Why is Gosnell on trial for his life?

[Ibanez]

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.

When they are just cells, it's not a human.

[CID1990]

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?

D- even they admit it:

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

In Huffpo's defense, they have had several articles on the trial, you just have to search for them.

Think about this- remember back when the Komen foundation said they were going to cut off support for Planned Parenthood? It was a media firestorm. Comparatively speaking, coverage of Gosnell had been a whimper.

Look, I've been clear many times that I am anti-abortion for moral reasons. I'm not particularly religious, and I tend to be very pragmatic about things in a clinical sense. So I understand the advantages of lower worldwide birth rates, the inherent cruelty in bring unwanted children into the world, the whole thing. But this story is part and parcel of the anti-abortion argument, and the media has absconded with its duty to report the news. I think abortion is necessary at times, but elective abortions for convenience, when the mothers health is not at stake (or when she isn't carrying her own brother in the womb) are abhorrent, and late term abortions are killing, period.

I think that if we are going to be an abortion society, then fine. I can live with it. But the population at large needs to know what it means and what it entails so they can make an informed decision. Most of public opinion of abortion hinges on the widely accepted belief that a fetus is just a blob of cells. that is true early on, but Roe does not make a distinction between a 10 week old fetus and one that is 8 months old.

The media in its self imposed blackout is manipulating the discussion, and think people should be angry about that no matter what they think or believe about abortion and a woman's right to choose.



Sent from the center of the universe.

[JohnStOnge]

When they are just cells, it's not a human.

Except for the point at which we begin our existence as a single cell so that the noun would be singular, we are always "just cells." We are always an arrangement of cells.

"Human" is a philosophical concept. I'm talking about the existence of an animal. The objective truth that does not depend on subjective definitions of what "human" is. In that context a Homo sapiens zygote is a living, individual animal. Not part of its mother's body. Not part of anybody else's body. It is a life.

Biologically, your life began when you were established as a zygote. That is the point at which you, as an animal, completed the transition between nonexistence and existence. That is the objective truth.

I have for many years said that the most egregious imposition of belief with respect to abortion is on the part of those who impose their beliefs with respect to what a "human" or a "person" is on other living members of their species in order to justify killing them as a matter of convenience.

[ASUMountaineer]

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

D- even they admit it:

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

In Huffpo's defense, they have had several articles on the trial, you just have to search for them.

Think about this- remember back when the Komen foundation said they were going to cut off support for Planned Parenthood? It was a media firestorm. Comparatively speaking, coverage of Gosnell had been a whimper.

Look, I've been clear many times that I am anti-abortion for moral reasons. I'm not particularly religious, and I tend to be very pragmatic about things in a clinical sense. So I understand the advantages of lower worldwide birth rates, the inherent cruelty in bring unwanted children into the world, the whole thing. But this story is part and parcel of the anti-abortion argument, and the media has absconded with its duty to report the news. I think abortion is necessary at times, but elective abortions for convenience, when the mothers health is not at stake (or when she isn't carrying her own brother in the womb) are abhorrent, and late term abortions are killing, period.

I think that if we are going to be an abortion society, then fine. I can live with it. But the population at large needs to know what it means and what it entails so they can make an informed decision. Most of public opinion of abortion hinges on the widely accepted belief that a fetus is just a blob of cells. that is true early on, but Roe does not make a distinction between a 10 week old fetus and one that is 8 months old.

The media in its self imposed blackout is manipulating the discussion, and think people should be angry about that no matter what they think or believe about abortion and a woman's right to choose.

We're beginning to see many pro-choice folks move this way. With the medical advancements being made, babies are becoming "viable" at much younger ages, weights, etc. When Roe was decided, it would have been virtually impossible for a fetus to survive if born at 5 months. Now, it can survive.

I have a friend that recently gave birth prematurely to a 1lb. 12oz. baby girl. She is now breathing on her own, and while still in the hospital, is growing, adding weight, and surviving. People seeing this begin to think, how can we abort something that could survive out of the womb? So, many pro-choice folks are beginning to change their positions regarding abortion--thanks to science.

[bluehenbillk]

D- even they admit it:

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

In Huffpo's defense, they have had several articles on the trial, you just have to search for them.

Think about this- remember back when the Komen foundation said they were going to cut off support for Planned Parenthood? It was a media firestorm. Comparatively speaking, coverage of Gosnell had been a whimper.

Look, I've been clear many times that I am anti-abortion for moral reasons. I'm not particularly religious, and I tend to be very pragmatic about things in a clinical sense. So I understand the advantages of lower worldwide birth rates, the inherent cruelty in bring unwanted children into the world, the whole thing. But this story is part and parcel of the anti-abortion argument, and the media has absconded with its duty to report the news. I think abortion is necessary at times, but elective abortions for convenience, when the mothers health is not at stake (or when she isn't carrying her own brother in the womb) are abhorrent, and late term abortions are killing, period.

I think that if we are going to be an abortion society, then fine. I can live with it. But the population at large needs to know what it means and what it entails so they can make an informed decision. Most of public opinion of abortion hinges on the widely accepted belief that a fetus is just a blob of cells. that is true early on, but Roe does not make a distinction between a 10 week old fetus and one that is 8 months old.

The media in its self imposed blackout is manipulating the discussion, and think people should be angry about that no matter what they think or believe about abortion and a woman's right to choose.

We're beginning to see many pro-choice folks move this way. With the medical advancements being made, babies are becoming "viable" at much younger ages, weights, etc. When Roe was decided, it would have been virtually impossible for a fetus to survive if born at 5 months. Now, it can survive.

I have a friend that recently gave birth prematurely to a 1lb. 12oz. baby girl. She is now breathing on her own, and while still in the hospital, is growing, adding weight, and surviving. People seeing this begin to think, how can we abort something that could survive out of the womb? So, many pro-choice folks are beginning to change their positions regarding abortion--thanks to science.

Very true. I admit I didn't follow this case but I heard some of the testimony this week & to be honest it made my stomach turn. For the record I'm pro-life but abortion is an area I don't spend much time debating b/c the chances of changing people's minds are infintesimal.

Gosnell performed late-term abortions - babies that were 6 months or more developed in the womb. There were I believe 8 cases where the baby was removed from the mother alive and then had it's spinal cord "snipped". There was testimony of a baby in a toilet moving like it was trying to swim or tread water and it was picked up & killed. Another baby was crying before it was terminated. Roe is very gray in this area & you have to wonder if it's in the court's best interest to attempt to draw a line. I understand the pro-choice argument that government doesn't have rights over a woman's body. That being said, not many people would favor attempting to abort a 9-month old fetus still in the womb. How about 8 months? 7 months? 6? Where do you draw the line?

[CID1990]

We're beginning to see many pro-choice folks move this way. With the medical advancements being made, babies are becoming "viable" at much younger ages, weights, etc. When Roe was decided, it would have been virtually impossible for a fetus to survive if born at 5 months. Now, it can survive.

I have a friend that recently gave birth prematurely to a 1lb. 12oz. baby girl. She is now breathing on her own, and while still in the hospital, is growing, adding weight, and surviving. People seeing this begin to think, how can we abort something that could survive out of the womb? So, many pro-choice folks are beginning to change their positions regarding abortion--thanks to science.

Very true. I admit I didn't follow this case but I heard some of the testimony this week & to be honest it made my stomach turn. For the record I'm pro-life but abortion is an area I don't spend much time debating b/c the chances of changing people's minds are infintesimal.

Gosnell performed late-term abortions - babies that were 6 months or more developed in the womb. There were I believe 8 cases where the baby was removed from the mother alive and then had it's spinal cord "snipped". There was testimony of a baby in a toilet moving like it was trying to swim or tread water and it was picked up & killed. Another baby was crying before it was terminated. Roe is very gray in this area & you have to wonder if it's in the court's best interest to attempt to draw a line. I understand the pro-choice argument that government doesn't have rights over a woman's body. That being said, not many people would favor attempting to abort a 9-month old fetus still in the womb. How about 8 months? 7 months? 6? Where do you draw the line?

You are incorrect in saying Roe is gray in this area. Roe is very clear: abortion is a Constitutional right. Period.

Under the legal guidelines that came from Roe, the only difference between a fetus of 8 weeks old and one that is 8 months old is that if a doctor wishes to abort the 8 month old, he must first consult with a second doctor. That us PA law. As far as I can tell, Gosnell is guilty of not doing this.

But murder? Why is Gosnell being charged with capital murder for doing something that is Constitutionally guaranteed to a woman? Roe does not specify fetal age. It simply guarantees abortion at any stage if gestation.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[ASUMountaineer]

Very true. I admit I didn't follow this case but I heard some of the testimony this week & to be honest it made my stomach turn. For the record I'm pro-life but abortion is an area I don't spend much time debating b/c the chances of changing people's minds are infintesimal.

Gosnell performed late-term abortions - babies that were 6 months or more developed in the womb. There were I believe 8 cases where the baby was removed from the mother alive and then had it's spinal cord "snipped". There was testimony of a baby in a toilet moving like it was trying to swim or tread water and it was picked up & killed. Another baby was crying before it was terminated. Roe is very gray in this area & you have to wonder if it's in the court's best interest to attempt to draw a line. I understand the pro-choice argument that government doesn't have rights over a woman's body. That being said, not many people would favor attempting to abort a 9-month old fetus still in the womb. How about 8 months? 7 months? 6? Where do you draw the line?

You are incorrect in saying Roe is gray in this area. Roe is very clear: abortion is a Constitutional right. Period.

Under the legal guidelines that came from Roe, the only difference between a fetus of 8 weeks old and one that is 8 months old is that if a doctor wishes to abort the 8 month old, he must first consult with a second doctor. That us PA law. As far as I can tell, Gosnell is guilty of not doing this.

But murder? Why is Gosnell being charged with capital murder for doing something that is Constitutionally guaranteed to a woman? Roe does not specify fetal age. It simply guarantees abortion at any stage if gestation.

I just want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Roe provides constitutional protection to a doctor that delivers a child, and one separated from the mother, can then be terminated?

[bluehenbillk]

That I believe is the point of this case, that at least 8 babies were alive outside of the womb, and then once outside the womb and the mother's body, they were killed. I'm not a legal scholar but their argument I believe is that the act of snipping the spines had nothing to do with the women's bodies at the times of those acts. Seems a direct contradiction to a Hippocratic oath as well....

[CID1990]

You are incorrect in saying Roe is gray in this area. Roe is very clear: abortion is a Constitutional right. Period.

Under the legal guidelines that came from Roe, the only difference between a fetus of 8 weeks old and one that is 8 months old is that if a doctor wishes to abort the 8 month old, he must first consult with a second doctor. That us PA law. As far as I can tell, Gosnell is guilty of not doing this.

But murder? Why is Gosnell being charged with capital murder for doing something that is Constitutionally guaranteed to a woman? Roe does not specify fetal age. It simply guarantees abortion at any stage if gestation.

I just want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Roe provides constitutional protection to a doctor that delivers a child, and one separated from the mother, can then be terminated?

I am saying that Roe makes no distinction between an 8 week old fetus and an 8 month old one. If an abortifacient is applied to the fetus and then the mother spontaneously aborts and the fetus is still alive outside the womb, then what is the difference between killing it on the table or in the womb.

The issue here is viability. Roe does not distinguish between fetuses that are viable or not, only that abortion is a right. Under Roe, the decision to abort is final. Many late term abortions end up with the fetus dying outside the womb. So why is Gosnell facing a possible death penalty for this? Why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?


Sent from the center of the universe.

[ASUMountaineer]

I just want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Roe provides constitutional protection to a doctor that delivers a child, and one separated from the mother, can then be terminated?

I am saying that Roe makes no distinction between an 8 week old fetus and an 8 month old one. If an abortifacient is applied to the fetus and then the mother spontaneously aborts and the fetus is still alive outside the womb, then what is the difference between killing it on the table or in the womb.

The issue here is viability. Roe does not distinguish between fetuses that are viable or not, only that abortion is a right. Under Roe, the decision to abort is final. Many late term abortions end up with the fetus dying outside the womb. So why is Gosnell facing a possible death penalty for this? Why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?

I would assume because the SCOTUS decision doesn't have as much grey area as you present. It states that abortion is constitutionally protected. However, it doesn't say that no restrictions can be placed on that right--same as First Amendment rights. A state has the legal authority to outlaw late-term abortions, and still meet the Roe standard. A state could pass a viable law, and still meet the Roe standard. If Pennsylvania law states that an alive fetus outside of the womb cannot be terminated, then he has committed murder.

As to your question, "why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?" That's a good question. I cannot answer that question for you, as each state can restrict abortion however it pleases, so long as it still meets the Roe standard.

[CID1990]

I am saying that Roe makes no distinction between an 8 week old fetus and an 8 month old one. If an abortifacient is applied to the fetus and then the mother spontaneously aborts and the fetus is still alive outside the womb, then what is the difference between killing it on the table or in the womb.

The issue here is viability. Roe does not distinguish between fetuses that are viable or not, only that abortion is a right. Under Roe, the decision to abort is final. Many late term abortions end up with the fetus dying outside the womb. So why is Gosnell facing a possible death penalty for this? Why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?

I would assume because the SCOTUS decision doesn't have as much grey area as you present. It states that abortion is constitutionally protected. However, it doesn't say that no restrictions can be placed on that right--same as First Amendment rights. A state has the legal authority to outlaw late-term abortions, and still meet the Roe standard. A state could pass a viable law, and still meet the Roe standard. If Pennsylvania law states that an alive fetus outside of the womb cannot be terminated, then he has committed murder.

As to your question, "why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?" That's a good question. I cannot answer that question for you, as each state can restrict abortion however it pleases, so long as it still meets the Roe standard.

Roe DOES place restrictions on late term abortions. It specifies that any abortion performed in the 3rd trimester needs to be signed off on by a second physician in consultation. Gosnell did not do this, but the requirement carries at best a procedural penalty. If anything, that is what he should be in trouble for. Trying him for murder is not consistent with Roe.

But that isn't the point. If we are trying Gosnell for murder, then the reason is that he killed fetuses outside the womb. But- this is not entirely unheard of in late term abortions. So should we be going after all abortion providers that deliver living fetuses? Should we try to determine a cutoff age so that this cannot continue to happen? Exactly how is it that Gosnell committed murder, whereas if the same fetuses had died in the birth canal this trial would not even be happening?


Sent from the center of the universe.

[ASUMountaineer]

I would assume because the SCOTUS decision doesn't have as much grey area as you present. It states that abortion is constitutionally protected. However, it doesn't say that no restrictions can be placed on that right--same as First Amendment rights. A state has the legal authority to outlaw late-term abortions, and still meet the Roe standard. A state could pass a viable law, and still meet the Roe standard. If Pennsylvania law states that an alive fetus outside of the womb cannot be terminated, then he has committed murder.

As to your question, "why is it murder outside the womb, and yet perfectly ok if the same baby dies inside it?" That's a good question. I cannot answer that question for you, as each state can restrict abortion however it pleases, so long as it still meets the Roe standard.

Roe DOES place restrictions on late term abortions. It specifies that any abortion performed in the 3rd trimester needs to be signed off on by a second physician in consultation. Gosnell did not do this, but the requirement carries at best a procedural penalty. If anything, that is what he should be in trouble for. Trying him for murder is not consistent with Roe.

But that isn't the point. If we are trying Gosnell for murder, then the reason is that he killed fetuses outside the womb. But- this is not entirely unheard of in late term abortions. So should we be going after all abortion providers that deliver living fetuses? Should we try to determine a cutoff age so that this cannot continue to happen? Exactly how is it that Gosnell committed murder, whereas if the same fetuses had died in the birth canal this trial would not even be happening?

I see that you're disregarding the role of state law in this debate.

In response to your first paragraph, if Pennsylvania state law outlaws the types of abortions he performed (e.g., terminating outside of the womb), then his charge of murder is permissible under Pennsylvania state law and is consistent with Roe.

In response to your questions in your second paragraph, the answer is "it depends on state law."

Are you looking for a settled answer? If so, you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to drive home here. Are you concerned that Gosnell is being tried for murder? Do you think he operated within both federal and state law? Who are you expecting to provide authority with their answer? Or, are your posts simply rhetorical?

[CID1990]

Roe DOES place restrictions on late term abortions. It specifies that any abortion performed in the 3rd trimester needs to be signed off on by a second physician in consultation. Gosnell did not do this, but the requirement carries at best a procedural penalty. If anything, that is what he should be in trouble for. Trying him for murder is not consistent with Roe.

But that isn't the point. If we are trying Gosnell for murder, then the reason is that he killed fetuses outside the womb. But- this is not entirely unheard of in late term abortions. So should we be going after all abortion providers that deliver living fetuses? Should we try to determine a cutoff age so that this cannot continue to happen? Exactly how is it that Gosnell committed murder, whereas if the same fetuses had died in the birth canal this trial would not even be happening?

I see that you're disregarding the role of state law in this debate.

In response to your first paragraph, if Pennsylvania state law outlaws the types of abortions he performed (e.g., terminating outside of the womb), then his charge of murder is permissible under Pennsylvania state law and is consistent with Roe.

In response to your questions in your second paragraph, the answer is "it depends on state law."

Are you looking for a settled answer? If so, you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to drive home here. Are you concerned that Gosnell is being tried for murder? Do you think he operated within both federal and state law? Who are you expecting to provide authority with their answer? Or, are your posts simply rhetorical?

I am being mainly rhetorical.

That said, I understand that the states at least can claim that it is abortion as long as it occurs inside the mother and murder if it occurs outside, and be consistent with Roe.

I am mainly getting at the same thing the author was- namely that if the difference between murder and abortion is merely a question of the manner in which it is carried out, then perhaps we need to re-think Roe.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[ASUMountaineer]

I see that you're disregarding the role of state law in this debate.

In response to your first paragraph, if Pennsylvania state law outlaws the types of abortions he performed (e.g., terminating outside of the womb), then his charge of murder is permissible under Pennsylvania state law and is consistent with Roe.

In response to your questions in your second paragraph, the answer is "it depends on state law."

Are you looking for a settled answer? If so, you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to drive home here. Are you concerned that Gosnell is being tried for murder? Do you think he operated within both federal and state law? Who are you expecting to provide authority with their answer? Or, are your posts simply rhetorical?

I am being mainly rhetorical.

That said, I understand that the states at least can claim that it is abortion as long as it occurs inside the mother and murder if it occurs outside, and be consistent with Roe.

I am mainly getting at the same thing the author was- namely that if the difference between murder and abortion is merely a question of the manner in which it is carried out, then perhaps we need to re-think Roe.

I couldn't agree more. We've needed to re-think Roe for decades.

[Pwns]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/justice/p ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CNN article about this. Gosnell's defense attorney plays the race card, and argues (even though the nurses would say otherwise) that the babies were dead before being out of the womb.

Basically, all other variables being the same it's okay to poison a viable baby in the womb but not to cut it open after being pulled out?

[polsongrizz]

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.

That is not true at all. There are numerous times when cell growth fucks up and becomes a complete mess. Those cells sometimes abort themselves, sometimes not.
As for when it is a "child", it is not at the moment of conception. If so why not before conception? An Ovum or a Sperm cell are "part" human are they not?
As for the thread title, I agree. Gosnell is clearly a little crazy but that doesn't mean he broke the law. happens all the time where people or companies go free because of loopholes or whatever.

[GannonFan]

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.

That is not true at all. There are numerous times when cell growth **** up and becomes a complete mess. Those cells sometimes abort themselves, sometimes not.
As for when it is a "child", it is not at the moment of conception. If so why not before conception? An Ovum or a Sperm cell are "part" human are they not?

Truth be told, that "complete mess" can happen even after someone is born. Plenty of genetic mutations and errors that result in things even like death with people decades after they are actually born. No one argues the humanity of those people who succumb to some genetic malady long after their birth.

As for the "before conception" idea of personhood, there is an actual action that has to happen for the ovum and sperm cells to come together. In the absence of that action, those cells never come together and there is zero chance for a human to develop. Obviously.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

That is not true at all. There are numerous times when cell growth **** up and becomes a complete mess. Those cells sometimes abort themselves, sometimes not.
As for when it is a "child", it is not at the moment of conception. If so why not before conception? An Ovum or a Sperm cell are "part" human are they not?
As for the thread title, I agree. Gosnell is clearly a little crazy but that doesn't mean he broke the law. happens all the time where people or companies go free because of loopholes or whatever.

It very well could be that he did break the law. Roe is not the governing law here, it is PA state law.

[polsongrizz]

That is not true at all. There are numerous times when cell growth **** up and becomes a complete mess. Those cells sometimes abort themselves, sometimes not.
As for when it is a "child", it is not at the moment of conception. If so why not before conception? An Ovum or a Sperm cell are "part" human are they not?

Truth be told, that "complete mess" can happen even after someone is born. Plenty of genetic mutations and errors that result in things even like death with people decades after they are actually born. No one argues the humanity of those people who succumb to some genetic malady long after their birth.

As for the "before conception" idea of personhood, there is an actual action that has to happen for the ovum and sperm cells to come together. In the absence of that action, those cells never come together and there is zero chance for a human to develop. Obviously.

True, cancer is one of them. I don't know about the last one, isn't that how that jesus dude popped up???

[polsongrizz]

That is not true at all. There are numerous times when cell growth **** up and becomes a complete mess. Those cells sometimes abort themselves, sometimes not.
As for when it is a "child", it is not at the moment of conception. If so why not before conception? An Ovum or a Sperm cell are "part" human are they not?
As for the thread title, I agree. Gosnell is clearly a little crazy but that doesn't mean he broke the law. happens all the time where people or companies go free because of loopholes or whatever.

It very well could be that he did break the law. Roe is not the governing law here, it is PA state law.

Only for the initial trial, after it is appealed to the feds it will then be Roe.

[ASUMountaineer]

It very well could be that he did break the law. Roe is not the governing law here, it is PA state law.

Only for the initial trial, after it is appealed to the feds it will then be Roe.

That's not necessarily accurate. As I pointed out earlier, Roe does not prevent states from restricting abortion--it doesn't create a "free-for-all" when it comes to abortion. Roe prevents states from outlawing abortion. So long as PA law meets the Roe standard, the decision of the lower court will stand.

[polsongrizz]

Only for the initial trial, after it is appealed to the feds it will then be Roe.

That's not necessarily accurate. As I pointed out earlier, Roe does not prevent states from restricting abortion--it doesn't create a "free-for-all" when it comes to abortion. Roe prevents states from outlawing abortion. So long as PA law meets the Roe standard, the decision of the lower court will stand.

Okay, I will take your word for that...

[89Hen]

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.

It is the pro-choice side that fancies themselves to have that answer Z.

[89Hen]

When they are just cells, it's not a human.

Give me the month, day, hour, mintute, second it becomes "human".

[DSUrocks07]

When they are just cells, it's not a human.

Give me the month, day, hour, mintute, second it becomes "human".

I would vote for this to be a "starting point"

http://www.baby2see.com/development/week6.html