there is doubt about when there is "a life" present. There isn't. Biologically, we know exactly when the life of an individual begins. And it's not when there is a beating heart. It's at conception. It's at the point at which genetic recombination is complete. At that point a new individual,a living animal, a member of the species Homo sapiens, exists. It is a life. No quotation marks necessary. And when we talk about killing it it's not the woman's body we're talking about. Somebody kills it they end the life of a member of our species.

That's the objective truth. And nobody would be arguing that it isn't if it weren't for the fact that we want to maintain the option of abortion. An inconvenient truth for a culture that's become accustomed to the convenience of "ending pregnancies." But the truth.

Dude, we have video of conception and its clearly just cells.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I've always struggled with the idea of abortion and have come to the conclusion that morning after pills are ok, it's just a bunch of cells. However, once there is a beating heart, it feels to me that there is 'life".

There is no point at which it is "just a bunch of cells." This is where I think many people delude themselves: The idea that there is doubt about when there is "a life" present. There isn't. Biologically, we know exactly when the life of an individual begins. And it's not when there is a beating heart. It's at conception. It's at the point at which genetic recombination is complete. At that point a new individual,a living animal, a member of the species Homo sapiens, exists. It is a life. No quotation marks necessary. And when we talk about killing it it's not the woman's body we're talking about. Somebody kills it they end the life of a member of our species.

That's the objective truth. And nobody would be arguing that it isn't if it weren't for the fact that we want to maintain the option of abortion. An inconvenient truth for a culture that's become accustomed to the convenience of "ending pregnancies." But the truth.

John, John, John. Saying we know EXACTLY when life begins is akin to the global warming apologists saying global warming science is all-conclusive and the argument is over. NEITHER are correct.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:

How about listing your sources, Cronko?

Actually it was testimony from one of the janitors who said he regularly had to clear clogged plumbing of flesh and body parts.

His testimony was corroborated by two of Gosnell's clinic employees who said that one of his procedures was to administer abortifacients and then have the mothers sit on a toilet to push the fetuses out.

It isn't that surprising that many people don't know about this because there is a self imposed media blackout on the trial. There has been some coverage lately since FOX News (of course) called out the other networks on it. That said, the coverage was primarily those other networks justifying their inattention.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I believe you. List the source.

I don't listen to Fox and I had heard coverage of this

John, John, John. Saying we know EXACTLY when life begins is akin to the global warming apologists saying global warming science is all-conclusive and the argument is over. NEITHER are correct.

Not true at all. There are some things in science such that the argument IS over. Like we know the Earth isn't flat. We know the earth revolves around the sun.

And knowing when life begins for a member of our species is in that category. I'm talking about in concept. I'm not saying that if we are looking at an individual beginning we know the exact microsecond. But we know that it starts when genetic recombination is complete. By the time anything we might do that might be construed as an abortion can occur, the life of an animal has been established.

Here is a quote from my college Embryology textbook:

The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual.

The texbook, which is copyrighted 1974, also contains a chart depicting "the life span in man." It divides that life span into "Prenatal Life" and "Postnatal" life. "Prenatal Life" begins at "Fertilization" and "Postnatal Life" ends at "Death."

It IS something established at the highest level of scientific certainty. It is not like the anthropogenic climate change thing at all in that regard. The only complication to it involves circumstances in which there are monozygotic multiple births such as identical twins. In that circumstance one individual divides into two or more genetically identical individuals. So you have the weird circumstance in which two or more individuals began at the same instant as one individual.

I'm telling you, if it were not for the abortion controversy...or I should say for the desire to allow abortion...there would be absolutely no doubt or debate about when life begins for a member of our species. As a biological matter involving purely objective terms about when the life of a particular individual animal started the answer to the question is "conception."

The problem is that reality makes it really difficult for maintaining convenient options. And we love convenience. We love being able to escape responsibility for our own actions; which is what's going on in the overwhelming majority of instances in which abortions are performed.

Dude, we have video of conception and its clearly just cells.

Actually it is a single cell. Then it divides and divides and quickly organizes. It is organized throughout. Never just a random glob of cells; though I guess when it is two cells there's not a lot of different arrangements it can be in.

But the point is that even when it is one cell it is an individual animal. It is alive. And it is of the species Homo sapiens. That's what I mean about it not being "just cells." If I scrape some tissue off the inside of my cheek for a medical test then I have "just cells" from a larger animal. But when I'm talking about a zygote...the single cell that is what every member of our species starts its life as...I'm talking about the entire animal. The entire individual animal existence. An individual animal existence that has never before been and never will be again.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Dude, we have video of conception and its clearly just cells.

Actually it is a single cell. Then it divides and divides and quickly organizes. It is organized throughout. Never just a random glob of cells; though I guess when it is two cells there's not a lot of different arrangements it can be in.

But the point is that even when it is one cell it is an individual animal. It is alive. And it is of the species Homo sapiens. That's what I mean about it not being "just cells." If I scrape some tissue off the inside of my cheek for a medical test then I have "just cells" from a larger animal. But when I'm talking about a zygote...the single cell that is what every member of our species starts its life as...I'm talking about the entire animal. The entire individual animal existence. An individual animal existence that has never before been and never will be again.

We all wish your mother would have scraped some tissue off the inside of her uterus about 50 some years ago.

We all wish your mother would have scraped some tissue off the inside of her uterus about 50 some years ago.

That's a different issue.

JohnStOnge wrote:

We all wish your mother would have scraped some tissue off the inside of her uterus about 50 some years ago.

That's a different issue.

Not in this case.

Not in this case.

Catch any fish lately?

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Actually it was testimony from one of the janitors who said he regularly had to clear clogged plumbing of flesh and body parts.

His testimony was corroborated by two of Gosnell's clinic employees who said that one of his procedures was to administer abortifacients and then have the mothers sit on a toilet to push the fetuses out.

It isn't that surprising that many people don't know about this because there is a self imposed media blackout on the trial. There has been some coverage lately since FOX News (of course) called out the other networks on it. That said, the coverage was primarily those other networks justifying their inattention.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I believe you. List the source.

Right now, the district attorney site at phila.gov has the grand jury report that specifies a lot of this. It won't load right now, so here's the link at HotAir.com-

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/17/g ... he-toilet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I Googled it, I literally got nothing but sources and blogs on the right. It's all LifeNews, HotAir, all the righty sites. Absolutely nothing from the left, but there IS something on HuffPo, and sure enough, it is a justification/excuse for not covering the trial:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 2d7f000710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Transcript is also in the HotAir link.

I am somewhat neutral on the coverage. If the networks don't want to cover it that's their prerogative. But at the end of the day, nobody can say it isn't newsworthy.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
I believe you. List the source.

Right now, the district attorney site at phila.gov has the grand jury report that specifies a lot of this. It won't load right now, so here's the link at HotAir.com-

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/17/g ... he-toilet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I Googled it, I literally got nothing but sources and blogs on the right. It's all LifeNews, HotAir, all the righty sites. Absolutely nothing from the left, but there IS something on HuffPo, and sure enough, it is a justification/excuse for not covering the trial:

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segmen ... 2d7f000710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Transcript is also in the HotAir link.

I am somewhat neutral on the coverage. If the networks don't want to cover it that's their prerogative. But at the end of the day, nobody can say it isn't newsworthy.


Sent from the center of the universe.

You really think the (chuckle) leftist media is avoiding this?