Why is Gosnell on trial for his life?

[89Hen]

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

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

Problem is, they don't all hit the same point at the same number of days. But let's even say they did, what magically happens at Day 42 that makes a difference from Day 41?

[Ibanez]

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

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

You do it. I know you cant

[andy7171]

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

You do it. I know you cant

Wrong. The moment of conception. It's an easy call from this side.

[89Hen]

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

You do it. I know you cant

That's the point Sticky.

[Ibanez]

You do it. I know you cant

That's the point Sticky.

This isn't as black and white as you think it is. It's arbitrary like the age of consent and the drinking age. For me,


this isn't a human. I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

[GannonFan]

That's the point Sticky.

This isn't as black and white as you think it is. It's arbitrary like the age of consent and the drinking age. For me,


this isn't a human. I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

I don't get the sudden retreat from science on this, especially from the group that normally champions science. Human life does begin at conception, from a scientific standpoint. Whether it fully develops into something you find more recognizable as a person is not a scientific question but a moral one. Our abortion laws today are based on our moral compass and the collective moral views of the population - most, or enough, think the viability outside the womb is the correct moral measure. But that doesn't change the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That's just the earliest phase of human development.

The science part is black and white. It's the moral part where things aren't so black and white.

[89Hen]

I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

No, you DON'T get it. I do not know the moment, nobody does, so we MUST err on the side of caution.

[D1B]

This isn't as black and white as you think it is. It's arbitrary like the age of consent and the drinking age. For me,


this isn't a human. I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

I don't get the sudden retreat from science on this, especially from the group that normally champions science. Human life does begin at conception, from a scientific standpoint. Whether it fully develops into something you find more recognizable as a person is not a scientific question but a moral one. Our abortion laws today are based on our moral compass and the collective moral views of the population - most, or enough, think the viability outside the womb is the correct moral measure. But that doesn't change the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That's just the earliest phase of human development.

The science part is black and white. It's the moral part where things aren't so black and white.

Well done, Gman.

[JohnStOnge]

To repeat: If it were not for the abortion controversy...if it were not for the desire to justify elective abortion...there would be no debate or controversy about when human life begins. The question only arises because we feel the need to justify and maintain something we find to be convenient.

[Bronco]

_

Kermit Gosnell Found GUILTY on Three First-Degree Murder Charges
Life Site ^ | Steven Ertelt


The jury in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell returned a verdict and found him guilty on three of the four first-degree murder charges he faced.

Maybe snip is spinal cord or get a giant toilet and flush him down

I'm sure the media will be all over this in detail on tonight's news

[Ibanez]

I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

No, you DON'T get it. I do not know the moment, nobody does, so we MUST err on the side of caution.

FINALLY!

[CID1990]

Well, I think what this trial has shown is that you can kill a viable infant in the birth canal and it is ok, but pull it out and kill it and it's murder.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[Ibanez]

Well, I think what this trial has shown is that you can kill a viable infant in the birth canal and it is ok, but pull it out and kill it and it's murder.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing.

[SeattleGriz]

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 would never terminate you D.

[AZGrizFan]

This isn't as black and white as you think it is. It's arbitrary like the age of consent and the drinking age. For me,


this isn't a human. I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

I don't get the sudden retreat from science on this, especially from the group that normally champions science. Human life does begin at conception, from a scientific standpoint. Whether it fully develops into something you find more recognizable as a person is not a scientific question but a moral one. Our abortion laws today are based on our moral compass and the collective moral views of the population - most, or enough, think the viability outside the womb is the correct moral measure. But that doesn't change the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That's just the earliest phase of human development.

The science part is black and white. It's the moral part where things aren't so black and white.

The science is settled on global warming, but not this.

[CID1990]

This isn't as black and white as you think it is. It's arbitrary like the age of consent and the drinking age. For me,


this isn't a human. I get and respect that you believe that soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's human.

I don't get the sudden retreat from science on this, especially from the group that normally champions science. Human life does begin at conception, from a scientific standpoint. Whether it fully develops into something you find more recognizable as a person is not a scientific question but a moral one. Our abortion laws today are based on our moral compass and the collective moral views of the population - most, or enough, think the viability outside the womb is the correct moral measure. But that doesn't change the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That's just the earliest phase of human development.

The science part is black and white. It's the moral part where things aren't so black and white.

I see where you are coming from, but I think the moral aspect of this is more black and white than it looks. The abortion industry thrives on a couple things:

1) the idea that abortion is just the removal of a mass of cells from a woman's body. As with war or serial murder, to make it easier to kill you have to dehumanize your victim or enemy. The pro-choice community has no choice but to do this; otherwise they have no real ground to stand on. It is easy to do in the first trimester because under no circumstances is the fetus viable at that point. D mentioned the brain dead patient who cannot live without machines to keep him alive. The first trimester is where the comparison is apt. After that, the difference is that if you unplug the patient, he dies. If you unplug the child, he can still live provided that you give him medical care and feed him.

2) the general ignorance of the public when it comes to exactly what abortion entails after about halfway through the second trimester. In the early stages, you just suck the fetus out and it is done. It cannot live under any circumstances. However, once you are late in the second or in the third trimester you have to actually kill the child before you pull it out. This is usually accomplished with saline or some other poisonous compound. As we have seen, if you scrimp on the meds and just induce abortion you frequently wind up with a viable infant on the table that has to be killed. I think that when people try to justify abortion in their minds, they envision the 3 month old or younger fetus that hardly resembles a human being.

Gosnell has removed some of those blinders and the ability to just pass abortion off as some kind of surgical procedure to remove a tumor or a cyst.

The issue with Gosnell is that it has illustrated that Roe needs a serious second look if for no other reason than it merely establishes the right to abortion. I think that part should remain, because I do think that there are instances where abortion is necessary. But abortion as a matter of convenience is abhorrent to me, and I say that from a moral sense rather than a religious one. I think that when you have to rationalize (it is a mass of cells) or divert (anti abortion advocates just hate women... it's a war on women) then you definitely have a problem. The anti abortion crowd doesn't have to wrestle with these things; justify a position by desensitizing or diversion. If you look at the child well into the second trimester, the issue becomes very black and white.

I think Roe needs that second look. Not to remove the right of a woman but to preserve the rights of a viable human being. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but Roe protects abortion at ALL levels of gestation, and that is what made Gosnell possible.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[BDKJMU]

And Tom Ridge is almost as bad as Gosnell.

Tom Ridge: Unindicted Co-conspirator
http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/21/tom- ... pirator-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

No, you DON'T get it. I do not know the moment, nobody does, so we MUST err on the side of caution.

FINALLY!

Finally what?

[ASUMountaineer]

Well, I think what this trial has shown is that you can kill a viable infant in the birth canal and it is ok, but pull it out and kill it and it's murder.

It has also set some sort of a beginning point for those that favor abortion restrictions. They now have a definite end line, or cut-off point, that abortion becomes murder. With viability outside of the womb getting earlier and earlier, I suspect this line to move in the coming years.

[D1B]

I don't get the sudden retreat from science on this, especially from the group that normally champions science. Human life does begin at conception, from a scientific standpoint. Whether it fully develops into something you find more recognizable as a person is not a scientific question but a moral one. Our abortion laws today are based on our moral compass and the collective moral views of the population - most, or enough, think the viability outside the womb is the correct moral measure. But that doesn't change the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. That's just the earliest phase of human development.

The science part is black and white. It's the moral part where things aren't so black and white.

I see where you are coming from, but I think the moral aspect of this is more black and white than it looks. The abortion industry thrives on a couple things:

1) the idea that abortion is just the removal of a mass of cells from a woman's body. As with war or serial murder, to make it easier to kill you have to dehumanize your victim or enemy. The pro-choice community has no choice but to do this; otherwise they have no real ground to stand on. It is easy to do in the first trimester because under no circumstances is the fetus viable at that point. D mentioned the brain dead patient who cannot live without machines to keep him alive. The first trimester is where the comparison is apt. After that, the difference is that if you unplug the patient, he dies. If you unplug the child, he can still live provided that you give him medical care and feed him.

2) the general ignorance of the public when it comes to exactly what abortion entails after about halfway through the second trimester. In the early stages, you just suck the fetus out and it is done. It cannot live under any circumstances. However, once you are late in the second or in the third trimester you have to actually kill the child before you pull it out. This is usually accomplished with saline or some other poisonous compound. As we have seen, if you scrimp on the meds and just induce abortion you frequently wind up with a viable infant on the table that has to be killed. I think that when people try to justify abortion in their minds, they envision the 3 month old or younger fetus that hardly resembles a human being.

Gosnell has removed some of those blinders and the ability to just pass abortion off as some kind of surgical procedure to remove a tumor or a cyst.

The issue with Gosnell is that it has illustrated that Roe needs a serious second look if for no other reason than it merely establishes the right to abortion. I think that part should remain, because I do think that there are instances where abortion is necessary. But abortion as a matter of convenience is abhorrent to me, and I say that from a moral sense rather than a religious one. I think that when you have to rationalize (it is a mass of cells) or divert (anti abortion advocates just hate women... it's a war on women) then you definitely have a problem. The anti abortion crowd doesn't have to wrestle with these things; justify a position by desensitizing or diversion. If you look at the child well into the second trimester, the issue becomes very black and white.

I think Roe needs that second look. Not to remove the right of a woman but to preserve the rights of a viable human being. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but Roe protects abortion at ALL levels of gestation, and that is what made Gosnell possible.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Good post, as usual.

What you're missing, and will always ultimately miss, is the woman's perspective.

As the vessels that shoulder all the numerous and brutal burdens of pregnancy, many women don't hold the fetus in such high regard. They're calling the shots now.

In this day and age, Gosnell is anomaly who preyed on desperate, ignorant and/or poor women.

Fuck with Roe and Gosnell's will be on every block.

[D1B]

Well, I think what this trial has shown is that you can kill a viable infant in the birth canal and it is ok, but pull it out and kill it and it's murder.

It has also set some sort of a beginning point for those that favor abortion restrictions. They now have a definite end line, or cut-off point, that abortion becomes murder. With viability outside of the womb getting earlier and earlier, I suspect this line to move in the coming years.

Your 15 year old daughter can purchase abortion pills at Drug Zone without your permission. That's the moving line that will eliminate the need for abortion procedures.

If we had just listened to Planned Parenthood from the start versus the religious right, abortion would be all but eliminated by now.

[AZGrizFan]

It has also set some sort of a beginning point for those that favor abortion restrictions. They now have a definite end line, or cut-off point, that abortion becomes murder. With viability outside of the womb getting earlier and earlier, I suspect this line to move in the coming years.

Your 15 year old daughter can purchase abortion pills at Drug Zone without your permission. That's the moving line that will eliminate the need for abortion procedures.

If we had just listened to Planned Parenthood from the start versus the religious right, abortion would be all but eliminated by now.

Kind of like poverty?

[ASUMountaineer]

It has also set some sort of a beginning point for those that favor abortion restrictions. They now have a definite end line, or cut-off point, that abortion becomes murder. With viability outside of the womb getting earlier and earlier, I suspect this line to move in the coming years.

Your 15 year old daughter can purchase abortion pills at Drug Zone without your permission. That's the moving line that will eliminate the need for abortion procedures.

If we had just listened to Planned Parenthood from the start versus the religious right, abortion would be all but eliminated by now.

Just like condoms.

The Plan B pill being more readily available will certainly prevent the need for some abortion procedures, but not all. So, do you disagree with my post, or are you simply being disagreeable?

[D1B]

Your 15 year old daughter can purchase abortion pills at Drug Zone without your permission. That's the moving line that will eliminate the need for abortion procedures.

If we had just listened to Planned Parenthood from the start versus the religious right, abortion would be all but eliminated by now.

Just like condoms.

The Plan B pill being more readily available will certainly prevent the need for some abortion procedures, but not all. So, do you disagree with my post, or are you simply being disagreeable?

You make a valid point, assuming not much changes.

However, the morning after pill and whatever they think of next, female empowerment, male's assuming a greater role in child rearing, birth control control for males, males becoming more responsible for birth control, lower birth rates in general, "devillification" of birth control and female sexual autonomy, devillification of Planned Parenthood, demographic changes, the decline of the moral authority of the church - especially the catholic church are all major forces rapidly making convenience and birth control abortions nonexistant, in the developed world.

This will be a non issue for your daughter. It's happening that fast.

[D1B]

Your 15 year old daughter can purchase abortion pills at Drug Zone without your permission. That's the moving line that will eliminate the need for abortion procedures.

If we had just listened to Planned Parenthood from the start versus the religious right, abortion would be all but eliminated by now.

Just like condoms.

The Plan B pill being more readily available will certainly prevent the need for some abortion procedures, but not all. So, do you disagree with my post, or are you simply being disagreeable?

Oh, and no, not just like condoms.