Why is Gosnell on trial for his life?

[bluehenbillk]

When reading the articles about Gosnell's guilty verdicts yesterday the Pennsylvania state law is 24 weeks where the line is drawn for allowable abortions in PA.

Gosnell wasn't even licensed to perform abortions.

The jury got it right. He'll be put to death or die in prison.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

Let's hope so...a lot more "ifs" in that scenario.

[ASUMountaineer]

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.

She can also buy condoms at the drug store without my permission...hence, just like condoms. Hopefully, my hypothetical daughter will be smart enough to use any and all protection available, including just saying no.

[D1B]

Oh, and no, not just like condoms.

She can also buy condoms at the drug store without my permission...hence, just like condoms. Hopefully, my hypothetical daughter will be smart enough to use any and all protection available, including just saying no.

Yeah, but condoms aint gonna term Alphagriz's fucking kid inside her tummy.

[CID1990]

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.

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

Believe me, D- I do get the woman's perspective. I have a pro-choice wife whose opinion on the matter is changing over time. I do respect that at some point, a woman should have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But that said, with the plethora of options available like basic birth control, the morning after pill, etc there should be absolutely no reason for late term abortion as a matter of convenience or "choice". (I do not consider abortion for the health of the mother a choice. I consider it a necessity.)

At some point during a pregnancy, sooner rather than later, a woman should be able to make that choice. If she has to wait until 5-6 months into the pregnancy then I think that choice should not be available. I don't think this is unreasonable, and Roe should get another look to address this.


Sent from the center of the universe.

[dbackjon]

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.

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

Believe me, D- I do get the woman's perspective. I have a pro-choice wife whose opinion on the matter is changing over time. I do respect that at some point, a woman should have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But that said, with the plethora of options available like basic birth control, the morning after pill, etc there should be absolutely no reason for late term abortion as a matter of convenience or "choice". (I do not consider abortion for the health of the mother a choice. I consider it a necessity.)

At some point during a pregnancy, sooner rather than later, a woman should be able to make that choice. If she has to wait until 5-6 months into the pregnancy then I think that choice should not be available. I don't think this is unreasonable, and Roe should get another look to address this.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I would tend to agree with this - either you want the baby, or you don't. Of course an exception for a medical complication should always be allowed (i.e. health of mother).

[D1B]

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.

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

Believe me, D- I do get the woman's perspective. I have a pro-choice wife whose opinion on the matter is changing over time. I do respect that at some point, a woman should have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But that said, with the plethora of options available like basic birth control, the morning after pill, etc there should be absolutely no reason for late term abortion as a matter of convenience or "choice". (I do not consider abortion for the health of the mother a choice. I consider it a necessity.)

At some point during a pregnancy, sooner rather than later, a woman should be able to make that choice. If she has to wait until 5-6 months into the pregnancy then I think that choice should not be available. I don't think this is unreasonable, and Roe should get another look to address this.


Sent from the center of the universe.

Fair enough.

[blueballs]

Gosnell is a hero, at least according to President 0bama. He was simply making sure those women "weren't punished with a baby," as our president so eloquently stated.

Also, did anybody get a load of Planned Parenthood's statement regarding the verdict? They stated that Gosnell won't be able to "victimize women ever again." Of course there was no mention of the babies he murdered...

There's a special place in hell for that bastard, Planned Parenthood, and 0bama.

[GannonFan]

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.

In the US, where most of those things are already well advanced in happening, how do you suppose your conclusion that convenience and birth control abortions will be nonexistent is realistic? We have access to a wide range of education and progressive thinking (the female empowerment parts) and birth control options, and yet abortions per year the US have been flat or only slightly declining over the past 15 years. Surely not all of those abortions are whatever you classify as something other than convenience or birth control abortions (not sure what other classifications there really are of any significant quantity). I think you're giving too much credit for people's intelligence in these matters - we can have all the convenience possible and people will still get pregnant when they didn't want to.

[D1B]

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.

In the US, where most of those things are already well advanced in happening, how do you suppose your conclusion that convenience and birth control abortions will be nonexistent is realistic? We have access to a wide range of education and progressive thinking (the female empowerment parts) and birth control options, and yet abortions per year the US have been flat or only slightly declining over the past 15 years. Surely not all of those abortions are whatever you classify as something other than convenience or birth control abortions (not sure what other classifications there really are of any significant quantity). I think you're giving too much credit for people's intelligence in these matters - we can have all the convenience possible and people will still get pregnant when they didn't want to.

The game changer is the arsenal of easily available medications to terminate a pregnancy.

Surprise! The abortion rate just hit an all-time low.
After years of holding steady, new Center for Disease Control data shows that the United States abortion rate has fallen to an all-time low. It dropped 5 percent between 2008 and 2009, the most recent years for which data is available, the largest decline in the past decade.

Washington Post, 2012

[D1B]

Gosnell is a hero, at least according to President 0bama. He was simply making sure those women "weren't punished with a baby," as our president so eloquently stated.

Also, did anybody get a load of Planned Parenthood's statement regarding the verdict? They stated that Gosnell won't be able to "victimize women ever again." Of course there was no mention of the babies he murdered...

There's a special place in hell for that bastard, Planned Parenthood, and 0bama.

Planned Parenthood applauded the verdict on Monday, saying in a statement that "The jury has punished Kermit Gosnell for his appalling crimes."

"This verdict will ensure that no woman is victimized by Kermit Gosnell ever again," said Planned Parenthood spokesman Eric Ferrero. "This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women's options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/ju ... z2TItBmaMF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

God bless Planned Parenthood. PP has prevented more abortions than any and all other right to life orgs combined.

[Pwns]

Notice how PP boo hoos for the women Gosnell saw and doesn't mention the babies that were butchered. What an effed up organization. They'd make abortion legal up until childhood if they thought they might get away with it.

[BDKJMU]

Gosnell will be taking his place in hell right next to Tiller the baby Killer.

[bluehenbillk]

Gosnell won't be in hell anytime soon.

He cut a deal with the DA - life in prison, no chance of parole, Gosnell gave up all possible appeals.

[D1B]

Notice how PP boo hoos for the women Gosnell saw and doesn't mention the babies that were butchered. What an effed up organization. They'd make abortion legal up until childhood if they thought they might get away with it.

Another automaton who intentionally misinterpreted their statement and knows nothing about PP other than what The National Review and their church preacher told them.


Planned Parenthood - saving lives and preventing abortions.

If you really want to take a serious shot at ending abortion, donate to and support your local Planned Parenthood. Donate here: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageS ... megift_old" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUMountaineer]

She can also buy condoms at the drug store without my permission...hence, just like condoms. Hopefully, my hypothetical daughter will be smart enough to use any and all protection available, including just saying no.

Yeah, but condoms aint gonna term Alphagriz's **** kid inside her tummy.

Right, condoms would have prevented the kid ever being in her tummy.

[ASUMountaineer]

Believe me, D- I do get the woman's perspective. I have a pro-choice wife whose opinion on the matter is changing over time. I do respect that at some point, a woman should have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But that said, with the plethora of options available like basic birth control, the morning after pill, etc there should be absolutely no reason for late term abortion as a matter of convenience or "choice". (I do not consider abortion for the health of the mother a choice. I consider it a necessity.)

At some point during a pregnancy, sooner rather than later, a woman should be able to make that choice. If she has to wait until 5-6 months into the pregnancy then I think that choice should not be available. I don't think this is unreasonable, and Roe should get another look to address this.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I would tend to agree with this - either you want the baby, or you don't. Of course an exception for a medical complication should always be allowed (i.e. health of mother).

Agreed.

[D1B]

Yeah, but condoms aint gonna term Alphagriz's **** kid inside her tummy.

Right, condoms would have prevented the kid ever being in her tummy.

Condoms aint 100% effective, especially in the hands of a teenaged male. I bet it drops to 50%.

Readily available morning after pills are a game changer. We're just starting to see it's effect on eliminating procedural abortions. Birth control in general is rapidly becoming fool proof.

Washington Post, 2012

So much for that theory. What seems like a more plausible explanation might be the type of contraceptives women are using. A study published earlier this year looked at the usage of long-acting, reversal contraceptives, methods like interuterine devices, which tend to have much higher efficacy rates than birth control pills (in short, there’s a lot less room for user error).

That research, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, found that use of long-acting contraceptives tripled between 2002 and 2009. Most of that increase happened, however, in the last two years. The proportion of contraceptive users using this method increased from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 3.7 percent in 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, though, it shot up to 8.5 percent.

No research has found a causal relationship yet. What we know is a correlation: At the same time the abortion rate took a big drop, use of more effective contraceptives had recently increased. That seems like it could be one factor explaining why the abortion rate recently dropped, after years of holding steady.

Oh, and yeah, yeah, yeah, we all get it - we'll never be able to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. We still have polio in parts of world, yet for all pracitcal purposes, polio has been eradicated. Procedural abortions are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

[ASUMountaineer]

Right, condoms would have prevented the kid ever being in her tummy.

Condoms aint 100% effective, especially in the hands of a teenaged male. I bet it drops to 50%.

Readily available morning after pills are a game changer. We're just starting to see it's effect on eliminating procedural abortions. Birth control in general is rapidly becoming fool proof.

Washington Post, 2012

So much for that theory. What seems like a more plausible explanation might be the type of contraceptives women are using. A study published earlier this year looked at the usage of long-acting, reversal contraceptives, methods like interuterine devices, which tend to have much higher efficacy rates than birth control pills (in short, there’s a lot less room for user error).

That research, published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, found that use of long-acting contraceptives tripled between 2002 and 2009. Most of that increase happened, however, in the last two years. The proportion of contraceptive users using this method increased from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 3.7 percent in 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, though, it shot up to 8.5 percent.

No research has found a causal relationship yet. What we know is a correlation: At the same time the abortion rate took a big drop, use of more effective contraceptives had recently increased. That seems like it could be one factor explaining why the abortion rate recently dropped, after years of holding steady.

Oh, and yeah, yeah, yeah, we all get it - we'll never be able to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. We still have polio in parts of world, yet for all pracitcal purposes, polio has been eradicated. Procedural abortions are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Let's hope so. But, why are you being disagreeable? I agreed with you that more readily available Plan B pills would reduce the amount of abortions. I'm just not convinced it's a panacea to prevent any and all abortions.

The reason I mentioned condoms was to point out that there are birth control methods that are readily available to teens without parental consent. That birth control method is clearly not being used as it should, but hopefully additional options will find more widespread use and be more effective.

[89Hen]

At some point during a pregnancy, sooner rather than later, a woman should be able to make that choice. If she has to wait until 5-6 months into the pregnancy then I think that choice should not be available. I don't think this is unreasonable, and Roe should get another look to address this.

I would tend to agree with this - either you want the baby, or you don't. Of course an exception for a medical complication should always be allowed (i.e. health of mother).

So we're back to a matter of saying there is a point when it's abhorrent (except when it comes to the health of the mother). At least that's a step towards the realization that the pro-life position makes sense.

[dbackjon]

I would tend to agree with this - either you want the baby, or you don't. Of course an exception for a medical complication should always be allowed (i.e. health of mother).

So we're back to a matter of saying there is a point when it's abhorrent (except when it comes to the health of the mother). At least that's a step towards the realization that the pro-life position makes sense.

You are putting words in my mouth - never said it was abhorrent.

What most forced-birthers fail to realize is that most pro-choices are not pro-abortion, per se, but don't feel the government should force a woman to carry a fetus to term. We would rather the pregancies never occuried in the first place if the woman didn't want a baby.

[89Hen]

So we're back to a matter of saying there is a point when it's abhorrent (except when it comes to the health of the mother). At least that's a step towards the realization that the pro-life position makes sense.

You are putting words in my mouth - never said it was abhorrent.

What most forced-birthers fail to realize is that most pro-choices are not pro-abortion, per se, but don't feel the government should force a woman to carry a fetus to term. We would rather the pregancies never occuried in the first place if the woman didn't want a baby.

Who wouldn't rather somebody who doesn't want a baby not get pregnant in the first place? (that's hard to word, but you know what I mean).

Looked to me that you were agreeing that at some point in the pregnancy, a woman should not be allowed to "choose" to kill the baby. Did I not get that right?

[dbackjon]

You are putting words in my mouth - never said it was abhorrent.

What most forced-birthers fail to realize is that most pro-choices are not pro-abortion, per se, but don't feel the government should force a woman to carry a fetus to term. We would rather the pregancies never occuried in the first place if the woman didn't want a baby.

Who wouldn't rather somebody who doesn't want a baby not get pregnant in the first place? (that's hard to word, but you know what I mean).

Looked to me that you were agreeing that at some point in the pregnancy, a woman should not be allowed to "choose" to kill the baby. Did I not get that right?

I don't have a problem with restricting late term abortions, except for health reasons. Detail would be what constitutes "late-term"

[89Hen]

I don't have a problem with restricting late term abortions

Why?

[dbackjon]

I don't have a problem with restricting late term abortions

Why?

I think I have already answered that.