E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Dr. Kermit Gosnell in an undated photo released by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office.
PHILADELPHIA -- Three years after drug agents searching a suspected "pill mill" at a West Philadelphia clinic instead found a medical "house of horrors," an abortion doctor is going on trial on eight counts of murder.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, the clinic owner, is charged with killing a pregnant refugee and seven viable newborns. He also faces a separate federal trial on prescription drug charges.
Gosnell, who has pleaded not guilty, saw himself as a medical missionary in the blighted neighborhood where he worked and lived for 40 years. His Women's Medical Center treated the poor, immigrants, teens and women with late-stage pregnancies who could not get abortions elsewhere.
"I feel in the long term I will be vindicated," Gosnell told the Philadelphia Daily News in a March 2010 interview, a month after the federal drug raid. "I aspire to perfection, certainly for my patients."
But some of those patients were left with infections, perforated bowels and other injuries after barbaric abortions were performed by untrained, unlicensed staff, according to numerous lawsuits and a lengthy 2011 grand jury report. And 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar lost her life there in 2009.
Jury selection starts Monday in the death penalty case. All but one of the nine clinic workers arrested with Gosnell have pleaded guilty, three of them to third-degree murder, which carries a potential 20- to 40-year prison sentence.
Unlicensed doctor Steven Massof of Pittsburgh told the grand jury that he used scissors to snip the spines of more than 100 babies born alive. He worked for Gosnell for a few hundred dollars a week. He pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two babies allegedly stabbed by Gosnell while Massof assisted with the abortions.
Gag order
Gosnell's third wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist, pleaded guilty to performing an illegal, late-term abortion and other charges. She does not have to testify, but other co-defendants have said they would.
It's not clear if Gosnell plans to testify, because a gag order has been issued in the case. But it's possible, given his posture in the Daily News interview.
"Many times people have not been able to fully pay me for my services," Gosnell said. "As a principle, I have not refused to provide them care."
Yet he made millions over the years, both from abortions and a thriving side practice where staffers allegedly dispensed his pre-signed prescriptions for OxyContin, Percocet and other highly addictive painkillers.
Related federal drug charges await Gosnell after the murder trial, which is expected to last several weeks. Opening statements are scheduled for March 14.
It's not clear if Pennsylvania jurors have ever been asked to send a man of Gosnell's age or occupation to death row. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams called Gosnell's macabre medical clinic — where agents found fetal body parts in glass jars and staff refrigerators, and patient rooms filthy and blood-stained — a "house of horrors."
"Dr. Gosnell is never going to get the death penalty," defense attorney Jack McMahon said early on, noting his client's age and the cost of protracted capital cases.
The gag order now prevents McMahon from commenting about the case. But he met with Gosnell at the courthouse on Thursday, with prosecutors and the trial judge nearby, in what some viewed as late-hour plea discussions.
Mongar's family has a civil suit pending over her death. The 4-foot-11 woman from Bhutan — who did not speak English — died after allegedly receiving lethal doses of sedatives and painkillers from Gosnell's untrained workers.
She and her husband and three children had survived 20 years in refugee camps before settling in rural Virginia. She was referred to Gosnell's clinic to seek a second-term abortion.
Medical technician Sherry West, during her plea to third-degree murder and other charges, admitted she may have administered drugs to Mongar while Gosnell was off-site.
"She's very sorry about the death of that young lady," defense lawyer Michael Wallace said after her plea. "She got caught up in a series of things that probably she did not realize the significance of."
Leave a Comment:
"First, do no harm"
What the hell is an abortion? Terminating a life is HarmLESS?
And he's being charged with only 8 deaths?! WTF man.
How the hell can "anybody" think they have the right to snuff out a baby's life just because the kid cannot defend itself.
I mean, the baby is "alive" and he cuts the spine and lets them die right there. I don't know how somebody can do that then break for lunch...Wow man. What a shame.....
GM CD. Sounds like he could have worked for Hitler. Love your attitude, bro! GMUS
Abortion like guns must be regulated. Both kill.
Abortion is well regulated.....the Supreme Court made it clear in their decision.
apparently it isn't or this would be happening Kathryn.
Bad analogy. Abortions ALWAYS kill. Guns only do so when someone WRONGLY CHOOSES to use one to do so. Damn, that word CHOICE keeps coming up to REFUTE abortions, doesn't it?
And the Second Amendment says what it says! Why don't you regulate criminals instead?
Abortion is murder- would it be worse if they used a gun? When performing an abortion, they have to suction out the baby tearing it apart bit by bit and then they have to go in with forceps and crush the head because it won't suction. I DARE you to watch these two videos and then say it's not barbaric.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDtUqImGjeg
Crystal - I dare you to consider an America where the government can force a woman to give birth. Just how much authority are you willing to give the government. Just how much personal freedom and privacy are you willing to give up?
Crystal,
No thanks. If I watch those video's, I won't be the same man I am today.
I have a great imagination. Thanks anyway...
Later...
redvirginia: Without guns, we'd all be as vulnerable and helpless as those babies.
goodforgoodnesssake:
The government would have to rape a woman to force her to give birth. If a rapist forces a woman, he should be executed. Don't blame the government for protecting the helpless. Blame the government for coddling rapists and allowing the murder of innocents.
Goodforgoodnessake, I would like to consider a country where women are more selective in who they spread their legs for.
For myself, If he's not good enough to be my husband/partner/father of my children, then he's not good enough to be in my bed.
Joe S- it's quite obvious you have not though your stance through. So you would have would-be fathers executed. How would these now, pregnant women make it through term and for another 18 years afterward, with no financial help from these men?
Janine, your world sounds very idealistic and devoid of any real life experience. How wonderful that you have the fortitude, intelligence and resources to make well-informed decisions that affect your life! How sad that it's not true for millions of other women.
These actions violated the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. These viable citizens had rights guaranteed to them by 300 million citizens and half a million in uniform. Who the hell does this maggot think he is to assume he has the authority to overrule the people and the constitution?
If this land is still a Republic, rule of law, then this vile form of human waste should be in jail until he is dead. And be sure to tell the other inmates that he is a baby killer. I wish I had not read this story. It makes me ill to see once again that humans can be such a low life form.
I guess since I'm a man I'm without an opinion, so I've been told, even if I father a baby, I have no right to that baby. This is all a womans right to choose, it's her body, it's her baby!
Bubba, to avoid that type of situation, you'd be wise to not fornicate with women who are pro-choice.
"Just how much personal freedom and privacy are you willing to give up?" goodforgoodnesssake
Not attacking you, good, since I don't know your stance on this issue. However, since it was brought up in previous posts, I'd like to say that I can't understand how the "liberals" can't see the correlation between their desire to "save the children" from so-called gun violence and others' desire to "save the children" from abortion. Whether abortion is "well regulated," as Kathryn Sullivan claims, or not, it still ALWAYS RESULTS IN THE DEATH of that unborn child. Yet the argument is always spun into some sanitary slogan like "the right to control her own body" and "keep the (insert party of choice here) from regulating my vagina." You've got to have some high-dollar blinders on not to see the hypocrisy.
How many children are killed every year by "gun violence" and how many are aborted? Like those "liberals" are fond of saying, "if only ONE is saved then it's worth it..." But you better not restrict their right to kill their unborn baby because it's not economically expedient for them to have a child right now, right?
In answer to your question above, I'm not willing to give up the amount of personal freedom and privacy that the "gun control" nuts are trying to take away from me. Are you?
Woman should watch those videos before abortion , actually Democrat liberal Governor Cuomo should be called criminal for passing law allowing the killing unborn babies in late term abortion.
CC - I never claimed to be anti-second amendment, but you assumed because....I'm not sure why. I'm a liberal? Personally I don't see how the two subjects are very related. Abortion is a personal reproductive health choice.
Crystal, I watched your videos and was apalled at the level of misinformation contained therein. They had a running dialog in them that used extremely charged words and placed feelings and emotions on the fetus that they are physiologically incapable of having. It was propaganda of the worst kind.
I say sure, show those videos to people before abortion, but in that case the dialog should be purely replaced with scientific fact rather than misinformation and half truth.
ugh..there goes my breakfast and i'm pro-choice
eng how do you know what the fetus is capable of can you remember when you were a fetus because if not you are just guessing you don't actually know. When I went to see my daughters first sonogram her pregnacy she wasn't 10 weeks along still able to get an abortion legally in this state and I could see the babies heart beating and her arms moving it was a baby it wasn't fully formed still looked a little like and alien but it was alive no ifs ands or buts.
Medical science has already answered those questions.
While I am not completely against abortion rights, I am definitely for the death penalty, & would like to start with anyone ever employed at this clinic. In fact why not just abort these doctors & their staff. Now where are those scissors.
This story reminds me of what it was like before Roe v Wade, and this is what will happen again if states continue to make it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain safe, legal abortions. You cannot legislate abortions away.
Alive does not equal human, endowed with rights. Until science can prove when our HUMANITY begins, the government can not tell us what to do with our bodies. So please, show me some scientific, credible evidence of when life with potential for humanity actually becomes human, and then continue your rants. And here's a hint, your Newsvine posts are NOT that evidence. Nor are your arguments. Nor are your Bibles. That evidence will be in the form of a scholarly peer reviewed article that's been replicated and verified. Your arguments and your posts are nothing but your BELIEFS. I can't prove my position either, hence I don't advocate for forced abortion, but choice.
In the mean time, men if you're so very anti-choice I suggest you get vesectomies because contraception CAN fail.
It's a HUMAN fetus, it cannot be any other animal if it sits in a woman's womb.
It has human DNA.
The woman knows she is not just getting rid of a chicken.
Women want it to be legal so they don't feel as guilty.
Men don't need to be castrated just because women aren't strong enough to say NO.
You do realize merely typing "LOL" after something doesn't actually make it funny, right?
It's a Newsvine post. It can not be anything more than a Newsvine post because it is not a scientific, peer reviewed, credible study.
I didn't say anything about gay marriage, you are the one that always brings that up.
Don't derail the thread to bring in your own agenda, Sarah.
Um, where did I bring up gay marriage on this thread??? Please quote where I did.
I though you were smarter. Science already prove, animal life start at the moment conception. When a pregnant woman get kill, it count two lives. Rove vs Wade was not indented to set a scientific truth, it give the right to a mother to stop her pregnancy, because the fetus which is inside of the mother by extension is part of her, so she has the right to chose to end the life of the fetus or not. Late term abortion is very controversial, even worst the killing of a baby born in a process of abortion like Obama support, because after 6 months of pregnancy a creature can live outside the womb.
No Sarah, it IS human. Only an imbecile doesn't understand that humans make human babies, dogs make other dogs and birds make other birds. You might be meaning to say SENTIENT... but I guarantee you they are human.
Red,
Newsvine post.
Joe,
Newsvine post.
You guys do realize that you AREN'T the credible scientific community, right? I mean if it's THAT simple you should be able to find me a scholarly article on when life with the potential for humanity actually becomes human. A study that's been peer reviewed and replicated. Come on, it's so easy right???
Hmmmmm Sarah.
This is a difficult one. Not exactly sure where you're coming from but I never heard "Alive does not equal human" in the same sentence. And "endowed with rights".
When my wife was pregnant with our first child, we went to get a sonogram at 3 months. My wife sneezed and my son "yes" "My Son" (at 3 mos from conception) flinched. As in, he heard or felt her sneeze and it frightened him for a split second.
I would call that human at 3 mos from conception. The nurse even commented on the baby "jumping" like that.
The biggest misconception to a lot of people seems that a baby, or not born yet human being, has no rights because the kid cannot tell you that he/she does or not, yet.
I'll bet my life that if a baby is born, comes out and says "Hi Mom" there would be no question here as to when it is ok or not to abort a child.
We all have our opinions and this is mine. Jus as.............
Sarah,
Newsvine post.
Take care...
liberals are funny... most of them believe someone should CHOOSE to kill a baby via abortion, but people should not be able to CHOOSE to kill a person via a gun. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. I have guns, but have noever chosen to kill anyone. Yet I am more a bad guy than someone who kills their baby(ies). Pretty sick really.
The life of a baby starts at conception. They develop into what they are over the next 6-10 months. To say it is not human is just insane and stupid. Sarah, you belong in the stupid category. Have a good day Miss scientist.
That's not it. It's that the rights of the "fetus" don't trump the rights of the pregnant woman. Let's not confuse a "reflex" movement from the ability to have conscious thought.
Do you really want to live in an America that has forced "labor" camps?
Creek,
Of course my posts are merely opinion, that's why I don't, and never will, advocate for someone being FORCED to have an abortion. Comparing the pro-choice crowd with the anti-choice crowd is a false equivalency, because none of us "choicers" insist on any of the "lifers" having an abortion.
I believe, beyond any doubt, that the moment your wife found out she was pregnant you considered him your son, nor would I argue with your right to do so. However, that was a belief that came from your heart, not a proven scientific fact. That's why one can't force the decision on another, because your heart dictates YOU, not ME, nor anyone else.
Finally, the beginning of my post addresses the numerous arguments that because something has human DNA or a heartbeat, it is therefore endowed with HUMANITY and deserving of rights. Many things have heartbeats and are NOT human. Many things have human DNA and aren't human. It's a matter of BELIEF.
YouDon't,
Newsvine post.
Again, if it's that easy, find me the link to the proof I've asked for.
Neither you are. However it comes from the scientific comunity.
It takes two months to form the human embryo, a process scientists call embryogenesis. After eight weeks, the embryo has all the organs and tissues found in a newborn baby — although many exist in primitive form. During the last seven months of a human pregnancy, the fetus (no longer called an embryo) continues to grow and develop, but the fundamental blueprint for the baby-to-be is established during embryogenesis.
I don't need a link to prove anything to anybody. My proof is in my heart.
This is a very shaky subject no matter who you're dealing with. I can't even take a birds egg out of it's nest and smash it on the ground not to mention people sucking human baby's out from within the mother through a vacuum tube.
It disgusts me whether the mother is 3 wks or more pregnant...
I just could not fathom that...
good, I have been told no matter what, I am just a seed barer I have no say in this matter, even if I want to care for the child alone, it is there body they have the choice, this is not about life and death of a baby it is about body choice who's body it is in possession is 9/10 of the law.That's when they lost the argument. Murder is still murder! If you don't want the baby but someone else does want to care for the baby than it's murder, it is that easy.
Creek,
Of course you don't. Unless you want to tell other people what to do, especially with their bodies.
Red,
Newsvine post. Again. You keep saying it's so easy to figure out, then wouldn't it be quicker to just provide the evidence I asked for than continue to post your PERSONAL arguments, which by the way will NEVER prove anything?
And AGAIN, I don't need to provide you with anything because I'm not telling you what to do with your body. And it's tautological at best to say that I have to provide proof of it NOT being endowed with humanity before abortion can be legal.
No I want to tell them what to do with the body of a baby that is growing inside of them!!! Because that baby can't tell them, I want to LIVE! SOMEONE ELSE WILL LOVE ME! YOU HATEFUL B!%^&.
As you say, "Sarah" , there is no scientific proof...
I am not telling anyone what to do with their bodies. I am the voice of an unborn child that cannot speak for itself yet. The voice that this unborn child will be glad it had when no one else would listen...
We are human right from conception. But the age of viability is iffy. Some kids survive when born at 23 weeks. Some die at that age.
In my opinion, viability is a weak argument for abortion - people with fatal illnesses who will never recover aren't exactly "viable" yet they are given the right to live free from violence, and anyone who killed them would reasonably be charged with murder.
The fact that a fetus spends much of the pregnancy not yet able to survive outside the womb doesn't make killing it acceptable or ethical. It is still a human being, and it's still alive. It still has innate value just like a newborn baby, or a child, or any of us sitting here at our computers.
Sarah,
Neither one of us are right or are we wrong.....
Just like nobody can scientifically prove whether a fetus is human or not, I do believe that they feel pain...
And whether we believe they are human or not, compares to the afterlife. Is there any scientific proof of afterlife?
This is what I'm talking about.
Correct. For me this isn't about when humanity is endowed in us, it's about what the law can/can't tell us to do, and making sure we hold our government to a standard of evidence before allowing them to invade our privacy in the most intimate way possible.
Sarah, you would rather tell that baby Die your nothing to me you piece of slime!
Bubba,
Of course I would. I use aborted zygotes and fetuses as ice cream toppings. Are you happy now, you got some attention? But really, it isn't nice to interrupt the adults when they're having a conversation.
I wouldn't if I could find two adults in this conversation, Casey. Oh is certain situation I actually believe in abortion, but just not because you spread you legs for a little fun.
Since you feel so strongly about this, than I suggest you do what YOU can to stop it, and advocate for young MEN getting vasectomies and keeping it in their pants.
You first.
I mean, instead of telling other people what to do with their bodies, while lacking any evidence for why they should do as you tell them, perhaps you can take care of your own.
Snip, snip, buddy.
Mass sterilization of men, that's what Obama will do next for sure.
Men don't need vasectomies if women knew how to be in control of their bodies and their actions.
Unitl women learn to say NO and take charge of their lives, there will always be unwanted pregnancies.
Women know they can get pregnant, that's because they are women. The only thing that prevents a pregnancy 100% is no sex.
If they want to play like men, then they need to learn how to keep from getting pregnant.
If women want the choice, then they need to be responsible for their own contraception.
Smart women know how to not get pregnant. But they won't share their secrets with the dumb ones.
And exactly what would that "certain situation" be? Either it's a full-fledged human being at the time of conception or it isn't, right? So how do you now claim that sometimes abortion is acceptable?
Sarah, here you go. That I have to do this is rather asinine.
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Sadler, T.W.Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition.
“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male...sperm unites with a female [egg] to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”
Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.
Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of
fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition,1996
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition.
Sahara, How about I push to have ya all arrested for murder, I like that better. Maybe you women will learn It's a Two way street. You open we jump in. Since I'm past the baby making age, no harm to me, both side can pay Baby daddy and Baby mommy. Do the pleasure, do the TIME!
Hay we can call ya BABY KILL MACHINES! We don't have to tell what to do with your body's then. You will know. If you F^$# and something happens your responsible for it, that's a big RESPONSIBILITY!
The American legal system tell murders what they can do with their body's all the time.
Do the pleasure
Do the Time
Abortion is
A murdering
CRIME
Joe,
Never argued about any of what you posted. What none of that showed was when HUMANITY was endowed in them. By the way, fertilization does NOT equal even conception. What you showed was that a zygote is life with potential for being a human being. An egg can be fertilized without ever implanting in the womb, ergo it gets flushed down the toilet. So how do you suppose, if HUMANITY ENDOWED WITH RIGHTS starts at fertilization, we charge women for flushing those human beings with rights down the toilet when their body rejects them?
We're all adults, we know how life develops. That's all you showed. NOT, at what point in time that development has HUMANITY as we know it and is deserving of rights.
A zygote is a cell, with DNA information, which has the potential to grow into a human. If you take into account current cloning science, so are TOE NAILS.
Creek Dog
One word...profit
It's obvious this article was written to be as sensational as possible. A thorough and objective review of the actual evidence is in order. However, just as the author intended, it's hard to read it without a polar reaction. Soo....
People who are quick to say abortion is murder seem to think that the baby pops out, the mother is a wonderful woman or instantly transformed into one by love for the baby, as is the father who surely is in the picture, and they all live happily ever after. Before becoming a mom myself that's what I used to think -and actually for my 2 kids & I that's exactly what happened:)- but I shudder to think of being a helpless infant at the hands of a parent that doesn't want the baby, resents the baby, is neglectful or totally indifferent, or hates/quickly grows to hate the baby. I've seen enough bad things to know that there really are fates worse than death, and one of them is being born into a living hell like that.
In all the arguments I see on this subject, it’s all about moral super- or infer- iority, right and wrong, black and white (or the quest for it anyway). The poor kid himself never considered, because so long as he’s alive no one seems to care what happens to him. At all. Crazy.
You know, people, it doesn't really matter if you think life begins at conception or further along. According to the article, the one guy killed over 100 babies that were born ALIVE by cutting their spine. Regardless of your stance on abortion, I think we can all agree that that was cold blooded murder, pure and simple.
As for the legality of abortions in this country, it's because the practice is regulated and monitored at licensed facilities that these types of events are not the norm. This may surprise many people here, but I don't know of a single person who likes the idea of abortion. Everyone I know wishes they were never needed or performed - even the pro-choice people. However, they are necessary at times, and the least we as a society can do at this point in time is to ensure they are safe.
NO to communism-
"Mass sterilization of men, that's what Obama will do next for sure.
Men don't need vasectomies if women knew how to be in control of their bodies and their actions.
Unitl women learn to say NO and take charge of their lives, there will always be unwanted pregnancies.
Women know they can get pregnant, that's because they are women. The only thing that prevents a pregnancy 100% is no sex.
If they want to play like men, then they need to learn how to keep from getting pregnant.
If women want the choice, then they need to be responsible for their own contraception.
Smart women know how to not get pregnant. But they won't share their secrets with the dumb ones."
^Are you Fing kidding me? You are pretty much telling everybody men can't think for themselves and women are the only ones with intelligence. If I were a man I'd be insulted with your useless comments. Men are JUST as intelligent as females when it comes to knowing how a female becomes pregnant--it's not rocket science. MEN ALSO HAVE VOICES TO SAY NO! If a woman wants to have sex without a condom the MAN CAN SAY NO! THE MAN DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE SEX EITHER! It takes two to tango jackass.
The solution to having abortion mills with substandard care that jeopardize patient's health is to make birth control (including legal abortions) available to all. Putting Dr. Gosnell in prison is not a solution. This is a Public Health problem and should be treated as such.
#1.65,
All of you here are bat-****-crazy. This 'Doctor' and his staff deserve to be put down. Would any of you send a loved one into such a 'medical facility' as the article described. The only reason some are supporting this worthless bastard is your position on abortion. G E T A G R I P, do you really want this criminal to be your poster child for your cause.
Pandora, did you actually read the article?
"Unlicensed doctor Steven Massof of Pittsburgh told the grand jury that he used scissors to snip the spines of more than 100 babies born alive. He worked for Gosnell for a few hundred dollars a week. He pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two babies allegedly stabbed by Gosnell while Massof assisted with the abortions."
They murdered live infants! Putting him in jail is not a solution? Perhaps you're right...he definitely should be executed!
Sarah., # 1.59,
I mentioned this elsewhere to you Sarah.
Your 'Humanity' thing seems very close to the Catholic soul thing.
Which is unprovable and taken on faith.
Since you have previously posted that you support a separation of church and state in our laws.
Could you please post the legal definition of HUMANITY, not life, humanity.
As always, Thank You.
For this particular situation, it's the only solution. Dr. Gosnell wasn't an abortion doctor, he was a butcher. Read the Grand Jury report.... but do so on an empty stomach.
It's important to separate this horrible story from the gun control argument. As they are each their own extemely complex issue, melding them together will not solve any problems, only make them worse.
The atrocities described above, whether your are pro-life or pro-choice, are the result of desperation.
What caused these women to go to this butcher? Lack of health insurance? Inablity to care for a child? A family situation in which the mother's parents or spouse wanted her to carry to full term and she did not wish to? Was the fetus/child facing a life of insurmountable health related issues that the mother and/or father did not believe she could handle? Was the mother not given enough prenatal health care? Was she not counseled on her options?
The laws, as they currently exist, ATTEMPT to balance the interests of the fetus/baby and mother - and the extent to which they do that create the greatest amount of controversy - especially when you have one group saying that life begins at conception, and other groups disagreeing. The advancements of science keep moving the "viable" line. Obviously, there is also the competing interest of separation of church from state - if someone does not believe a zygot, an embryo or a fetus is a human life, is it fair to impose a non-secular argument on them? These are questions that, almost certainly, will NEVER be answered.
Abortion is a tragedy. There are extraordinary arguments to be held on either side, and each individual case will not fit a single mold. (ie, a woman just is not ready to be a mother, or is a victim of rape/incest, or the child has a horrible defect that will make his life short and painful, the mother is not physically or financially able to go through with it etc...)
It should not happen - but it does. And it's legal. As long as it's legal - it should be as safe as possible. If further constraints are put on women and limit access - history has shown that you will have more and more Kermit Gosnell's. If abortion becomes illegal - get ready for more tragedies. As a society we need to do all that we can to limit unwanted pregnancies in the first place - and it starts at home, and continues through education and preventative medicine.
Regardless of your stance on abortion - we can all agree that there should NEVER be another horror story like this.
THANK YOU Ol_Doc. Finally, someone pointed out that these were not abortions. These were BABIES BORN ALIVE, and were killed when someone cut their spines with a f***ing scissors.
What this "doctor" ("monster" is a better term for this POS) did was basically perform the work of a drug dealer by rubber stamping pain killer prescriptions, and murderer by killing one woman and more than 100 BABIES (not "fetuses".)
Myown,
I can't, that's why I'm pro-choice. I've already addressed that. If we could legally define it, that would mean that we could prove it, and this discussion wouldn't be occurring. You just said yourself that your word for it is "soul" and it's unprovable, therefore you can't tell anyone what to do based on it.
You changed what you were asking for. You had been saying HUMAN and now you have changed it to HUMANITY.
Most people consider Humanity to be the ENTIRE human species or our Human nature. I really have no idea what you are referring to when you say Humanity. I previously asked you if maybe you meant sentience. I ask you that again.
Also a zygote IS human life, although in the earliest form. A zygote has all the genetic material it will ever have. It is simply a matter of time for it to develop.
I never said the zygote had rights. I did however say it was Human.
Spontaneous abortion is not something that a woman or doctor does. It is simply nature running its course.
A zygote will not grow into a human as it is already a human. It has the potential to grow into a fully developed human. DNA is what makes a human a human. At conception it is different genetically then either of its parents. It is a unique being. (hair color, sex, height, eye color, much of it is all there right from the beginning).
Joe,
Go read the posts again, no I haven't.
Post 1.36...
Post 1.29...
Should I keep going???
You just said it yourself, it's a stage of development of human life. So prove that it has HUMANITY? Because a fertilized, not implanted egg, is ALSO a stage of human development. When and how did the zygote receive it's humanity that it should be afforded rights? What happened that one stage of development is more deserving of rights than the next?
Where's the scientific study that PROVES that one of the differences between that fertilized egg and that zygote is humanity as we know it? Where's the scientific study that shows how the zygote is endowed with that humanity?
You realize you're proving my point, right? You AGAIN, said it yourself. POTENTIAL. And if human DNA and potential for life is all you need, well I hope you never masturbate because sperm ALSO contains both of those things and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be either a hypocrite or a killer.
Pro-choice=pro-murder of people that can not defend themselves. Also, if you try to have an abortion, then you will be tranquilized and rendered unconscious until your baby comes to term and then your child will be given to a family that is posed with one man and one woman who were born as such who will not be selfish and who will actually give them a good home. Deal with it, Princess. The world does not have to bow to your lack of logic that poses as logic.
The only thing you got right in that post was "Princess". And if that were true, that the world didn't have to bow my whatever you called it, why isn't abortion illegal?
Since it is, it looks like the world doesn't have to bow to your Newsvine posts.
thetruth: your scenario is almost as frightening as this butcher shop.
I am pro-choice and pro-gun rights. I am a gun owner and have a permit to carry concealed. But you friggin' Repubs are so hypocritical!!! You don't want anyone "treading" on your second amendment rights to own firearms, but you want to tell women like me what to do with our bodies.
You have NO RIGHT to tell me what to do with an unwanted pregnancy, just as the government has no right to take away your guns. It's so blatantly hypocritical to want personal freedom and privacy for yourselves on the gun issue, but you don't want women to have those same rights regarding reproductive rights. Abortion is a PRIVATE AND PERSONAL matter. It is also a medical procedure that should only be discussed by a woman and her doctor. STAY OUT OUR WOMBS!!!!!!! MY BODY. MY CHOICE. Not YOURS! We are not broodmares.
Sarah, you have written great posts on here. I agree with you. You tell it like it REALLY is and the anti-choicers have no real comeback except insults. Don't let the bastards get you down.
1.)in response to your post: #1.29
Alive does not equal human, endowed with rights. Until science can prove when our HUMANITY begins, the government can not tell us what to do with our bodies. So please, show me some scientific, credible evidence of when life with potential for humanity actually becomes human, and then continue your rants.
as defined in the Merriam-webster dictionary: hu·man·i·ty noun \hyü-ˈma-nə-tē, yü-\ plural hu·man·i·ties Definition of HUMANITY 1): the quality or state of being humane 2a ): the quality or state of being human 2b): plural : human attributes or qualities 3):plural : the branches of learning (as philosophy, arts, or languages) that investigate human constructs and concerns as opposed to natural processes (as in physics or chemistry) and social relations (as in anthropology or economics) 4): the human race : the totality of human beings
therefore science has already proven when HUMANITY begins. since “joe-1015959 “ has already provided you with scientific fact regarding what constitutes a HUMAN, then yes an ALIVE zygote does equal human and that is when our humanity begins. Because the constitution dictates (and the ten commandments… for all the spiritual people) that we cannot MURDER another HUMAN… then abortion DOES equal murder.
2.)in response to your post #1.48
For me this isn't about when humanity is endowed in us, it's about what the law can/can't tell us to do,
from your prior response in #1.29, you changed your view. you initially WANTED to know when our humanity begins as to ascertain whether or not the government be allowed ‘to tell us what to do with our bodies’. now you say that it isn’t about when humanity begins, but about what the law tells us we can/can’t do. I refer you to the post above, since we are human at conception, that means the unborn fetus is HUMAN which SHOULD be considered murder since it’s the killing of another HUMAN and the murderer and any accessories to the murder should be reprimanded accordingly.
3)in response to your post #1.52
Since you feel so strongly about this, than I suggest you do what YOU can to stop it, and advocate for young MEN getting vasectomies and keeping it in their pants.
I must say that it’s not just men who take initiative in the bedroom, and it’s not all men who can practice “safe sex”. you are a woman and I’m sure like the rest of us women you have urges and needs too. I’m not saying that only women should take precautions for not getting pregnant, nor should it be only the men. it DOES take two people to conceive, and both of those people should take the proper steps to avoid conception if it is not wanted. anyone/everyone WILLING to perform in coitus should already know what the entire act is for: the entire process is MEANT to reproduce, that is why we do it. if you just want the pleasure without the price then masturbate… the internet is FILLED with numerous videos/pics and there’s at least one adult store nearly within every city where toys and other paraphernalia can be found. help yourself…. not to mention one can easily procure FREE birth control from a women’s clinic.
4)in response to your post #1.59
By the way, fertilization does NOT equal even conception. What you showed was that a zygote is life with potential for being a human being. AND We're all adults, we know how life develops. That's all you showed. NOT, at what point in time that development has HUMANITY as we know it and is deserving of rights. AND A zygote is a cell, with DNA information, which has the potential to grow into a human. If you take into account current cloning science, so are TOE NAILS.
*as defined by the Merriam-webster dictionary: con·cep·tion noun \kən-ˈsep-shən\ Definition of CONCEPTION 1a) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both 1b) : embryo, fetus 2: beginning
*as defined by the Merriam-webster dictionary: fer·til·i·za·tion noun \ˌfər-tə-lə-ˈzā-shən\ Definition of FERTILIZATION 1): an act or process of making fertile: as 1a) : the application of fertilizer 1b): an act or process of fecundation, insemination, or pollination —not used technically 2): the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
*first off, this proves that conception and fertilization ARE the same and backed by scientific evidence provided by joe and myself, we have already established that a zygote IS a human already so it does not have the potential to be human because it already is. *secondly, earlier in this argument I present the true definition of humanity and concluded that a zygote IS endowed with humanity, that being said it SHOULD have rights, just because it cannot voice out its opinion on the matter doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be entitled. it didn’t ask to be conceived nor did it ask to be terminated, the fault lies with the parents for deciding to bring life into this world and it should NOT be anyone’s decision to terminate said life because two people decided to perform the very act that is called for to reproduce. *last, on your third statement, as afore mentioned a zygote is already human, whereas (as of the present anyway…until cloning has fully become possible) toe nails are not.
5) in response to your post #1.71
You just said yourself that your word for it is "soul" and it's unprovable, therefore you can't tell anyone what to do based on it.
I must agree that a “soul” is unprovable. I admit that I am not a spiritual person and I as of yet I cannot believe something that is not there. I base my life on fact not beliefs. so we cannot know if we truly have a soul nor if an unborn does either. however i do know there are the cells in our body that make up our heart, brain, lungs, stomach, skin, etc, which the zygote has (according to the definition of fertilization). and I also know there is a little something we all have called a conscience, which many of us in the world choose not to acknowledge.
*as defined in the Merriam-webster dictionary: con·science noun \ˈkän(t)-shən(t)s\ Definition of CONSCIENCE 1a) : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good 1b) : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts 1c) : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego 2) archaic : consciousness 3): conformity to what one considers to be correct, right, or morally good : conscientiousness 4): sensitive regard for fairness or justice : scruple
6) in response to your post #1.73
You just said it yourself, it's a stage of development of human life. So prove that it has HUMANITY? Because a fertilized, not implanted egg, is ALSO a stage of human development. When and how did the zygote receive it's humanity that it should be afforded rights? What happened that one stage of development is more deserving of rights than the next?
it is truth that a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc, are all stages of development in ALL of our lives. it’s rather ironic that you even said they are part of our HUMAN LIFE. by saying this you implied that a zygote, fetus, etc is in FACT a HUMAN LIFE. though I assume your argument above is only intended to show how menial the stages of our life are. that being said, there is no difference between these stages of our lives and the others of: infant, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, middle age, and elder. we ALL have these stages in our lives ahead of us. even if I did accept your argument that an unborn doesn’t or shouldn’t have rights, WHO SHOULD ALLOWED THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THESE RIGHTS FROM ANYONE? EVEN AN UNBORN CHILD? by aborting a child, learning and being educated to make an impact in our world, graduating high school/college, marrying someone they love, having children of their own if they wish to, all of these will be taken away from them. and though an implanted egg can or cannot be a fertilized egg it is still a falls under the aspect of conception, as I clearly defined for you from the Merriam-webster dictionary above. and you were also hypocritical when you stated ‘what happened that one stage of development is more deserving of rights than the next?’ before you were arguing that being a zygote, etc is ONLY A STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. but here I will use your words against you and ask: what happened that one stage of development is more deserving of rights than the next? meaning why doesn’t/shouldn’t a zygote have the same rights as we do since ‘one stage of developmet shouldn’t be more deserving of rights than the next.’
7) in response to your post #1.75
And if that were true, that the world didn't have to bow my whatever you called it, why isn't abortion illegal?
it’s not illegal because it’s an easy way out for moronic people to perform coitus (which sole purpose is to reproduce) and not have to take responsibility for their actions in doing so. the FACT is there, if you do not wish to have a child then do not take the steps to have one. it falls under the same principles of “if you don’t like someone…don’t talk to them”, “if you don’t want to get fat…don’t eat junkfood”, “if you don’t want to go to jail…don’t commit a crime”. It all seems so clear in its simplicity, doesn’t it?
Shanon,
Nice try, but length doesn't equal quality.
First, Webster's dictionary equals neither science nor law, so we'll set that aside. Second, your argument doesn't prove anything. You've engaged in what is called the fallacy of proof by assertion. If wanted to actually PROVE something, you would answer my questions with links to credible scientific evidence. As it is, you answered and countered NOTHING that I presented to Joe.
Here, I'll repost it...
You just said it yourself, it's a stage of development of human life. So prove that it has HUMANITY? Because a fertilized, not implanted egg, is ALSO a stage of human development. When and how did the zygote receive it's humanity that it should be afforded rights? What happened that one stage of development is more deserving of rights than the next? And don't forget that the egg your body spits out every month ALSO has human DNA and potential for life, and could also be placed in the line of human developmental stages, do you consider yourself a murderer? Why not, according to you that's a life, so perhaps you should remain constantly pregnant until your body stops spitting those HUMAN BEINGS out?
Where's the scientific study that PROVES that one of the differences between that fertilized egg and that zygote is humanity as we know it? Where's the scientific study that shows how the zygote is endowed with that humanity?
I didn't see anything about human or humanity in there, did you??? Perhaps you can provide us with the scientific study and the link to a definition of a zygote that DOES have the word HUMANITY in it?
And when you take all the proper precautions and the contraception fails?
Nothing but your personal argument. I really couldn't give a flying rat's ass when you think humanity begins by the way. I'm interested in EVIDENCE.
But, really let me save you some time and typing. There isn't any, because the question CAN'T be proven. If it could be proven, if your arguments were correct, or valid, or held ANY scientific or legal water, abortion wouldn't be legal. That's hint number one.
Shannon,
P.S. Doesn't it just suck to know that your scientifically incorrect, outdated, PERSONAL BELIEFS can NEVER be used to stop me, or any other woman, from having an abortion. All the Newsvine posts in the world, no matter how well or passionately you try to present them as "evidence" will NEVER EVER EVER, in a million years, be credible or stop a single abortion. Thank God, we live in a nation of laws and science, as opposed to assertions and beliefs.
Never ever have an abortion if you don't want to have one, but remember you're never ever gonna stop anybody else from having one.
Amen, we live in a free society. I'm trying really hard not to say it, but...
Neener, neener, neener.
Dear lord you are being dense...
A zygote is not unique to Humans so I doubt any definition would include "HUMANITY" (whatever that means). Plants have a zygote and so do birds, fish and mammals. Would a definition of an automatic transmission have to include Ford to make you believe that Ford's had automatic transmissions?
Here you are saying... actually becomes human.
And again....
Funny, you said EXACTLY what I accused you of saying.
When you say BECOMES human that means that it was not human before. This is wrong.
Oh and a sperm and egg do not contain a complete genome per the very definition you posted...
A sperm and an egg are gamete. The two must be combined !!!! Human gamete have only 23 single chromosomes. When the two unite, the chromosomes combine, giving the new cell the proper number of 46 chromosomes.
you're absolutely correct in the aspect that "I" cannot stop women from having abortions just as I cannot stop mindless, will-less, hormone raged people, without conscience or sense of right or wrong from performing coitus. just as i cannot stop all the murderers in the world, nor all the thieves. nor can i stop all the liars and cheaters. you are absolutely correct my dear. people will do what they will no matter how ruthless, senseless, or unmerciful. i'm simply one person trying to spread fact. and that is what i did. as the cliche goes, you can lead a horse to water.... but you can't make them drink. and it's quite obvious here. and as for the record, what i posted is not my belief but a collection of FACTS. i also find it ironic that a 'non-scientist' can determine if someone is "scientifically incorrect". i posted facts already. considering that science, law, and quite frankly everyone in our everyday lives actually use words and grammar from easily defined in the dictionary is common fact. also i see that you continuously ask for the proof of HUMANITY, when you fail to actually comprehend what humanity is. perhaps its your lack of it? what a sore loser it is that i supply you with the exact definition of humanity, conception, and fertilization and yet you disregard it because it doesn't support your view? seems to me that it is YOU who is arguing on your beliefs. as i stated before, i'm not here to stop anyone, only to support fact. it's also funny that you disregard merriam-webster as a valid source of definition when all you did was google zygote and copy and paste the first little square that pops up. kinda funny because it popped up for me too, however it wasn't a valid source so i did not post it. at least merriam-webster contains definitions supported by the american psyhcology association. and for the record since the definition that you provided was the science for dummies version, a gamete is either the egg or the sperm each consisting of 23 chromosomes. it takes two of them to create a zygote, if you look at the definition i gave you for fertilization then you see the same thing. when they fuse together they become a zygote, a LIVING ORGANISM, which means alive (hence living organism) and the definition i provided below from the university of princeton states that a zygote is a single celled human being. so let's go back to what humanity means, shall we since i can see that you don't know it. humanity means if you would look back at it, it means the quality or state of being HUMAN! so what did we learn? humanity means "human" and a zygote is a "single-celled human being" so let's put two and two together and we have: zygote=human : human=humanity therefore zygote=humanity! let's try another one shall we: if killing a human=murder : zygote=human then killing a zygote=killing a human therefore killing a zygote=murder! again simple elementary arithmetic
you also asked what if the contraception fails... well let me take you on a journey back to your past when you had "the talk" you know "about the birds and the bees?" ... did no one tell you sweetie? if...you...have...sex...there's...a...chance...you...will...become....PREGNANT! yay! we get it now....right? also on the back of any store bought contraceptive it DOES say that it is not guaranteed 100% that being said only a moron would believe that it is... or someone that isn't good with everyday elementary arithmetic. when about to have sex, and having the knowledge that your contraceptive is NOT 100% guaranteed and you are still willing to have sex, then you should know you have a chance of getting pregnant. if you don't want to a child DON'T HAVE SEX! it's a simple two letter word... NO! again as i stated in my earlier post the child didn't ask to be conceived nor can it agree to be terminated. also you are correct that an egg and a sperm both do have the potential to create life. however, my argument was not the termination of a potential for life.... it was the actual termination of life which is a zygote. why would i consider my menstrual cycle an act of murder? my eggs are not yet a baby...duh everyone knows that.
also how about this definition:
"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)
This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species.
here's a link for more SCIENTIFIC proof on the matter:
;) also a nice little tidbit of information:
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[4]
so... pretty much abortions were originally carried out so that whores could "successfully perform their job". wow that really explains alot, and easily related to the present..... turns out times haven't changed after all
btw... we are no longer 4 years old, we are adults and it's time to put our big girl panties and suck it up... "neener neener neener.... really? no child that i know even says that. wow and yet i'm the one that's "scientifically incorrect" when you can't even act your own age? my 6 year old sister acts more maturely. if this is what society has come to... i must say i fear the worst, good luck little buddie
Shannon,
Oh, I'm so scolded and you are so mature. Alas, maybe one day I can be like you.
Wait, no I have no desire to be "holier than thou".
P.S. Do you really think I'm reading your overly long, personal tripe? And by the way, we've already been over how human life develops, what the link you claim you posted doesn't show when we're endowed with HUMANITY. Now can you find me that evidence or not???
Joe,
Again, that's nothing but a Newsvine post. Where's the evidence?
Just like Shannon, you can post your outdated personal beliefs, arguments and human developmental cycle here until you're blue in the face, they'll NEVER be evidence of when we're endowed with humanity and they'll never stop anyone from having an abortion.
NEENER NEENER NEENER.
Shannon,
You do know the difference between credible science that's been peer reviewed and your Newsvine posts, right? I think the crux of this issue is going over your head.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Zygote
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6074
Should I keep going??? If it's this easy why don't you find me a definition that says a zygote is a human being deserving of rights?
All that tripe you posted about zygotes and the definition of humanity, FIND ME A, REPLICATED, PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE THAT SAYS THE SAME THING.
Otherwise it's JUST your BELIEF posted on Newsvine. Believe it if you want and never have an abortion, but keep the hell out of the lives of the rest of us. And while you're at it, read Uncle Tom's Cabin.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I have never said once that a zygote was deserving of rights.
I have never given a definition of HUMANITY.
Maybe you should take the time to read what I type and not what you THINK I am typing.
Joe,
This was my first post...
Alive does not equal human, endowed with rights. Until science can prove when our HUMANITY begins, the government can not tell us what to do with our bodies. So please, show me some scientific, credible evidence of when life with potential for humanity actually becomes human (maybe you would've understood better if had used the repetitive term and said, "Is ACTUALLY endowed with humanity" instead of human, but really nobody else seemed confused so I think the issue here is you) and then continue your rants. And here's a hint, your Newsvine posts are NOT that evidence. Nor are your arguments. Nor are your Bibles. That evidence will be in the form of a scholarly peer reviewed article that's been replicated and verified. Your arguments and your posts are nothing but your BELIEFS. I can't prove my position either, hence I don't advocate for forced abortion, but choice.
To which you responded...
Since this was your first post to me, I'm guessing my original post went over your head and we've been arguing over this for nothing.
Shanon, regarding your statement about "the stages of human life, and there being no difference between the any of those stages from "zygote through elder".
Let's try this real life scenario: Last night I was asked to consult for giving care to two patients both of whom were over 88 years old, neither of whom could give consent for their procedure, and both of whom had to have a legal power of attorney (ie family member) give consent. In one family, the procedure was consented for by the family and I performed the procedure. For the other family the procedure was declined, really for all the same reasons that apply to the discussions presented in these posts regarding a fetus: the only difference being that in this case the patient was ninety years old, but as with the fetus unable to live on his own without the aid of a respirator and other mechanical devices, and the family decided they could not care for him. To allow him to die was a difficult decision for the family, but it is what they opted for.
Neither family should be criticized for their decision, including the one who opted for death of their family member. But, respectfully, by your logic, that second family, by not opting for continued "life", is guilty of murder, just as the mother of the earliest stage of human development is when she opts to terminate her pregnancy for an organism incapable of sustaining itself outside of its dependence on her placenta. Do you really have that same position for the latest stages of human "life"? And if not, can't you see how those same decisions apply to a mother making those same decisions and considering aborting a fetus?
Sarah, I have asked you a few times to explain what you mean by humanity.
I see where you are going but it isn't really quite the same.
Also what do you consider self-sustaining?
Is Stephen Hawking able to sustain himself? No.
Is a 1 day old baby able to sustain itself? No.
Would it be ok for the second family to shoot their relative? The result is the same right?
If your child gets sick is it ok to do nothing and let them die from a very curable illness?
Take this without any implied moral values.
If a mother aborts a fetus, for whatever reason, she is taking an action and stopping something that would occur without her intervention, i.e. the birth of the child.
In your case you are NOT taking an action to cause death, you are simply letting nature run its course.
I am not arguing the morality of either one, simply that the two are not really a fair comparison.
What is it that differentiates us, from everything else in this world, that we deserve rights. Here's the problem, you CAN'T really define it. That's part of why abortion is legal. You can break down the stages of development all you want, but until you can scientifically define and apply humanity, in a universal, factual manner which is as accepted by everyone as one plus one is, there is NO answer to my question. And hence no scientific link. Because if we can't even universally, factually define something, we sure as hell can't PROVE in what stage it develops.
Yes, Webster's gives us a technical definition of humanity. The quality and state of being human. And "human" includes sentience. That's where the court draws the line. It has to compromise, because to take it back to before sentience occurs, you run into a slew of issues, such as the fertilized egg that doesn't implant.
Then you have to marry that to law, and the standards of evidence we hold our government to. If the best scientific agreement we have that distinguishes humans from everything else is sentience, than in order to infringe on the privacy rights of those who we KNOW for SURE are sentient human beings to protect the rights of those who we can not legally or scientifically define as fully human because of their lack of sentience, is ASININE. In that scenario you're not using the term HUMAN anymore because they aren't sentient, you're relying on HUMANITY. That ambiguous, voodoo, something, which again, we can't define. You're basically disregarding the rights of those who you know for a fact are fully endowed with sentience for those who you believe to be owning some sort of undefinable humanity.
You CAN'T. You can't really define it. And you sure as hell can't define it and apply it. That's the answer to this mess. That's why everyone can post over and over on Newsvine, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON has found a study or link that proves "humanity" is EVER endowed in us, let alone WHEN we receive it. Until that happens, to disregard the rights of those we know to be human in order to protect something we believe, but can not even define, is WRONG.
That's why it's a choice, because it's a BELIEF.
sarah,
i already provided you with credible scientific research given from princeton regarding the FACT that a zygotes IS endowed with humanity. you say your not being "holier than thou", when you are trying your damnedest TO BE. all you have to do is read the link i gave you and it proves WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a zygote is endowed with humanity. you are too busy trying to validate a FALSE point to not see fact even when i provided the information you asked for. i can see that no matter what scientific research i provide you will not care. even if the truth is staring you in the face, you would still deny it. as an analogy i could tell you the sky is blue and you would still argue the sky is green even though it's right there in your line of vision.
and for the record, i'm not trying to argue with you. you asked for credible and scientific information and all i have done is find said information and provide you with the answer you sought. but i can see now you must have only been speaking rhetorically and not actually wanted the information.
and for future reference could you please tell me what you consider valid and credible scientific evidence? because i have already given you numerous credible sources and yet you're still not satisfied, please enlighten me so that i might better answer your question.
Shannon,
No you didn't. You provided me with a source that says a zygote is a stage of human development. So is conception. They're both stages of human development. So again...
Where's the scientific study that PROVES that one of the differences between that fertilized egg and that zygote is humanity as we know it? Where's the scientific study that shows how the zygote is endowed with that humanity?
This is obviously way to difficult of a concept for you to grasp, as I'm beginning to think you really don't understand the nuances. Read post 1.93 and you MIGHT, but that's a big MIGHT, actually get the concept. Your adolescent attempts to break this down into an argument simple enough to prove this via Newsvine is exactly why people think the the anti-choice crowd are so dense.
Neener. Neener. Neener.
And again, hint number one that your argument and interpretation of the science are FAILURES is the legality of abortion.
Sorry, forgot to add that the rest was your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the science, twisted to fit your PERSONAL ARGUMENT as to why that stage is endowed with humanity. The link didn't prove @!$%#, AGAIN you used the fallacy of proof by assertion.
And seriously, read Uncle Tom's Cabin. You REALLY need to.
Sarah,
You're trying to prove something that is simply false.
Just from the simple standpoint of a heartbeat. Yes, animals have heartbeats, but when the human fetus has a heartbeat, that means it is a human person. It is on what we will call life support (from its mother). Once it reaches a stage where it can survive outside the womb, abortion seem pretty unconscionable. Doing what this article is stating (snipping spinal cords at live births, other forms of partial birth abortions) are illegal for a reason, because it's obviously ending a viable innocent human life. It has literally been born, even if it's just crowning, that's ridiculous semantics.
I hope your arguing in favor of a woman's right to choose, but I also hope that you realize late term abortions and partial birth abortions (the subjects being considered here) are pretty monstrous.
Aborting a embryo that has been fertilized is a matter of debate in this country. For me, I consider it aborting a human life. That's why I use birth control (something that some people say is wrong... but I'm still not sure why).
Others say that a human fetus isn't a human life, is an extension of the mother, and she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. To this I say, do you what you want. I won't impose my conscience on others.
But when we get into late term and partial birth, there has been an obvious boundary crossed when a self-sufficient human life is ended based on another persons choice. How you would defend it as anything else but murder is a bit beyond me.
I also agree with previous posters that a court decision does not equal scientific fact. I consider studies on fetal neural activity and studies on babies ability to live, even at premature stages, to be scientific fact. So should you... since those are... you know... actual facts.
Travis,
Yes I'm pro-choice. Late term abortions are horrible, but the law allowing partial birth abortion should be upheld. And anyone who thinks partial birth abortion is something a women WANTS or uses lightly is a MORON.
What this man did wasn't even partial birth abortion, it was beyond that.
Post 1.93 explains my standpoint. The court decision equals law, based on the best science and evidence we have. I'M not trying to prove anything, as I'M not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm asking others to prove to me, scientifically, why NORMAL abortion should not be legal. Or, in other words, why is science wrong when it considers a zygote a stage of development, and NOT a full fledged human being deserving of rights. Because THAT is science's standpoint, that a zygote is NOT deserving of rights. And yes, proving that is impossible, because science would be needed to prove science wrong and yada, yada, yada... THAT'S my point. That anything other than what we know that has led us to Roe is unprovable belief, that will NOT be decided based on a Newsvine post, no matter how many times they post the same argument over and over. Those arguments all FAILED, hence we have legalized abortion.
I don't get why that's such a hard concept to grasp. One is someone's argument in defense of their belief, the other is a standard of evidence used for infringing on our rights. If they don't want abortion, then don't have one, but SCIENCE has told them they can't prove their point, so keep it out of the rest of our lives.
Pro-Life proponents, particularly the ultra religious right ones, hang everything on the thin thread that the fetus is an innocent life. HOWEVER, they support the death penalty in spite of the fact that innocent people have been executed and they are way too quick to want to go to war with the infidel in spite of the fact that innocent people die and are horribly maimed in war (our soldiers & innocent civilians) and they all seem to passionately oppose any gun control in spite of the fact that the vast majority of those killed are innocent civilians. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. If you are pro-life for God's sake - be pro-life!
Now - for all you anti-abortion proponents out there who think that we are pro-abortion because we happen to be pro-choice...nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. That is an awful choice to have to make but no one is going to tell me they are better equipped to make that decision than me.
The Daily Show once had an interesting "tongue in cheek bit". They contend that the religious right not only have an issue with aborting the product of fertilization (a fetus) but additionally have a problem with wasting the ingredients (egg & sperm), thus making masturbation and menstruation illegal. Probably not too crazy in some people's eyes (Shannon)
Joe
You are correct. The scenarios I put forth are not exactly the same as those surrounding the termination of a fetus. However, they are similar in several respects: A living thing in need of life support, dependent on another person responsible for their care, who has the power to make a decision for their continued ability to stay alive.
It is the opinion of those like Shannon who attempt to make these situations of "life" comparable to that of independent human beings who do not require the above, and conclude that withholding care to a terminal patient or terminating an unwanted pregnancy is tantamount to murder.
To accept that the myriad of circumstances surrounding different personal family life-and-death decisions exist, some of which you have even cited such as a parent wittholding care to a child (which also occurs not infrequently because of religious beliefs for example), is to require tolerance to families and mothers confronting these kinds of life and death situations.
And that brings us to Sarah's points: nobody really has the right to exert their personal beliefs onto a family or a person who is confronting those very personal decisions, entirely based on unsubstantiated evidence or their own religious morals.
sarah
the evidence i previously gave you from princeton does explain the different stages yes, however, it plainly states and proves that once two gametes are combined then an individual human being is created (quoted from the link). you asked whether or not humanity was endowed in a zygote, well all the definitions i could possibly find: from webster's, from princeton, from the american psychology association, literally all stated that the definition of humanity is the the condition or quality of being human. since the research at princeton proves a zygote is a human being, then why isn't it clear that a zygote is a human being, thus being endowed with humanity?
i asked earlier if would please provide me with what you felt was credible scientific evidence, considering princeton studies should be disregarded. i ask you again to please tell me what scientific evidence would best accommodate your initial question. also, could you tell me your definition of what humanity is so that i have a better understanding of what it is you are looking for? as i recently stated i have searched many definitions (sources listed above) and they all say the same thing. are you asking for something similar to humanity maybe? or are you asking for when a developing baby should receive rights? as i also put in my last post: i do not consider this an argument nor a contest i simply wish to answer your initial question.
sarah
also, regarding myself I am pro-life, however regarding the general populace i am pro-choice. i am not typing any of this from some form of religious belief because i literally have none. i am also not typing this to help either side of this 'battle'. all i am simply doing is trying to answer a question i found on here. that is all.
Shannon,
No, you apparently still aren't getting it. I'm not in anyway shocked. Let's just say, if your interpretation of the science as applied to what I'm asking for were correct, abortion wouldn't be legal. Your adolescent conception and attempts to break this down into something simple, when it is in NO way that, would be humorous if they weren't so frightening...
Yes, Webster's gives us a technical definition of humanity. The quality and state of being human. And "human" includes sentience. That's where the court draws the line. It has to compromise, because to take it back to before sentience occurs, you run into a slew of issues, such as the fertilized egg that doesn't implant.
Then you have to marry that to law, and the standards of evidence we hold our government to. If the best scientific agreement we have that distinguishes humans from everything else is sentience, than in order to infringe on the privacy rights of those who we KNOW for SURE are sentient human beings to protect the rights of those who we can not legally or scientifically define as fully human because of their lack of sentience, is ASININE. In that scenario you're not using the term HUMAN anymore because they aren't sentient, you're relying on HUMANITY. That ambiguous, voodoo, something, which again, we can't define. You're basically disregarding the rights of those who you know for a fact are fully endowed with sentience for those who you believe to be owning some sort of undefinable humanity.
You CAN'T. You can't really define it. And you sure as hell can't define it and apply it. That's the answer to this mess. That's why everyone can post over and over on Newsvine, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON has found a study or link that proves "humanity" is EVER endowed in us, let alone WHEN we receive it. Until that happens, to disregard the rights of those we know to be human in order to protect something we believe, but can not even define, is WRONG.
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON WHEN LIFE BEGINS! And if you think your Newsvine post proved it, the situation is even scarier than I thought.
http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/inconsistancy-in-the-life-begins-at-conception-argument/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/opinion/zygotes-and-people-aren-t-quite-the-same.html
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml
http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/infrmdC/Paradigms.html
There. Is. No. Consensus. Or. Proof.
Except that we already do this. We also force our beliefs on others when no religion is involved.
We have laws against drug use.
We have laws against prostitution.
We have age of consent laws for sexual activity.
We have laws against slavery.
Laws against paying below a certain wage per hour.
Laws against children working.
Is child labor outlawed in the Bible? Did the Bible prohibit slavery? No we make all sorts of judgement calls with and without the aid of religion. There is very little difference in laws that we pass because we think as a group something is wrong vs something a book or person said was wrong.
A religion as a set of beliefs is no more or less valid than any other set of beliefs (unless of course there is a deity that does in fact create right and wrong).
Joe,
We have laws against all those things, because they effect us collectively as a society. They effect or infringe upon the rights of ACTUAL, SENTIENT human beings. Some more so... slavery. Some less so... prostitution and drug use. Those two are actually more of a public health concern, but I wouldn't have any issue with them being legal as long as they were regulated.
If you can't even prove the sentience, ergo humanity of something, it has no rights to be infringed upon. Especially if endowing it with rights, infringes on the rights of ACTUAL people.
Sarah,
Your argument gets a bit confusing, because you have genuinely not presented any scientific facts. What you have said is "there is no scientific consensus as to when life begins". You've also said, repeatedly, that it is legal, therefore the science must back it. Not so. It's also illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays in many Southern Counties. It's also legal to burn your daughter that has been raped in tribal Afghanistan.
The Laws of men are not infallible. I also see that you say you support partial birth and late term abortions, yet you're harping on "no consensus on when life begins". I'm pretty damn sure life has began when the child is crowning. The fact you want to argue that shows you to be nothing but an ideologue. That's sad. It would be helpful if you were open to a genuine discussion, but you repeat tired talking points that don't answer the questions.
I wish you all the best, but I really hope you would support someone else taking up your causes and arguing on your behalf, because folks like you just weaken your side of the argument. Repetition doesn't equal fact.
joe
this is very true and i'm so glad that you brought it up. there are many laws that have been passed without regard to the bible or another deity. and frankly i don't understand why it is that if someone is pro-life they are automatically labeled "religious nut" all of a sudden when that isn't always the case. for nearly every pro-life comment i've seen on here, there is a pro-choice comment arguing that the other is only pro-life because of their religious views. i don't believe pro-life should be an issue of religions but rather an issue of having actual common sense and true ethics. all of those laws are for our safety, but the safety of an unborn child goes unnoticed.
travis,
i honestly don't think there's any reasoning with her. i've posted actual research proving that humanity starts at conception, she disregards it with a fierce passion. i asked her to explain what she considered was credible evidence and she cannot. but she did manage to find 2 blogs and a nytimes post...yeah. i think it's just a one-way street in this argument, due to the fact that tells US to provide credible scientific fact. when she can't provide credible scientific evidence to support her belief. go figure. yeah i just finally gave up because it's in one ear out the other. you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
The government does not make decisions solely on scientific facts. Politics, social considerations and bias certainly interfere with the creation of laws. I have studied molecular biology and child development; the fetus is a stage of human development with each stage offering maturation of different abilities/organs. At birth, the child can breathe on it's own, and it appears that is the criteria used by our politicians. This is one function of the hundreds that develop in the maturation of a human. Why not pick a different one? Because this is more about the mother's rights and the use of her body by the fetus. It's not about when a human is created.
I have a hard time personally with abortion because I have empathy for all deserving humans (healthy embryo or otherwise)... especially because it was my responsibility to be sure this did or didn't happen. After all, the woman who has rights is happy she is protected; why would she want to deny another human rights? Is it really so overwhelming that there is no other solution? Maybe, but it should not be a common decision as it is now, and in some cases forced (yes I know someone who was forced or threatened to be cut out of the family).
Just my two cents...
janellect, Shannon
How awful that you know of a situation where somebody was forced to carry out an abortion by somebody else telling them to do that!
But can't you see that it is equally as awful if there is somebody telling somebody that they have to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, or that they have to provide life support to a terminal patient with no chance of independent survival, or that they have to consent to a blood transfusion even if it is against their religious beliefs, etc, etc.
These are real life situations, complex ones which more often than not are excrutiatingly painful for families and pregnant mothers must make. When dogmatic individuals force their own beliefs on somebody else based on unsubstantiated science (Shannon) or religious beliefs only add to the guilt those families already must contend with. They most often know their decision carries with it moral implications and is burdensome, and they are not devoid with the same kinds of morals that are espoused by the anti-abortion posts. But they are contending with their own personal life situations as best they can. Acceptance of their decisions and tolerance of their choices is what I advocate, not judgemental self-righteousness.
John,
If you go back to my first post, I did say that while I believe that life begins at conception, I don't feel that I have the right, or should, force my conscience upon others. I believe strongly in religious freedoms, and freedom from religion, in this country. Belief should not determine law, but law must allow for respect of beliefs.
The issue is where we draw the line. At one point does it go from being a choice or belief, to acknowledging that we're murdering a viable human life. I would think that once a baby can survive on its own outside the womb, that would be pretty obvious. I think when a baby is actually being born (partial birth abortions), that's so obvious is ridiculous.
The fact that we have people like Sarah saying that we need to make it legal to snip babies' spinal cords as they're being born is just ridiculous. I mean, honestly, that's horrible. The baby is alive, and it's no longer "part of the mother" (the legal basis for abortion). There are safe surrender sites at every single hospital and fire station in the country. Why in the hell would you choose to murder a baby at that time. It's illogical, and psychopathic?
There is belief and then there is logic. If you guys choose to belief that life doesn't begin at conception, we'll agree to disagree. If you're telling me that the baby that is birthed alive and then snipped was not killed, then you're insane.
Travis,
All of your points are well taken. Thank you for stating them with clarity and respect.
Every woman who has an abortion should get the death penalty. Charged with pre-meditated murder.
Are you arguing for a pro-life stance? If so, yopur comment is quite hypocritical! Besides, since abortion isn't murder, such charges simply do not apply or stand.
It's people like this who are the real menace to society. When women are desperate, don't have the right information, and feel desperate with no other options. That is when individuals like this doctor are in a position to take advantage of them, causing serious and deadly consequences.Not just to the mother, but to the unborn as well.The choice to have an abortion is never an easy one.Which is exactly the way it should be. Because two lives are involved.Whatever decision is made, the doctor involved must have the highest standards and considerations for his patients while keeping a high moral standard including not inflicting harm, pain and suffering unnecessarily.
As the right to life zealots continue to make first term abortions hard or impossible to obtain from a competent medical staff, these horror stories will multiply. Soon it will be their daughters, grand daughters and nieces wandering around in a desperate attempt to "fix" a mistake. Then when the job is botched by some well meaning amateur, and the girl finds herself charged with murder, sterile or dead they can console themselve with the self-righteous phrase of "God's will."
wje nice try but these were not first term abortions.
wje37fcsm
'Cause we all know it's the fault of the "right to life zealots" and had absolutely NOTHING to do with perpetrator of the "mistake" or the "well meaning amateur." I'm not against abortion under certain narrow and mitigating circumstances, but IMHO a "mistake" is not narrow and mitigating enough. There are alternatives to taking the life (or potential life) of an innocent human being whose only participation in that "mistake" was being a chemical compound in the right place at the right time... and it's call ADOPTION. Then, after carrying to full term, perhaps that person will know how to not make that "mistake" again.
Sorry you're so blinded by your misplaced bigotry against other peoples' opinions.
And with these self-righteous PRO-FORCED BIRTHERS trying to make abortion ILLEGAL.... THIS SCENARIO right here will be happening to MILLIONS of women all over the country because they will not have access to SAFE LEGAL ABORTIONS. The " BACK ALLEY BUTCHER" like this man here will be on every street corner because women will have no where to go. CRIMINALIZING Abortion will NEVER EVER STOP ABORTION.... it will only make abortion DANGEROUS and/or DEADLY for millions of women.
RW's are just stupid. Abortion has been a part of civilization since the beginning of time. You will NEVER stop it and you're naive and ignorant if you think you will.
CC - such an incredibly judgmental thing to write. You sir, are blinded by your own narrow life experience to understand that not all women who are forced to have sex, are raped by strangers. In addition, not all women are fit be mothers, some realize that and act with responsibility. With over 420,000 children already living in orphanages and foster homes, your adoption plan doesn't seem all that appealing. Furthermore, what would be your alternative, 9 months of forced pregnancy? Have you no understanding that even in 2013, it still poses a health risk, even a substantial mortality rate??
CC -
The "right to life" zealots are the ones that have been shutting down real abortion clinics. Many states now only have 1 provider, and others have been cutting back, forcing providers to go underground. Some providers have even quit simply because they can't handle the death threats and attempts on their lives/families' lives/businesses. So yeah, you are responsible in part for this situation by limiting the available doctors to do the procedure.
Oh, yeah, and real mature, sex should be punished with pregnancy. Real value for life there, @!$%#.
Look, I get it. Abortion is the ending of a potential life. No, the fetus is not alive until it can live on its own. That's why they cut off the date for viability, you know. Before that, though, it is part of a medical condition that the mother is experiencing. In some cases, the mother suffers a medical condition (could be related to the pregnancy, or not) that requires a late-term abortion. In any case, considering the fetus' life before the mother's is wrong. We have a fully-formed citizen human being in front of us, and a potential human being in front of us, and we have to choose which to save. And, in most cases, saving the mother requires the fetus to die. Whether it be from cancer, or a pregnancy condition, or anything else that puts the mother's life at risk. Also, we have birth defects that show up, and pregnancies that just end (hello Mrs. Santorum) where an abortion is the best choice. And you are not up to making that choice for anyone else. You do not have that right, and you should not have that right, just like you cannot force me to donate my kidney to you if you needed it, or my blood, or my liver, or anything else.
Look, life is messy and disgusting. Nature is red in tooth and claw. These are facts of life, not up for debate or opinion. As much as we may despise it (or embrace it), we are animals. All said and done, we are animals. We already have way too many people on the Earth considering average resource consumption.
Oh, and stop using that line about adoption. Until right-to-forced-birth zealots have adopted every unwanted child in the US, you're just hypocrites.
Well said, Janstince.
Sadly, if those religious people succeed in influencing the laws of this country, these types of 'horror stories' will become quite common (I'm sure those religious people will not loose any sleep contemplating their responsibility in the tragedy either).
I am old enough to remember the 'back alley abortionists' very well. Abortion has existed as long as pregnancy has existed; it won't stop just because safe and legal abortions end.
It will simply be one more shackle of control imposed on women by those who feel they know better than those 'poor, misguided' women.
It's a cultural thing, minorities will keep going to their "medicine men" no matter what we legalize and make available for them, even if it were free they would still not go to medical professional because they wouldn't understand the superstitions that go around their way they think medicine should be practiced.
You seriously aren't saying that abortion is a "cultural thing" are you?
Why not just say "Its a woman thing" and take that final step at excusing all responsibility of men in this - because, the last time I checked - it does take two to tango...
And for all you knuckle-draggers out there (male AND female) - please stop the references to women 'spreading their legs'....its deragatory (and quite wrong, matter of fact) and makes you all sound quite ignorant and your opinion equally so.
CC I'd like to know how you can advocate bringing MORE unwanted children into this world, when at any given point there are over 100,000 children under the age of 16 in the US foster system ready and waiting to be adopted. This figure does not include the children who are in foster care after being rescued from abusive homes but who's parents rights have yet to be terminated. This does not include the thousands of children who are abused by parents who don't want them, the children who are living on the streets, or those who are starving on a regular basis in this very country. I'm no fan of abortion in most situations, but by golly at least take care of the ones we already have before compounding the problem!
Janstince, APPLAUSE APPLAUSE. Excellent and thoughtful post.
Janstince., # 2.6,
Oh, you'd better pray, you're never in an ICU with doctors & nurses that think like you.
...is not alive until it can live on its own.
The womb IS the ICU for the fetus, full recovery expected in 9 months.
But not covered by obamacare I guess.
Let me add, that no matter how you anti-choicers try to word it, it truly isn't about the fetus in a stranger's womb. It's about wanting control over women's sexuality and wanting to shame us for enjoying sex the way men have for eons.
Yes, I take responsibility for my reproduction. I use the Paragard IUD which is almost 100% effective but nothing is 100%, even sterilization. If I got pregnant because my birth control failed again, I would more than likely choose abortion again. I am doing my part to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. To you antis, pregnancy is a punishment for a woman who enjoys sex without the confines of marriage or even monogamy.
If you anti-choicers truly cared about unwanted children, you would be flooding foster homes and adopting the precious children desperately waiting for a family. Not trying to control what strange women do with their wombs.
Olivia., # 2.13,
A bit of a rant, but OK.
First, as Sarah is fond of saying 'rights can be regulated'. In most states, you can NOT legal kill your body, or sell parts from it, or put certain chemicals in to it. Only in Nevada can you 'rent' bits of your body. So you really think its 'yours', only as much as the govt allows, it would seem. Ah, control.
Second, 'anti-choicer' really? so does that make you an 'anti-lifer'? which sounds worse? try being polite, it doesn't hurt.
Third, you seem to be under some delusion that killing a child is better than placing one in foster-care or an orphanage. Even though I try to be polite, I am calling BS on that one. What huge number of parent-less children have killed themselves to get away from the horrors of being an orphan.?
Fourth, be honest, this is about what is best for you, not society or unwanted children. That's OK, but stop trying to sell it as if its something noble. Me, me, me, oh and you too, just doesn't rise to that level.
myownthoughts56 -
I've been in the hospital. I've never been in the ICU, but I've visited people there. Firstly, those people had before shown the capacity to reason, think, live on their own, and pretty much everything we associate with humans being capable of doing. They had already shown they were alive and independent. I'm not one of those kooks who says "let them die." That's the Tea Party. They want all fetuses to be born, then to die when they don't have health insurance. I'd prefer it if that suffering was reduced significantly.
Also, she IS arguing that it is best for her. And you're trying to turn it around and make out like she's declaring that abortion is the best option for EVERYONE. Note, she's pro-CHOICE, not pro-IMAKEYOURCHOICES.
Also, states can regulate certain chemical consumptions, organ donation, etc. However, there is no mandatory organ donation, or blood donation, or bone marrow, or anything. The state cannot take parts of your body from you forcibly (except in certain cases of forced sterilization, but as I've seen, it's only been used on men). Nor can the state force you to accept certain things in your body. They can't force you to take medicine until your power of attorney person has you legally committed. They can't force you to eat unless you're in prison and they've already made the judgement call to take away your freedom.
Finally, there is an argument to be made that this is best for society, not FORCED abortion, but LEGAL abortion. Nobody is talking about forcing people to abort children (did you see that TX teen that sued her parents for attempting to force her to abort? The parents won, amirite? </snark>), and I would argue completely against them if they did. Forcing abortion is a horrid affair. But, to pretend that illegalizing abortion would actually prevent abortion? It's a combination of cute naivete and morally reprehensible authority worship that would simply lead to more cases like this, butchers in back alleys, women with coat hangers in their bathrooms, and the reemergence of the Septic Ward.
@!$%#. That. @!$%#.
Just awful, unbelievable. Untrained and unlicensed. I am no fan of termination, but it seems this is what happens when you threaten and marginalize real healthcare professionals, and pass TRAP laws to shut down legit healthcare clinics - push it further underground, secret, unsafe places with desperate women. Many who probably didnt have birth control, and waited way too long to seek help. Birth control and morning after should be available easily. Abortion, however awful many of us feel about it, should be safe, legal and RARE.
bull abortions are legal newsgirl this has nothing to do with abortion rights this man was making millions and he didn't care who died in the process! Condoms are not that expensive that these people couldn't afford them.
You can be excommunicated from the Catholic church for even using condoms. If you're Catholic, you cannot use condoms, you must procreate - they need to keep the faith alive and stocked with sheeple
tlb1974: do you know what the efficacy rates are for condoms?
Spermicides have a typical user failure rate of 21% and condoms 12%
Fam Plann Perspect. 1991 Sep-Oct;23(5):226-7, 232.
Efficacy of the simultaneous use of condoms and spermicides. Kestelman P, Trussell J.
This story is heartbreaking. But there are bad apples in EVERY part of the medical field. I know the anti-choicers will use this one in a million story to promote their anti-women agenda. But if abortion were made illegal again, this sort of thing would happen on a regular basis. This so-called doctor wouldn't be the lone ranger when it comes to harming women. This is what happens when places like Planned Parenthood are defunded, as happened in my state and poor women have nowhere else to turn in their fear and desperation. No access to affordable birth control and no access to abortion should they need it. Thank you Henry Hyde, for forcing women, with your draconian ideas, to have babies they can't afford or to have back alley abortions. (SARCASM)
good if you use two at a time not much chance of that happening and still much cheaper than an abortion.
Trac I'm not sure what being catholic has to do with this story and if these women catholic and were true to their faith they wouldn't have been having abortions anyway so......
Tracontech, the Catholic Church is a cult and doesn't live in the real world. Died in the wool Catholics have extremely backwards ideas about women and sex. They are a little lacking in the brains department. They believe, as I'm sure you know, that sex is purely for procreation and that contraception is evil. It confounds me, their warped way of looking at the world. Oh, and isn't idolatry a sin? The way they worship the Pope, A REGULAR DUDE and the Mother Mary, you'd never know it.
tlb- by your own admission then, you acknowledge that contraception does indeed fail. What would you like as an alternative, a government where women forced to give birth?
How about accepting some responsibility Olivia- we KNOW where babies come from- birth control pills are $9 a month at Walmart- if you can't afford that- keep your legs together!
@Olivia.....how was any woman "forced to have a baby." Were they "forced" to have sex? Were they in some kind of baby farm? No one was "forced" to have a baby. It was a choice......a choice.......unless it was a rape. Then, any woman must have a choice, whether to have the baby, or to not have the baby. Don't blame the results of open legs of women.....and the too willing men......on "no choice." That is a lie.
Nowhere is birth control available for $9 a month......nowhere. That might be a co pay IF you have good insurance.
hikeinmts: It may seem like a bizarre thing for you to imagine, but some women ARE forced to have sex. Not just rape by a stranger, but by their abusive or drunk boyfriends/husbands.
Yet again BLAMING THE WOMAN as if we get pregnant by ourselves. "Keep your legs closed" is so blatantly sexist but not a surprise coming from the anti-choicers. And birth control fails more than you realize. I am doing everything I can to prevent pregnancy. But if I became pregnant, I would run, not walk to the nearest abortion clinic. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of. You antis need to quit trying to shame women for having sex. It takes two to tango. And BTW, even sterilization is not 100%.
Olivia, the woman has the final choice if she wants sex or not. If someone is forcing you to have sex against your will, call the cops.
If women have abusive/drunken boyfriends/husbands GET OUT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP.
I don't understand people who stay in relationships like that. Like the woman who was set on fire this weekend or ther other who was killed and stuffed in a barrel.
There are many options out there. GET OUT.
I'm not blaming the women but if she opens her legs then it's just as much her fault as it is the mans so sh took the chance and a life was created and she was responsible enough to have sex but not responsible enough to raise a baby so she decides to snuff out that life. Yeah that makes it soooo much better Olivia because after all it is the babies fault that it was conceived so it should be killed as punishment right.
Desperate women? Seriously it's not 1940, how about just have the damn kid and give it up for adoption? If you can deaden yourself to kill it, I doubt you'll shed many tears giving it a chance at life. It grosses me out that these stupid women make an innocent baby pay the ultimate price for THEIR mistake.
Women SHOULD ALWAYS have the choice. It is none of your business how she became pregnant, whether it was contraceptive failure, rape or because no contraception was used. People make mistakes. And if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she should not be FORCED to gestate and carry that pregnancy.
Forcing a woman to bear a pregnancy she doesn't want is akin to slavery. Having an abortion is a medical decision and not one that has any place in politics. And what happens in my womb is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. And stay out of peoples' bedrooms you weirdos.
And to those saying a woman should just carry the pregnancy and give the kid up for adoption, do you know what pregnancy does to a woman's body? It and childbirth have a much higher mortality rate than abortion. The war on women continues. Oh, and it's not 1940. You're right. But you stick to your 1940 anti-woman ideals.
trac, you are an uneducated person who lets everyone know that every time you post such drivel.
Olivia, there is no "war on Women", that is a wonderful political expression, and we know how you hate politics, that is used to castigate people that don't agree with you. I know too many well educated women that have carriers and raised families that do not agree with abortion. The fact is, this issue represents a difference of opinion and inflammatory words and terms should be condemned by both sides of the issue.
Janine:
And yet many "pro-life" Republicans in the House refused to vote for the VAWA, which funds the "many options" you suggest. These "many options" are strained to their limits. I just read that in Colorado last year, 7000 women were turned away from these "many options" because they had no more space. Where should those women go? Will you house them? Or will you support more funding cuts because it comes out of your taxes and you're not going to pay for their "irresponsibility".
Why yes Olivia as a matter of fact I DO know what a pregnancy does to a woman's body since I was one of the MANY irresponsible 15 year olds that actually had a baby. I kept him and raised him BY MYSELF, and he was the best thing that EVER happened to me right up until he died at the age of 17. Your "too posh to push" argument is just ignorant.
Olivia,
pregnancy nowadays doesn't lead to higher mortality, otherwise women who had multiple births would be already dead by now. It's not the 1940's anymore.
Actually abortion causes more deaths, also because the mothers become depressed and often leads to suicides because of the guilt these women carry.
Pregnancy doesn't ruin a woman's body, bad eating habits and lack of excercise do.
Women who CHOOSE to take care of their bodies are actually strengthened abd become more beautiful after a few pregnancies.
CHOICE is such a hard word to swallow, women want CHOICE but they don't want to act responsible.
Every action has a consequence, deal with it.
If a woman CHOOSES to have sex and then decides to commit murder, she should be punished for the crime.
It is a crime and women do know that.
toonwelton - Sorry for your loss. Just curious as to how a 15 year old girl manages to raise a child by herself? No help from anyone? Parents, another relative, etc.? It's next to impossible.
Thank you BillyBob. Luckily I grew up in Canada, the high school I attended had childcare on premises that allowed me to graduate, I lived with my older sister and between the 2 of us worked 5 jobs, once my child was in grade one I furthered my education with the help of a student loan. It's not impossible, but it is very tough.
Crystal & Janine,
I'm just wondering why you two aren't advocating for men to have the simple and reversible procedure known as a vasectomy, or for men to keep their legs together, also.
goodforgoodnesssake:
Umm... did you just reference an acticle from 1991? I'd like to think numbers have improved significantly since them. Not to mention combining them would lower it to 2.5%, and adding that there was no "shot" then, and that "the pill" is covered now... And given the fact that the "mother" can still get an EARLY term abortion, I really don't think you have any argument left. Please try again.
Janine:
Just how many unwed mothers have YOU taken in? How many of those unwanted children have YOU adopted and raised? How many abused women (and thier children) have YOU given a home to, how many have YOU supported, educated, fed and clothed?
Until you do, please keep your opinions about how things work to yourself; please do not impose your strict, narrow views on others.
Being 'righteous' is very easy to do, when you yourself are not directly involved in giving options to those women and children.
"Holier than thou" is not a viable point of view....ever.
Kim Jong- are you suggesting that there's no need for abortions? Why not just come right out and say it?
According to Women's Health.gov, updated in 2011: the failure rate of male condoms per 100 women, resultes in 11-16 pregnancies.
I know you'd like to think that the world is a black and white place, but the truth is, it's messy out there and accidents DO happen.
jet our tax dollars go to it everyday in the form of welfare and I'd like to point out that the girls on welfare that get all the assitance available make out way better than the girl trying to do it on her own at a minimum wage job. A family of 4 in my state are elligible for 76 thousand dollars worth of benefits and they don't have to pay tax on any of those benefits but I still paid taxes when it was just me and my two kids making 30 thousand a year how does that make sense?
Sarah, sterilization works both ways. If the woman doesn't want children, it's a simple procedure to have done.
Jet, we all make our own decisions in our lives.
If it sounds sanctimonious to say that I wish MORE women would have respect for themselves and their bodies rather than spreading their legs for whoever comes around, so be it.
Janine,
Not quite as simple for us though. It's a full on surgery with recovery time and you're fully put under. It's a quick out patient procedure for men. It's also reversible for men and NOT for us. But that really wasn't my question. My question was why don't you advocate for men to take steps to prevent pregnancy also?
Men can be celibate also, yet you've said nothing about that. Coupled with the MUCH easier and reversibile procedure, I'm just wondering why you only focus on the females.
Sarah, I believe in responsibility. If you are in a relationship with someone then that responsiblity is between BOTH of you. You should be able to discuss things like birth control.
On the other hand, if you're going to screw around with different guys, then the responsibility is yours. While the child is THEIRS as well, they could long gone out of your life before you are even aware you are pregnant. In that case, the responsibility is pretty much yours.
Until a time in our evolution makes it possible for men to be pregnant it will be up to the women.
So if women want to engage in sex on the same par with men, only women have to be responsible?
Isn't that all the more reason to put an even stricter onus on the men? Seeing as the women are ensured of having to face the responsibility? Or, in the lack of any credible scientific evidence as to why women shouldn't have a choice, allowing them that choice?
Good thing science makes it possible for men to NOT be able to impregnate women.
And yet you still haven't addressed the issue as to why you aren't advocating for MEN to keep their legs closed too.
There's this book by Harriet Beecher Stowe you should really read.
Men always keep their legs closed.
Sarah, 99% of the men in this world how like to have sex with women couldn't have sex unless a woman let them have it with her! Your argument is stupid. We only have sex with women because they want us to and they let us do it with them, other wise we would have to go home and use our hands. Yes I know that is the category you will put me in so let me beat ha ha you to it. Hairy handed bubba here!
Sarah, woman could never be on the same par as a man in sex, they can have so much more fun, if done right, and the man is on his knees, long time!
NO, No we don't you need to try some new positions.
What I find to be more telling in this whole discussion is...those that advocate against reproductive rights very seldom engage in real-world activities (apart from holding signs, shouting slogans, going to church, etc.)
I have repeatedly asked one person on this board to answer a few simple questions: how many children have YOU adopted? how many unwed mothers have YOU supported and provided medical care to? how many physically abused women have YOU provided shelter/support to?
The silence is deafening. Its quite obvious that its very easy to 'talk the talk' but no one is interested in 'walking the walk' - posturing and hiding behind one's beliefs and/or narrow world view is quite easy, but actually HELPING out those desperate women who feel that abortion is their only choice, or HELPING those 'innocent' children?
Go have another cocktail, watch your football game, or whatever you do that cuts you off from the real world....because your hypocrisy has a very offending odor to the rest of humanity.
I am honestly astounded at the hatred towards women in this thread. Since when does a woman get pregnant by herself? Yet people here are advocating that only the woman be the one responsible for birth control - and if she gets pregnant then she must have "spread her legs" for everyone. Seriously? Are people that stuck in the Middle Ages (wow, I'm sorry for any insult to the people who lived during those times!). I have a friend whose body doesn't process birth control contraceptives. She has 3 sons (married and welcomed the children, but took til the 2nd one and extensive testing to figure out what happened!). My own son was a surprise since the dr neglected to mention the new migraine meds could cancel out the pill. Again I was lucky - married and we both wanted him, but unplanned nonetheless. My husband has a friend who just announced her pregnancy - what a surprise since she had her tubes tied 8 years ago. Another couple I know almost got divorced when the wife turned up pregnant, until paternity and daddy testing proved the vasectomy had reversed itself after 4 years. Yet, any woman who turns up pregnant is at fault and irresponsible? Some of these comments make me literally sick, to think we still live in a world where people continue to put the onus on women.
Jet, I gave birth to my child.
As for how many unwed mothers and babies I have supported, you'd have to check the welfare rolls. We all do that, with our taxes. We provide medical care to them as well.
I myself have never personally known an abused woman. I do know of a woman who was abused by her ex husband before I ever met her. But that's the closest I've ever been to it.
If she or any of my friends were in such a situation, I would be there for them. No doubt in my mind.
Janine,
You STILL haven't answered my question. Why aren't you also advocating for men to keep THEIR legs closed?
The war on women??? TOTAL BULL S#!T !!!
I am sick of the women in the US complaining about the supposed war on women in this country.
They belittle the struggles that BILLIONS of women go through everyday in China, India, Afria etc.
Are honor killings in the US common? Hardly.
Are women killed for trying to get an education in the US? No.
Are women so hated in the US that for every 100 boys only 80 girls are born? No.
Do 25% of all US men admit to raping women like men in South Africa? Thought not.
Are US women killed if they have an affair? Again... no.
If a woman is raped in the US does the attacker get off if he offers to marry the victim? Nope.
Oh woe is us, we have to pay for birth control. It is a WAR !!!! Help help we are being repressed !!!
I guess you'll always have a difficult time seeing it from a woman's perspective since your a male. Yes, repression by means of limiting access to reproductive choices has become a war of sorts. There is certainly a battle occurring in this country over keeping abortion legal and accessible. Geez, it's 2013 and there are government representatives arguing the validity of rape and morality of birth control pills! Maybe you'd see it differently if a majority of women representatives started passing laws that limited your access to Viagra.
The struggle for equality isn't set up in a hierarchical structure. It's okay to slightly impose on someone's rights because others have theirs fully imposed upon? So discrimination and sexism light is okay with you?
25% of U.S. women are raped, however, so I'm guessing approximately 25% of men also rape women here, they just have better civil rights.
No, and he also most likely doesn't even get arrested.
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/sexual-violence-report-march.pdf
http://www.rainn.org/
http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199720.pdf
Well except for all those pesky domestic violence incidents.
http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf
You are truly ignorant on this subject.
To the woman who claimed I thought I was "too posh to push", that's not what I meant about pregnancy being hard on women's bodies and you know it. Stop being obtuse. Pregnancy can be a dangerous condition for many woman or can lead to complications that endanger a woman's life.Abortion is not murder. It should never be punishable by time in jail. Whoever said that is a sick, deranged knuckle dragger who needs to spend time in the real world.
I'm sorry for the loss of your son but just because you CHOSE to carry your unplanned pregnancy to term doesn't mean everyone has to or should. Do you want applause and cookies because you struggled and made it as a young, single mom? Give me a break. Not everyone is the same. And not everyone wants to be a struggling teenage mom or the girl who had to drop out of college to take care of a child she never planned on having in the first place. WOMEN SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE!!!!
And if men could get pregnant, not only would abortion remain a safe, legal procedure with no politicians sticking their noses where they don't belong. There would also be an abortion clinic on every corner.
Monkey Mo I too had a 'rubber baby'. For those of you that don't know what that is, that is when the rubber fails and you end up adding to your family. Luckily, I was happily married, but if I were in different circumstances, I would have been grateful for safe and legal abortion availability.
Good., # 3.39,
Truly intelligent mixing of apples and oranges, thus invalidating your point.
A man taking Viagra is doing so because of a medical need. There are women that take the Pill for medical needs as well. Both of these cases ARE covered by most medical coverages, BECAUSE OF A MEDICAL NEED. Oh my, equal coverage.
Now, if a man WANTS condoms, or a woman WANTS the pill, so they can have sexual relations. SORRY, no medical coverage plan I know of covers WANTS. Oh my, equal coverage.
myownthoughts56,
Uh, okay, cause he WANTS to have SEXUAL RELATIONS...correct? So how the hell do you follow that statement with this?
I was going to ignore this but since you asked.
Viagra is a drug used to treat a medical condition. Part of the body is not working like it should.
Birth control is prevent the body working like it should.
The anti-choice boys are HYPOCRITES! Big friggin' surprise.
Joe,
BC is also used by many women to make our bodies function in the appropriate way. Which is way more beneficial to our health than being able to get it up in your '60's is to yours.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/birth-control/
LMAO
The "good ole boys" strike again!
Yes, very aware of that. Also very aware that the bulk of women use BC solely to prevent or control ovulation.
And BTW, Viagra says that most of their users are in their early to mid 50's.
I was in no way arguing against BC. I was simply pointing out there is a difference for the two prescriptions.
The same abortion advocates that use this argument all the time will then turn around and tell us that banning certain types of firearms from law abiding citizens is necessary to a "safe" society but deny that doing so will simply push them further underground. Contradiction at best, hypocrisy at worse.
Mr. Steady - logic please? Analogy is a stretch to say the least.
Safe, legal, early intervention in women's healthcare is equivolent to owning 5 Bushmasters???
And if you want weird hypocrisy - the pro-death penalty folks are often the Pro-"Life" people. Figure that one out.
There's nothing hypocritical in being pro-life AND pro death-penalty. It's FAR more logically consistent than the reverse:
This fetus never harmed anyone - KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT!
This guy raped and murdered 7 women - he MUST LIVE!
Um... Comparing an innocent, unborn child to someone who knowingly and willfully CHOOSES to commit a heinous crime??? You are one sick individual.
thank you that is correct kill the innocent and let the guilty live.
Killing 23 children in Newtown creates an obsession to take guns away from EVERYONE, all the while over 4000 children are killed every day with abortion- how's that for logic?
I am pro-choice AND pro-death penalty. Abortion is not a choice for anyone to decide but the woman and her doctor. It is a normally (NOT IN THIS CASE) safe procedure that is perfectly legal. I had an abortion in college and the doctor and his staff were wonderful. I had zero complications.
But go ahead antis. Use this aberration to try and illustrate how dangerous abortion is and how evil the doctors who perform them are. Abortion is safer by far, than pregnancy and childbirth. As I said, there are bad apples in EVERY medical field. And as I said before, if abortion were made illegal again, things like this would happen a heck of a lot more often. This story made headlines because it is such a rare event.
Thank you Olivia for a thoughtful post.
Olivia, don't you ever wonder about the baby you aborted? He/she could have been a son/daughter that made you so proud your chest hurts or maybe even the one who came up with the cure for cancer. My sister had two abortions, and then she couldn't get pregnant again, so she is a lonely older women now.
Crystal.......people make their own decisions and live with them. We never know whether any choice is good or bad until it is too late to take it back...your sister probably knew this.
Newsgrl. a boyfriend in NY this weekend killed his g/f and stuffed her in a barrel.
That scum DESERVES to die. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
Now an unborn child? What did that infant do other than exist? Has he/she done anything wrong?
The connections I'd like to put to abortions is the murdering of the Jews and others by the Nazis.
According to our own Supreme court, a fetus has no rights because they are not human beings.
According to Nazi law, a Jew has no rights because they are not human beings.
Why is one Law considered RIGHT (because you agree with it) and the other WRONG (because you disagree with it) when they make the same claims?
Crystal, I have never regretted my decision. It was the right decision at the time. And when I look back on it now, if I had to do it over again, make that choice, I would make the same choice. Women don't make the decision lightly. I thought of all my options and abortion was the right one for me. And I know several women who have had abortions in the past and go on to have healthy pregnancies later. I work for an OB/Gyn, so I should know.
Kathyrn I'm not sure that murder is ever the right decision. Olivia you were selfish and chose to murder an innocent child so you could prosper who had no choice in being conceived and then you decided it had no right to live because it would make life harder for you.
tlb,
It's your selfishness that's in the spotlight. Who are you to assume why Olivia had her abortion? And who are you to judge her?
He who has never sinned and all that, right?
Ah, yes. A woman who is truly in denial. Any woman who claims to not have emotional consequences from an abortion is fooling herself. Admit it, deep down inside you feel horribly guilty and you can't come to grips with it, so you vehemently support other women to make the same choice so you can ease the guilt.
THAT'S your justification for abortion????????????
Can-do Math + Mr. Steady - sorry guys - I'm Catholic, part of their Pro-Life stance is anti-death penalty.
As for death sentence: 18 people on death row have been exonerated through DNA evidence in the last 25 years. How would you feel if your innocent brother were on death row?
Personally, I'd feel justice better served if that guilty rapist went to a nice Russian style work camp/gulag to suffer and think about his miserable crimes and existence for the rest of his miserable, painful, intolerable life.Then he can go get his next dose of Justice when he dies.
You would know first-hand, right mr.steady?
Hambone I had my daughter at 15 and put her life and well being before my own. she so much as said she was not ready so yeah she was selfish.
But how is that any of your business tlb? How do personal attacks on another poster's morality further your position?
Matter of fact, I do. My sister tried to have an abortion, and failed. To even talk about it now, she gets emotional and starts crying, wondering how she could live with herself had she succeeded.
Olivia,
don't lie to others by claiming to know what is safer.
Giving birth is just as safe nowadays, and sorry if you missed on such a beautiful experience.
But just because you chose not to, don't claim to know that giving birth in a modern hospital is not safe.
How does one "try to have an abortion and fail"? Did the doctor remove a kidney instead or something?
ok so then it's none of our buisness if if a toddler is abused unless it is our child right?
You don't want to know.
Mr. Steady-
Your sister's experience does not speak for every female.
I truly do not regret my choice. I know that bothers you anti-choicers, as if "How dare she choose herself and NOT feel guilty?" My consequences were not right at the time for becoming a parent. Women who have had abortions and don't feel guilty or bad are not in denial and there are many, many more of us than the ones who cry in their soup every night.
Maybe the ones who feel bad are the ones who felt coerced. But my choice was mine alone to make. And I diid think every choice through. Adoption, carry to term and become a parent or have an abortion. I chose abortion after weeks of careful thought. And once I realized I was praying daily for a miscarriage, that really made me wake up to the fact that I didn't want to be a parent at that time. Not with that boy. And I may never want to be a mother. But I am diligent about my birth control.
If you must know, my pregnancy resulted after a condom broke. My boyfriend and I WERE being responsible. And when that failed, I took responsibility and made the right choice for me and the boy involved. So you can judge me all you want if you've never made a mistake. There is no perfect person and you don't know me and never will. I probably have more character and integrity in my pinkie finger than you do in your entire body. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Great, they found the butcher of Philadelphia.
Look in any red state that has succeeded in restricting access to abortion and you will find more of this.
how have they restricted it guess what they haven't they are legal! I guess these people that paid him to kill their baby couldn't afford condoms right. makes no sense!
You are wrong tlb1974......North Dakota has one, Mississippi is trying to close the last one, Arkansas is on the same path.....Oklahoma has done much the same.......the list is long and weird. I know you don't care enough to research it but I do.
we aren't talkiing about those states Kathryn you don't like the laws in your state move to another! In this case it was Philadelphia PA in case you didn't notice and they are legal.
Access tlb....access.
abortion clinics are all over PA it has nothing to do with access.
But for women in states like North Dakota, not all women can afford to drive to another state for an abortion. Or they may have to gather the funds for the abortion and that can take time. Time many women don't have, so by the time they find access, it may by now be a second trimester abortion, which is not only much more dangerous for the woman, but also much more expensive. The upshot of it is, we have a pro-choice president. Realizing they are stymied at the federal level, the anti-choicers are now chipping away at reproductive rights at the state level. If men could get pregnant, I guarantee this would not even be an issue.
once again we are not talking about North Dakota we are talking about a clinic in PA. different states have different laws if you don't like the laws in your state move to another.
Move to another? You make it sound so easy.
They really need an IGNORANT/NAIVE button on these posts so we can accurately flag all the asinine RW posts.
People, stop arguing with tlb1974. He/She will never get what you're trying to say, so don't tire your fingers by typing.
oh I get it but my point is there are other options. I was at a clinic once that performed abortions a teenage girl was there with her mother and they were arguing it was the mother's 5th abortion and the teenage daughter who drove her there was angry that her 30 something mother was still doing this to some women it is an easy way out.
tlb just can't accept that there are some things that aren't her business...and that she/he can't control (and shouldn't).
The hallmark of a true dyed-in-the-wool control freak.
Kathryn... not trying to say you're wrong because in general, you aren't. That said....
Did you read the Grand Jury report on "Dr." Gosnell's clinic? What happened in this clinic had nothing to do with "access" and everything to do with profit-motivated negligence.
The Grand Jury report describes horrors that I would have expected to read about in say, a Communist Romania clinic in the 60s.
What happened here was the fault the regulatory body in PA dropping the ball and not seeing the abuses and untrained staff performing medical procedures. If "Dr." Gosnell didn't have an "oxycontin" component to his clinic, he would not have been caught. The Commonwealth of PA didn't give a damn about the horrors those born-ALIVE babies endured... they only cared the OC prescriptions that were written.
Anyway, until you read the Grand Jury report on "Dr" Gosnell, don't try to say this is a common occurrence in State's that have few or only 1 clinic. There's no way what happened here is happening elsewhere else with any degree of frequency. This was truly a 1-in-a-million shop of horrors.
Kathryn., # 5.1,
PA, a red state, please.
As of June 2012 there were 22 abortion providers in PA.
After the 'butcher shop' it is a surprise they weren't all shut down.
Much as the anti gunners tried to use 'Sandy Hook'.
included a bit of the article (fair use)
June 19, 2012 2:30 pm
By Mackenzie Carpenter / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Abortion clinics across the state have asked for and received a six-month reprieve from the Department of Health from complying with a tough new law that goes into effect today that they meet the same standards as free-standing ambulatory centers.
The state's 22 abortion providers -- some nonprofit, some for-profit centers and others based in hospitals -- were told Friday by department officials that they would receive provisional licenses, allowing them to remain open while working to come into compliance with Act 122, which was enacted by the state Legislature in the wake of abuses uncovered at a Philadelphia abortion clinic two years ago.
Read more: #ixzz2McIWW8iK
Your complaints seem to be without merit.
This is what happens when the fundies get enough power to obstruct the Supreme Court......run all the real doctors out using their tactics of intimidation and actual harm and you get quacks moving in. Women will get abortions however they must. I predict we will see more of this as the Republicans close more legal avenues for women. I suggest a movie "Rain Without Thunder" that predicted the very events we are seeing today, it will scare the beejeezes out of free thinkers.
you can get a legal abortion just not late in the pregnancy because the baby could live outside the mother once you are in your second trimester he did it to get rich not to help people they could have gotten one legally they chose to wait until it was too late to get one legally.
We are talking about access........not legality. The states are drying up access and as a result the quacks will move in.
access isn't difficult in PA either you can find abortion clinics in the phone book.
......I don't know that tlb1974, but I will research it and also how much it cost's.
you are right a condom would have been cheaper too bad they didn't think about that before they jumped into bed.
Kathleen, you are correct. And it's not about saving a fetus. It's about controlling women's sexuality and controlling them in general. In the eyes of the antis, the woman did something wrong, HAD SEX. OMG!!!! And they see pregnancy as a punishment for that act. Their motto is, after all, SAVE THE FETUS AND STARVE THE CHILD. Because once a woman gives birth, they couldn't care less what happens to the child. Look at all the children languishing in foster care? Do you see the anti-choicers flipping out about that or having marches for these poor kids or even adopting them? Nope. HYPOCRITES!
Olivia a women can have as much sex as she wants but then you need to take responsibilty for those actions! If you want to act like an adult be an adult not a murderer.
tlb,
Having an abortion is taking responsibility. Why do social conservatives not understand this?
And abortion is not murder; stop with your hyperbolic and melodramatic false equivalencies.
hambone have you ever watched a sonogram being given it's a live being in there my daughter was nine weeks along in her pregnancy when she had her first sonogram it looked like an alien but you could see it's heart beating and it's arms (not fully formed) moving if it has a heart beat it is alive if you purposley stop the heart from beating it's murder in my opinion of which I'm entitled to.
THAT is just the point. No one gives a rat's ass what your "opinion" is . OPINIONS are like @!$%#S and every BUSY body has one. Abortion is NOT "murder"... murder is a LEGAL term and in this country abortions are LEGAL no matter WHAT the hell you and the rest of your holier-than-thou RW buddies think. STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S PERSONAL AFFAIRS. They're NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.
Abortion is murder, the law says so.
The same fetus, if someone else kills the pregnant woman, causes the murderer to be charged for double homicide.
Cont..........WHY a woman chooses to have an abortion is up to HER ... not YOU or ANYONE else. And NO... I have NEVER regretted mine just like I've never regretted having a wart removed. All this bull s h i t where you try to force your delusion by "guilting" women into feeling bad for the choices that are right for them are DISGUSTING. No one cares about your sonograms or any of that other scare tactics. No one wakes up one morning and say.. "I think I'll go have an abortion today !! " Almost every woman thinks LONG and HARD about making that decision according to what is RIGHT for HER and HER circumstances. Something YOU have absolutely ZERO say in. Get over it and quit trying to control other people's lives because of your belief in myths , skyfairies and fear of imaginary hell. I've never seen so many IGNORANT and NAIVE statements in my entire life. The GOP truly is the PARTY OF STUPID.
JACK A S S.... abortion is NOT murder and the law DOES NOT say so. THat's why it's LEGAL you idiot. The situation you're describing is NOT "abortion". Educate yourself ... ignorance is NOT a virtue.
ok if no one elses opinion matters gemini why should yours if you don't want to hear other peoples opinions and you just want to call everyone with a differing opinion maybe this isn't the place for you. That is what the comment section is for people to make comments and that is what we are all doing so now you are going to call everyone with a differing opinion nasty names and we are the ignorant ones are you sure?
Gemini, the fact that something is LEGAL doesn't necessarily make it right.
Slavery was legal in this country for hundreds of years. Was that right?
Segregation was legal.
Women not having the right to vote was legal.
The Nazis killing the Jews and anyone else that didn't agree with them was legal.
In all of those cases, the rights of persons were being denied. The Supreme Court has never changed a position to take away rights of persons. Notice I said "persons"? The rights of a fetus cannot trump the rights of a person.
Personally, I'd rather live in a country that didn't have forced "labor" camps where women would be held for 9 months until they delivered babies, effectively denying right to privacy and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
gfgs, I agree with you, but if it ever does come down to that, then they darn sure better have camps set up forcing the fathers to be sole caregivers for the first 9 months before the children are put up for adoption. It won't come close to the physical danger some women were in from pregnancy and delivery, but at least make it somewhat even. After all, if the woman has to follow through, so should the MAN who helped her get there.
Olivia., #6.6(6),
What are you, a general in Vietnam. Saying 'We have to kill the child, to save it', sounds waaaay to close to 'We have to destroy a village , to save it'.
Good., # 6.15,
You missed the point of what Janine said in post ( # 6.14).
the fact that something is LEGAL doesn't necessarily make it right.
Abortion IS legal...is it RIGHT.?
She is correct that, in the fullness of time, if the medical sciences determines life begins at conception.
YOUR current, dare I say, politically correct position, will be in the same dust bin as the slave owner and death camp guard.
I wonder if your family will remember you fondly, or change their last name.
Gemini, I totally agree with all your posts on here. I work for a very busy OB/Gyn doctor. I see sonograms all the time of fetuses at all stages of development. It doesn't change my stance on abortion. These anti-choicers just need to stay the hell out of women's wombs. Our bodies are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Why don't they get that? All their "Don't tread on me and my 2nd amendment rights, but let me tell you missy, what to do with your body." How f-ed up is that? Hypocrisy at its finest.
Olivia., # 6.19,
Its my body, I have a kidney for sale. Your position as a 'medical professional' is.....
And are you willing to share that position with your state licensing board.?
This is what happens when you make it difficult for women to get an abortion you right wing nut jobs.
Abortions are legal.....your buddy did it on the down low for the money your arrogant post just makes you like an obama.
Bull@!$%#. This is what happens when you're too damn stupid or lazy to unwrap a condom.
Really John? Maybe you should look at the efficacy rates of condoms and other contraceptives while you're at it, before making blanket comments that show your ignorance on the subject.
I am NOT a right wing nut job. Did you read the part about late term abortions? B.S. on your observations, by the way how did your mom feel about abortions? Regret?
stonepipe2, that's another one of the problems here... people don't read past the headline and sometimes a sentence or two of the article and then make uninformed, knee jerk comments... and then label other people things like "right wing nut jobs." As soon as I see the labels I already know the rest of the comment is going to be idiotic.
You are a right wing nut if you use ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with.
Kat-Pfffft. GM 888.
Nice stonepipe2.
Legal....barely. There are so many restrictions on abortions in many states (including VA) that it is very difficult to have one. Not to mention more expensive than neccessary, in some states requiring ultrasounds that doctors say are not needed.
only late term abortions if it takes you 3 months to figure out you are pregnant then maybe but that is not usually the case.
You are welcome, Kat. Unless you are raped, or the life of the mother is at stake abortion is not the answer in my opinion. But since our world is not perfect and I am not in their shoes I will not march against it. But if you can't see something wrong with late term abortions, I feel sorry for you.
stonepipe....do you know what a late term abortion really is?
Yes, they are all over the t.v. right now. You will see it on C-Span.
Hey John,
My mother got pregnant with my brother while she was on birth control AND using condoms. What was that you were saying again...? STFU and do some research on the effectivness of birth control methods.
jdp and since you know it's your brother I would assume she decided not to kill the baby so what is your point you think your life would be better if she hadn't had your brother?
tlb~ wtf does that have to do with anything I said in response to this:
"Bull@!$%#. This is what happens when you're too damn stupid or lazy to unwrap a condom."
Oh, it doesn't.
The far right is effectively making it impossible to get a legal abortion in many states by focusing on the providers and forcing them out of business. Many states now only have one clinic with one doctor available. A few states have no one, forcing people to travel to another state. That's how the far right is going to end abortion. Unfortunately, the result will be many, many more horror stories similar to this one. Yes, I know the guy was doing late-term abortions. But without choices, many more women will be put in a position where even an illegal first trimester abortion could end up killing them.
What is with this demented thinking that these dumbass RWers think that EVERY SINGLE PREGNANCY involves a decision of whether to abort or not ? Are you people really that stupid ? Every time I hear an ignorant statement like the ones tlb makes I want to knock some damned sense into their brainless heads. Complete STRAWMAN arguments from ignorant fools.
What I find puzzling here are the people here who decry abortion, then say that there are circumstances where it should be allowed.
Why? When does it become justified to allow the killing of an "innocent child" (your words) under any circumstances? After all, isn't it still "an innocent child?" Remember the case of the Catholic hospital in Arizona where a nun was excommunicated because she authorized an abortion to save the life of the mother.
Your logic requires that abortion is wrong in all cases, under all circumstances, right?
Do people really not realize how difficult it has become to get an abortion in some places? I remember working with a lady in a sister office in another state who was expecting. She and her husband were devestated when tests revealed the baby had died in utero. However, because she was over the weeks along limit in her state, she was forced to go to the hospital, in the maternity ward with all the happy new moms, and be induced and deliver her dead baby. It was truely the MOST barbaric thing I had ever heard, and still ranks up there. Had this happened or been discovered 3 weeks earlier, she could have privately gone into the doctors office and had a quick procedure instead.
Severed,
Exactly!
It's one of two things: either they secretly do want abortion illegal in all circumstances (think "legitimate rape") but don't want to look like monsters who would put the rights of the mother aside, even in cases of rape, incest or health of the woman,
or,
They want to punish women for having and enjoying sex.
FWIW, not all are hypocrites. I used to work with a guy who believed abortion should be illegal in every and all circumstances no matter what - and that women should be punished if they enjoyed sex outside of marriage. The guy was a raging lunatic in my opinion, but at least you knew where he stood about things.
This is a typical sort of horror women had to go through at any stage of pregnancy before abortion was made legal.
Domewars, I'm not a right wing nut job and what's the deal with waiting to have an abortion until you are "late stage" pregnancy? That's why some of these women couldn't have abortions. Is it that difficult to have an abortion in this country during early pregnancy? ... This is a legitimate question because I really don't know the answer but I suspect it's not a problem. In my opinion, if a woman waits until a fetus is potentially viable at birth then she needs to bear some of the responsibility here. I agree the doctor is a... not sure what word to use... but stabbing fetuses and snipping their spines is horrifyingly cruel. Every single person involved in this barbarity needs to be put away in a jail cell for a very long time.
Unfortunetly holly888, it is difficult for a young women with no means to obtain an abortion.....they are expensive and may mean a costly trip to another city or even state today. It will get worse as states play god with womens lives.
It is not difficult and you know what it is free to keep your damn legs closed so unless the pregnancy was because of a rape there is no reason for an abortion! and most of the time it's not needed in cases of rape as long as the women reports it because if they do the hospital gives them the morning after pill so take your BS else where. This man was getting rich of murdering babies.
Thanks Kathryn, for your answer. I can relate to lack of money making many things difficult. I do wish that people would take birth control more seriously though... although I know people get "swept up in the moment" but... I just wish anyway.
tlb - can you please try using some punctuation?
Please use facts instead of ridiculous blanket statements to defend your position. Try getting a morning after pill from a Catholic hospital.
Thanks Kathryn, for your answer. I know lack of money makes many things difficult. I just wish people would take precautions to avoid pregnancy in the first place. We seem to need more education on the subject when kids are young I think. People get swept up in the moment and the consequences are so great. I do wish that affordable and safe abortions were available for anyone who needs one but I hope one day we get to a point where unwanted pregnancies happened with less frequency. Sorry for the similar double posting... MSN stated "error" the first time.
I agree holly, however even birth control is under attack.....sad days for women.
good don't go to a catholic hosptial! Really punctuation. What facts am I not using please inform me.
birth control isn't under attack but if you want to have sex and can't afford a condom why is that my problem! You go anywhere all the people on welfare are carrying iphones but can't afford condoms but yet they have internet access on their cell phones it has nothing to do with not being able to afford it. I shouldn't have to pay for anyones birth control but my own. if you can't afford keep your legs closed!
Stabbing fetuses....snipping spines. How about the ways that abortionists kill millions of babies every year in America......stabbing, snipping,.....sounds close to the procedures that are used by abortion drs everyday. But, of course, those innocents in their mother's wombs aren't babies......they are fetuses......just change the name, do the crime, but walk away feeling good about yourself. Truly pathetic what human beings will lower themselves to do, in the name of "personal freedom."
tlb- in some areas, the only choice is a Catholic hospital. In some areas of the US, as has already been pointed out, abortion access is extremely difficult to obtain. It is not for you to decide, when and how abortion is needed. No one ever claimed it WAS your problem. Please indicate HOW you are paying for someone else's bc.
Not in PA and that is where this happened so why we are bringing other states in to this is beyond me.
Would you rather pay for the kids of the person on welfare who doesn't have access to an abortion?? If you're going to make an argument on a monetary basis than what is cheaper, paying for an abortion or paying for all the additional free government benefits that the child will bring the mother?
Except that tlb is NOT paying for any stranger's pills or abortions.
how do you know what my tax dollars are spent on good? You know what if the can't afford the baby they could always put it up for adoption there are many people out there that would love to have a child.
How? Because I understand the law as it relates to this topic.
You know that you can just mind your own business when it comes to what reproductive options other people employ, right? You are aware of how many children are already in orphanages?
According to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption institute: In the U.S. 423,000 children are living without permanent families.
So I'm not allowed to state my opinion good! I'm not stopping anyone from doing anything I'm stating my opinion which is the same thing you are doing. Please explain oh smart one explain how the laws apply to this topic.
Certainly tlb - you're free to state your opinion, but your mostly stating false facts. Like claiming to pay for birth control and abortions.
good I will pay for birth control with my taxes once obamacare goes thru. But I was actually referring to the birthcontrol that is given away at a lot of the free clinics and high schools in my area which are funded my the government and since the government makes no money only receives the money it takes from my paycheck I'm not sure how that equates into me not providing free birth control with my taxes.
now what am I stating as fact that isn't a fact please inform me
You must be in the upper echelon of earners in society. Which high schools give away free birth control?
The benefit of living in a civilization is that we all partake of the costs and benefits. My share of taxes go towards lots of things I don't personally like or benefit from. Your choice is to move to a deserted island, I suppose where you alone are responsible for yourself.
there are quite a few high schools that give away free birth control my point is you said my taxes weren't paying for it and I pointed out that in fact they were paying for birth control that was the only point good.
I stand by my civilization comment. You can either pay the fraction of a percentage that goes towards Plan B pills or you can pay later for welfare. Studies suggest that upwards of 28% of entering freshman have had sex, how many pregnant teenagers do you want walking around not getting an education?
Fairfax, Most states provide abortions through medicaid to people on welfare. They also provide birth control through medicaid.
Your argument is not valid.
If more used birth control, abortion wouldn't be the issue it is today. Nor would the # of children being raised on welfare.
Only 13 states offer abortion thru Medicaid.
In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.
Wow, Janine has no idea what's she's talking about regarding federal funding and abortion. And tlb1974 really hates women. Would hate to be his wife or girlfriend.
There IS an attack on contraception going on as well. There is this stupid yet dangerous movement called The Personhood Initiative which wants to give the same rights to a fertilized egg that humans walking the planet currently have. CRAZY!!! These people are nuts and will stop at nothing to control women. First by taking our reproductive rights from us. These people see us as second class citizens and nothing more than broodmares who should "have as many babies as God wants to give us." OMG.
I can't believe there are people out there who think like this and the truly scary thing is, they are taking steps to achieve it. Slowly chipping away, at the state level, at a woman's right to control her own reproduction. I live in Texas and Governor Rick "The Hair" Perry has said he will not be satisfied until abortion is illegal in my state. Does he have a womb? Will he ever get pregnant? NOPE! 77% of the anti-choice movement is made up of men and 100% will never give birth.
So if The American Christian Taliban has their way and gets these BS Personhood amendments passed, most forms of contraception will be outlawed. What is this? Romania circa 1977? After the fall of Ceausecu, there were hundreds of children living on the streets, unwanted and unloved because women were not allowed access to birth control or abortion. Is this what you nutjobs want for America? You people call Obama a tyrant. Try looking in the mirror.
I see it is the men who don't know a damn thing about abortion or being pregnant who are filling up the comment section. I find it so amusing that men who don't get pregnant think they should decide everything about reproduction for women......my advice for those men is to stay a virgin until you find a woman of like mind.
Nice, blanket statements Kathryn. I for one, believe that men AND women should abstain from sex until marriage. It takes TWO to tango. Learn how to say NO and keep your legs closed.
actually I'm a women so your blanket statement doesn't fly Kathryn.
You know.. there is a way for both men and women to prevent pregnancy. Just saying ........
Two bucks for a great condom or a couple of hundred for an abortion. You do the math. There is also the pill, the morning after pill, and all sorts for contraceptive devices or ....simply NO.
Navyvet: see post 3.3
Spermicides have a typical user failure rate of 21% and condoms 12%
"No" doesn't always work with forceful men and abused women.
This butcher was making money because no other avenue was available for these women and that is the bottom line.......abortion is legal and should be safe and available for all women period. No woman should be pushed into going to a butcher.....we have been there and done that.
BS Kathryn look it up in a Philadelphia phone book legal abortion clinics are not hard to find.
tlb1974........one question please....what options are there for a young woman with no money to go to another area for an abortion? No federal funds allowed remember.
guess they should have thought about that before they said yes to having sex unless they were raped they chose to take that chance Kathryn. Maybe they need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions! I had my daughter at 15 and I grew up and took responsibilty for my actions and she is now a wonderful young women.
tlb- intentionally turning a blind eye to the facts.
Not all women say yes. They are abused by husbands/boyfriends. Birth control methods have efficacy rates, check it out- information is readily available.
Some would argue that having an abortion and preventing another unwanted child is taking personal responsibility.
That's very wonderful for you. Now try hard to imagine someone who doesn't have the resources you had.
ok so abused women were raped by their boy friends ok well who's decision was it for them to be with abusive boyfriends?
So two condoms are better than one use two.
I was 15 the father denied it and still does to this day I baby sat over the summers to earn money for diapers and wipes then once I was old enough to drive I got a part time job in the evenings and went to school during the day and they didn't have day cares in schools back then. Yes my father allowed me to continue living there and he helped watch her while I worked but i got no government assistance at all and we were not wealthy to begin with was it hard your damn right it was but that little girl was not trash to be sucked out and thrown away it was a life that I was responsible for and I took that responsibilty.
tlb, all I can say is, you must not know anyone living in an abusive relationship. They don't stay because they want to.
Your experience is commendable, however, you once again naively believe that every other woman/girl has the resources and resourcefulness you exhibited.
Actually my second child's father beat the hell out of me not until I was pregnant which made it harder for me to leave but once again I did leave I have two wonderful children that I raised on my own until I met my husband 15 years ago. It can be done it isn't easy but it can be done I worked my butt off to make a good life for my kids I could have taken the easy way out but I didn't because I valued the life of innocent children, they did not ask to be conceived I allowed it to happen and for it I was blessed with two great kids.
tlb - I have no bone to pick with you personally. As stated earlier, you are to be commended. Just please try to be more understanding of the others out there, who don't share your resilience. You can't expect everyone out there to be as strong as you. You cannot government-mandate morality.
Nor I with you but killing babies does not equate with saving lives and my point is that if you want to badly enough you can over come just about anything but you have to want to do it and be willing to work for it. It seems like there is an excuse for everything anymore when in most cases all it ends up being in the end is a way to avoid taking responsibility for ones actions.
Using emotionally charged, false language is where I disagree with you. Abortion does not kill babies. It stops pregnancy from moving forward. Sometimes abortion does save the life of the woman.
Goodforgoodness, Yes sometimes abortion does save the life of the mother if she's at risk.
Sometimes abortion is necessary in cases of rape or incest.
Roughly 40% of the women who have abortions every year have had at least one prior.
What category would you think they are in?
Considering that roughly 32,000 pregnancies are due to rape, I'm really not sure. But either way, being that it's a legal procedure in this country and none of my business, I don't care to know. What would you suggest, outlawing sex?
I'm sorry, I'm still hung up on the fact that tlb doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the fact that 2 of her children's fathers weren't held responsible for the children they produced. Unless she's claiming to be akin to the Virgin Mary, she didn't get those babies by herself, and no matter how much she loved them or how well she made it work, having those kids DID have a negative financial impact on her life. Yet, her stance continues to be that it's all the woman's responsibility. I don't get it.
Poor Kermit...if he'd just killed the babies a few seconds earlier while they were still inside their mothers....that's called "reproductive health care", or something......
The cold hard truth about all abortions.....
I thought Roe V Wade was supposed to stop things like this from happening? (feigned surprise) There is a price to pay for every evil in this world. The arbiters of 'justice' in this country need to rethink this. Who can begin to imagine the potential of the lives that have been snuffed out by a mother's 'Choice'. No one has the right to end another's life, especially a mother, who should know better.
When I've had family pets euthanized due to incurable disease and to stop their suffering, they have been truthfully "put to sleep" with anesthesia before being given a lethal dose of Phenobarbitol. If the vet were to snip their spinal cords or stab them I would obviously report him/her to the proper authorities... yet, in this "clinic," with late pregnancy it was considered the method of choice? I wonder how many of these women would have gone there if they knew this fact ahead of time? Not many, I would guess or at least I would hope not. Now, at least some of them, will have to live with this knowledge for the rest of their lives.
AGree holly.
The most dangerous place on earth.......in the womb of a woman who doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions.......and I will not stop there, because the guy that was as much a part of the life coming into being, .... just as wrong for him not to take his responsibility. The murdering must stop. The depriving of the weakest and most helpless amongst us protections.....that must stop.
NOt advocating going against the law. It must be done lawfully, by raising the consciences of the people. Murder is murder, no matter what some law of some land says.
How dangerous is it, hikeinmts - in the home of a woman and/or man that has the responsibility of now raising an unwanted child? Lack of love, finances, nurturing, affection, possibly exposed to violence, abuse, resentment?
Do you actually believe, women who would be forced to carry unwanted fetuses to term will suddenly be overwhelmed with love and affection? A safe a loving home?
No but they can always put the child up for adoption thousands of people are unable to have children and would be more than happy to adopt a child.
In the U.S. 423,000 children are living without permanent families
good how many of those children were taking by the state and not put up for adoption until they were older?
The only way to stop this is to teach morals and respect for one's own body to all young people.
Hard to do that in an instant gratification society where parents divorce just because they don't want to be responsible parents and because they can't restrain their instincts for lust.
The only control women really have is to say NO, the same goes for guys.
But if women are superior than men in controlling their instincts, then they have to be the strongest ones and learn to say no.
goodforgoodnesssake - healthy infants are much easier to adopt out. The figure you give is only a general one. tlb asks a valid question.
This 'doctor' obviously was there for the money. He also ran a 'pill mill'. That says a lot! And yes, as options become fewer, these kinds of 'backalley' operations will become more common. While I am against late term abortions unless the health of the mother is at stake, I do believe that
oops--ran out of time....I do believe that birth control and first trimester abortions should be readily available.
Lisa, then you and I agree. I have no wish to delve deeper into the adoption process to satisfy tlb's curiosity.
Actually gabber, women do have that right MOST especially the mother. You may not like it but we do.
Millions of guns in the hands of citizen and not one willing to kill this filthy animal.
Stepping forward, hand raised.
warrren, but even if he was young enough to live to the day of a death sentence... we would still give him a lethal injection which would be kinder by far than what he did to his victims. No matter what his consequences, he's off the hook for anything other than jail time. There will be no real justice in this world for what he's done. stonepipe2... you stepped on my toe trying to get into line before me. Apologize.
Nice to see that three potential murderers are proudly proclaiming their desire and intention to kill someone with whom they have a disagreement in philosophy. Perhaps your local police should look into all three of you for incitement to murder?
Don't see what the problem was. The fetus's were dependent on either the host or another person entirely for any chance of survival, he just hastened the inevitable. No harm no foul. Turn him loose.
If we use that criterion, we could get rid of most liberals!
Terry - using your logic (I use that loosely) toddlers could be murdered, they are dependent, those that are ill and require medical attention for survival can be murdered. Mentally challenged individuals could be murdered, they aren't independent. Doesn't hold up.
Terry--the conditions at that 'clinic' were deplorable! From strictly a medical standpoint, the guy is in all kinds of trouble for the septic conditions (and obviously they did not practice even universal precautions there!), using unlicensed personnel to do procedures, and running the 'pill mill'. And the 'fetuses' that were viable outside the womb--well, it's not a fetus anymore if it's viable outside the womb. And there were certainly harm done to some of the women who presented there--infections, perforated bowl, death.
I realize you were maybe being sarcastic in your comment. But I still had to reply.
<snip> His Women's Medical Center treated the poor, immigrants, teens and women with late-stage pregnancies who could not get abortions elsewhere. <snip>
No doubt, a proud day, for the pro-choicers. Yay . . . let's kill another potential Einstein. Modern day liberals pale in comparison to Sodom and Gomorah.
Warren, nice to see you promote the murder of a man who performed abortions. I suppose you also support clinic bombings and the harassment and assault of patients on their way in. Right? Of course!
I wouldn't condone murder, either - but to be clear: this man didn't just "perform abortions". He killed living babies that were actually alive after a birth. Whether you agree with abortion or not - this is clearly murder of the most vulnerable and innocent people there are.
This is what happens when people allow abortion on demand. This lack of respect for human life impacts all aspects of society.
Exactly.
This is what happens when people allow abortion on demand. This lack of respect for human life impacts all aspects of society.
Abortion "on demand"? Are you kidding? This is a callous statement.
First - there is no such thing as an "on demand' abortion. Pennsylvania has a mandatory 24 hour waiting period. There is no insurance coverage unless there is a clear threat to the life of the mother - and legal and safe procedures are costly. Post-viability abortions are forbidden with few excepts - ie the life of the mother. There is a mandatory lecture (with what some may argue are very slanted terms/materials) that must be presented. No minor can obtain a procedure without parental consent unless she goes through a judicial process that is quite cumbersome. There is nothing "on demand" about obtaining an abortion.
Second - you are assuming that a pregnant woman makes this life altering decision with a carefree wisp of a thought. No woman that I know does that, and I doubt that any woman you know does the same. It is a SERIOUS issue and if one is considering abortion, it is weighted with guilt, apprehension, depression, and a slew of other emotions that NOBODY should be judging. Sure - there are some humans out there that may take it lightly - as there are exceptions to almost any rule - and hence the regulations. To prevent things like that.
It is precisely the respect for human life, both born and unborn, that is fueling this debate.
Creek dog, that's a different doctor charged with the 8 deaths than the one who says he killed 100 babies.
and also wtf. wtf is wrong with people
I seriously doubt any of the aborted boys would have gone on to be anything other than gangsters who either died young or went to prison.
I seriously doubt any of the aborted girls would have gone to to be anything other than welfare collecting ghetto trash.
He did the taxpayer hundreds of favors.
How is your trolling today?
In your logic, do you mean he got rid of lots of future Obama voters as well?
Well, he definitely got rid of some unwanted Obama lover/voters.
Let's get one thing straight here. What this guy was doing was illegal. He was performing illegal late term abortions. He was illegally letting untrained staff perform medical procedures. He was illegally murdering viable newborns.
This is not about the legality of abortion. This is about a man who illegally butchered and killed for profit.
Very true....but if the current group of highly conservative religious polititians have their way, this type of butchery will become much more commonplace - in early terminations and late.
The lives and health of women will be given up as a sacrificial lamb to the sanctity of fetuses.
Abortion has always existed, Roe v Wade didn't invent them. Safe and legal abortions became an option after Roe v Wade. I am old enough to remember the back alley abortionists and the lives lost out of desperation and greed. That is someplace that we as humans do not want to return to.
Very well said, both of you.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. There are many arguments put forth in an attempt to justify this legalization of murder. Here are just a few.
Abortion is a matter of privacy. Then is it okay to abuse your toddler in the privacy of your own home, as long as no one knows about it?
Abortion is a matter of trusting a woman’s judgment. Andrea Yates drowned all her children because in her judgment this was best for them. Should she have been trusted to make this decision and avoid prosecution?
If abortion is made illegal, women will seek them in unsafe environments. Should bank robbery be made legal to ensure the safety of the perpetrators?
Poor women cannot afford children and should have abortions available and paid for by taxpayers. When did hardship begin to justify homicide?
Bio-genesis states that everything reproduces its own kind. Humans will reproduce other humans. Using the words embryo or fetus does not change the fact that it is a human being we are talking about. immature human being.
Size – the size of a human should not be considered in determining value. Are larger people more valuable than smaller?
State of development – also shouldn’t be used in determining the value. Are smarter people more valueable?
Environment or location- Do you become more valuable or change who you are based on where you are?
Level of dependency – Are people who are dependent on medication less valuable than others?
The government has the duty to protect life, especially those who are week, small and defenseless.
“We do not have a right to do what is wrong.” – Abraham Lincoln
Adoption should be the option available to women who do not want to/feel they are incapable of raising the child. The adoption laws in the Unites States need to be revised to make it easier and more affordable to adopt. I tried, the time constraint and financial requirements made it impossible.
As for the death penalty argument, I would gladly give up the death penalty for life in prison without parole in order to save the innocent lives of babies.
Exactly, they just want the law to legalize it to erase the guilt of doing something wrong.
They just want to remove the inconvenience of having the child and keep enjoying the party.
If they are mature enough (mature I say, it has nothing to do with how old one is) to have sex, then they should be mature enough to have a child and do what is right.
The same goes with the legalization of marjuana and gay marriage.
Making it legal removes the guilt. Or at least they think it does.
But then "oh no, guns are bad"
No the second Amendment is what helps us keep the first amendment.
And mature people know that.
RSB, # 24.0,
Good post. I'd forgotten that Lincoln quote.
Merely your opinion. And the law disagrees, plain and simple!
And they're all pretty much valid! Where's your justification to prohibit abortions?
Nothing wrong with either!
Speculate much?
I am pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for everyone else. In this case he was just wrong and should be charged. Late term abortions should not be legal in anyway shape or form.
Sorry, but I blame the women for taking chances like this, and the doctor should have said HELL NO!
They are ALL WRONG! The women, MORE WRONG for seeking him out! Next time, they better make those men who helped get them pregnant, use condom's or find some kind of birth control!
They're not, except in cases of fetal demise or health threat to the mother.
Nice way to blame the victim.
You do realize birth control is not 100% effective and women have the right to utilize an abortion, right?