2 abortion providers charged with murder in Md.

GreenvilleGrows said:

1.) How do you think these babies were killed? Suffocation, chemical burning, knocked on head, poisoned, etc.

Click to expand...

What babies? Are you talking about fetuses who are aborted? Because if so, I'm pretty sure that's not how they do it.

2.) You're actually not JUST pro-choice. You're pro killing viable babies. Not just for ending the source of sustenance and removal, but of killing it.

Click to expand...

I'm actually not, but whatever you need to believe.

3.) It's only about the women's rights when the child depends on her for life. Once it's "viable", then it's something different. Again, take it out and present it to a care-taker. There's no infringements on the woman's rights here - if it's coming out either way, why kill it?

Click to expand...

Sure, I think the best option is to take it out as I've said several times in this thread. However, the best option should not be the only opinion available. Oh and it is about the woman's right.

I'm generally against third trimester abortions for a potentially viable fetus, but there are times when an unforseen condition could make carrying to term medically dangerous to the mother, or when the fetus is hopelessly deformed with a condition that would life-threatening or, in the opinion of the parents, would result in an agonized life to which they do not wish their child to be subjected.

I will say that on the surface these particular doctors don't seem fit to practice. I have questions, however, about the individual cases. For example, a third trimester abortion is almost always much more dangerous to the mother than either a C-section removal of the fetus or a natural birth. Who are these women who would take such a risk? Why would they wait so long before making this decision?

I sense the problem is that medical professionals have basically been bullied into withholding any kind of abortion procedure or C-section removal of a potentially viable fetus by those who want all abortions to be illegal, and lawmakes who are chipping away at a women's right to reproductive choice.

I'm particularly concerned about the decision to charge these doctors with murder in Maryland, a state where the law being used to prosecute them specifically states that it doesn't apply to women seeking abortion, only to those who's behavior has killed a potentially viable fetus without the mother's permission. This sends yet another chilling message to physicians that if they perform late-term abortions for any reason whatsoever, even to save the life of the mother or at the parents' request because of legitimate concerns, they may be charged with capital murder. And this is quite intolerable to me. It does no good to say that women have the constitutional right to have safe, legal abortions when doctors have been so cowed and threatened that there are no physicians willing to do them.

theplaydrive said:

When you're inside the womb, it's still about a woman's control over her body.

Click to expand...

Being "inside the womb" does not make the baby a part of the woman's body.

and once the baby is born, unless it is immediately given up for adoption, the mother's wishes and wants have to take second place to those of the baby.

Anyone who has ever cared for a newborn knows that.

Dittohead not! said:

Being "inside the womb" does not make the baby a part of the woman's body.

Click to expand...

It actually does.

and once the baby is born, unless it is immediately given up for adoption, the mother's wishes and wants have to take second place to those of the baby.

Anyone who has ever cared for a newborn knows that.

Click to expand...

This has literally nothing to do with what I've said. I'm not talking about newborns.

theplaydrive said:

Legally speaking, does performing an abortion = killing?

Click to expand...

Seemingly in some states yes, depending on the weeks into the pregnancy

theplaydrive said:

1. Who said anything thing about beating/poisoning/burning?
2. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. Calling me pro-abortion is like calling you anti-women.
3. It actually is about the woman's right since the child is in her body.

Click to expand...

Who said that the woman's right to control her body trumps the child's right to live? It is a fact of nature that a fetus needs to grow within a living woman's womb. That this restricts the choice of the mother and her complete control over her body is tough luck; we all have our choices restricted by external circumstances. This doesn't mean the child must die to restore some dubious notion of the woman's total control over her body.

theplaydrive said:

What babies? Are you talking about fetuses who are aborted? Because if so, I'm pretty sure that's not how they do it.

Click to expand...

The article is about 3rd trimester abortions - some as late as 36 weeks. Those are viable babies - meaning, they could have been killed inside the womb, partially outside, or fully outside the woman's body. There is no "commonly accepted" practice this late in the term. One method essentially entails crushing the head for easier removal (while the body is mostly already delivered). Another, is to inject potassium chloride (one of 3 drugs administered in death penalty cases - the other 2 are given first because just giving potassium chloride by itself is deemed too painfully inhumane). Although, here's a detailed case involving someone who conducted at least hundreds of procedures basically slitting the throats of the child after birth.

theplaydrive said:

I'm actually not, but whatever you need to believe.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've argued that circumstances in the article only bothered you in relation to the mother's health. At 36 weeks a normal baby can live without the mother, so you believe that a baby, delivered early, can be ethically/morally killed. You're no longer arguing regarding fetus does not equal life. You're arguing that life can be extinguished because the bab's life is somehow owned by the mother. Meaning, a few weeks before it's "due" to almost a year after it's born, it should be able to be killed by the mother. If this is not true, then please distinguish the difference between a premature living baby removed from the womb and a 3 month old after birth. Reaching in and killing it so it comes out dead as opposed to pulling it out and killing it are the same thing.

theplaydrive said:

Sure, I think the best option is to take it out as I've said several times in this thread. However, the best option should not be the only opinion available. Oh and it is about the woman's right.

Click to expand...

I've never argued that if health concerns are on the table then choices may have to be made. But, nothing in the posted story leads us to believe there were any health concerns. Barring new information, the "other" options you reference don't exist. Kill the baby or don't kill the baby. It's likely that the health problems and injuries sustained by the mother were caused by attempting to kill the child while partially delivered. They could have protected the child's rights and the mother's both by delivering it alive instead of dead.

theplaydrive said:

Legally speaking, does performing an abortion = killing?

Click to expand...

No, I was just pointing out that your comatose example doesn't support what you said. I can't think of any situation where one group's rights are elevated over another's.

theplaydrive said:

1. Who said anything thing about beating/poisoning/burning?
2. I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. Calling me pro-abortion is like calling you anti-women.
3. It actually is about the woman's right since the child is in her body.

Click to expand...

Actually you are pro-abortion. See definition. Being pro-life IE against legalized abortion has nothing to do with hating women or being anti-women.

Proabortion | Define Proabortion at Dictionary.com
: favoring the legalization of abortion

That's just disgusting.

theplaydrive said:

That's just another way of saying the rights of a fetus are being elevated above the rights of an adult. You've just specified the rights. I'll specify them another way - the right of a potential person to exist over the right of an actual person to control their body. No matter how you phrase it - still dumb.

Click to expand...

So, according to your school of thought, someone who has "made it" has more rights than one who hasn't. For instance, a professor has more rights than a student. He made it already, the student is just potential. A manager has more rights than a manager in training. The manager made it, the other guy is just potential. A middle class man has more rights than a poor man. The middle class man made it, the poor man is just potential. What a, excuse my abruptness, stupid way to think.
I still don't agree with it, but, I can see where pro-choice people get their view on early term abortions. The argument there is when is life conceived and how we don't even know if the fetus is going to make it. However, with late term, I have no idea how anyone could endorse that. It is barbaric. These babies could actually live outside the womb at 21 weeks. It is very rare and would be a huge long shot I know, but, its possible. Anyone that can endorse late term abortion needs their head checked. Maybe they should go see one performed and see how they like it then.

MarineTpartier said:

So, according to your school of thought, someone who has "made it" has more rights than one who hasn't. For instance, a professor has more rights than a student. He made it already, the student is just potential. A manager has more rights than a manager in training. The manager made it, the other guy is just potential. A middle class man has more rights than a poor man. The middle class man made it, the poor man is just potential. What a, excuse my abruptness, stupid way to think.
I still don't agree with it, but, I can see where pro-choice people get their view on early term abortions. The argument there is when is life conceived and how we don't even know if the fetus is going to make it. However, with late term, I have no idea how anyone could endorse that. It is barbaric. These babies could actually live outside the womb at 21 weeks. It is very rare and would be a huge long shot I know, but, its possible. Anyone that can endorse late term abortion needs their head checked. Maybe they should go see one performed and see how they like it then.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you.
Abortion must end sometime soon, otherwise, we are a gone Country.

Amigo said:

I fully agree with you.
Abortion must end sometime soon, otherwise, we are a gone Country.

Click to expand...

That's not at all realistic. I don't see abortion ending anytime soon. Abortions have existed throughout the whole of human history, and they're not about to go away. What WILL happen is that this country - more specifically, the states - will go through pendulum swings of more restrictive laws and less restrictive abortion laws.

The only thing, in my opinion, that will end the abortion debate once and for all is if technology has advanced to the point where the question of unwanted pregnancy is moot (or else perhaps we can keep a zygote alive outside the uterus from the moment of fertilization).

StillBallin75 said:

That's not at all realistic. I don't see abortion ending anytime soon. Abortions have existed throughout the whole of human history, and they're not about to go away. What WILL happen is that this country - more specifically, the states - will go through pendulum swings of more restrictive laws and less restrictive abortion laws.

The only thing, in my opinion, that will end the abortion debate once and for all is if technology has advanced to the point where the question of unwanted pregnancy is moot (or else perhaps we can keep a zygote alive outside the uterus from the moment of fertilization).

Click to expand...

I mean in this Country, it must end.

I hope that tech NEVER comes out, because there is a better solution: Don't have Children unless you want Children, aka. Abstinence. :doh

Amigo said:

I mean in this Country, it must end.

I hope that tech NEVER comes out, because there is a better solution: Don't have Children unless you want Children, aka. Abstinence. :doh

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's simply not a realistic expectation.

Amigo said:

I mean in this Country, it must end.

I hope that tech NEVER comes out, because there is a better solution: Don't have Children unless you want Children, aka. Abstinence. :doh

Click to expand...

Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.

StillBallin75 said:

The only thing, in my opinion, that will end the abortion debate once and for all is if technology has advanced to the point [...] we can keep a zygote alive outside the uterus from the moment of fertilization.

Click to expand...

edited for clarity And yet you have indicated multiple times in this thread that the ability to keep it alive did not matter in your reasoning. After all, that's what this thread was about - babies that had the ability to live outside of the mother but were killed anyway.

MaggieD said:

Abstinence. Not e.v.e.r. going to happen.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe not intentionally.:shock:

theplaydrive said:

It actually does.


This has literally nothing to do with what I've said. I'm not talking about newborns.

Click to expand...

It actually doesn't. A fetus is not a part of a woman's body.
and it has everything to do with what you've been saying.

I have no problem with criminal prosecution in this instance. BUT BUT BUT...

The case tells where Republicans who want a law declaring "life begins at conception" leads. The Dr is being charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER. In most states that means either life without parole or the death penalty.

Over 40 million women have had abortions. To define "life begins at conception" is not a law, it is a legal definition clarification. There is no statute of limitations for murder. Upon the Republican and religious right obtaining that clarifying definition of law, 40+ million American women could be charged with 1st Degree Murder - as could their doctors. Probably, the Republicans would declare that for practical reasons they won't actually try to execute 40,000,000 women and thousands of doctors, they'll just declare them felons with probation (taking away the doctor's license of course), and thus also eliminate 40,000,000+ pro-choice and not-religious-right-wing and not Republican voters permanently as convicted felons of the offense of murder. Maybe for past cases they'll be "merciful" and only make it manslaughter.

It will only be lower income mostly minority teenage girls in the future they'll try to have executed or imprisoned for life without parole where they can then have babies from rape by the male guards.

Of course, they want to exempt upper income women who can merely travel to another country - because it is more likely upper income women will vote Republican and, of course, the anti-abortion laws would actually affect them or their daughters and grand-daughters. Wealthy Republicans get abortions. Poor Democrats are executed, imprisoned or minimally banned from ever voting again.

joko104 said:

I have no problem with criminal prosecution in this instance. BUT BUT BUT...

The case tells where Republicans who want a law declaring "life begins at conception" leads. The Dr is being charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER. In most states that means either life without parole or the death penalty.

Over 40 million women have had abortions. To define "life begins at conception" is not a law, it is a legal definition clarification. There is no statute of limitations for murder. Upon the Republican and religious right obtaining that clarifying definition of law, 40+ million American women could be charged with 1st Degree Murder - as could their doctors. Probably, the Republicans would declare that for practical reasons they won't actually try to execute 40,000,000 women and thousands of doctors, they'll just declare them felons with probation (taking away the doctor's license of course), and thus also eliminate 40,000,000+ pro-choice and not-religious-right-wing and not Republican voters permanently as convicted felons of the offense of murder. Maybe for past cases they'll be "merciful" and only make it manslaughter.

It will only be lower income mostly minority teenage girls in the future they'll try to have executed or imprisoned for life without parole where they can then have babies from rape by the male guards.

Of course, they want to exempt upper income women who can merely travel to another country - because it is more likely upper income women will vote Republican and, of course, the anti-abortion laws would actually affect them or their daughters and grand-daughters. Wealthy Republicans get abortions. Poor Democrats are executed, imprisoned or minimally banned from ever voting again.

Click to expand...

This is only about late term abortions, not all abortions. Your 40,000,000 figure is way off, and this has nothing to do with life beginning at conception. Your post belongs in another thread.

mpg said:

This is only about late term abortions, not all abortions. Your 40,000,000 figure is way off, and this has nothing to do with life beginning at conception. Your post belongs in another thread.

Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant at all. The topic is effectively "is destroying a fetus in the 3rd trimester 1st degree murder?" as opposed to some other offense? The law is giving the fetus fully human status. The "life beings at conception" folks want the MD law - but to change 3rd trimester to at conception.

A fetus is the same as a live-born child is step 1 of the 2 step process. First, declare a fetus is exactly the same as a person. The only thing left is to change at what point in pregnancy the abortion-is-1st-degree murder starts?

Legally declaring destroying a fetus is "murder" - as opposed to some other criminal offense if late term - is an anti-abortion versus pro-choice watershed issue.

My numbers are not off.

1/3rd of all women will have had an abortion by age 45. That ultimately puts the number at between 40 to 50 million women given half the population is female. Over half will have had an unwanted pregnancy. Over 75 million unwanted pregnancies. Do the math yourself. You do not have a reality view of women.

An Overview of Abortion in the United States

• Nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; four in 10 of these end in abortion.
• About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.
• Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.
• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000.
• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:
  • 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s;
  • 61% have one or more children;
  • 67% have never married;
  • 57% are economically disadvantaged;
  • 88% live in a metropolitan area; and
  • 78% report a religious affiliation.

joko104 said:

I have no problem with criminal prosecution in this instance. BUT BUT BUT...

The case tells where Republicans who want a law declaring "life begins at conception" leads. The Dr is being charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER. In most states that means either life without parole or the death penalty.

Over 40 million women have had abortions. To define "life begins at conception" is not a law, it is a legal definition clarification. There is no statute of limitations for murder. Upon the Republican and religious right obtaining that clarifying definition of law, 40+ million American women could be charged with 1st Degree Murder - as could their doctors. Probably, the Republicans would declare that for practical reasons they won't actually try to execute 40,000,000 women and thousands of doctors, they'll just declare them felons with probation (taking away the doctor's license of course), and thus also eliminate 40,000,000+ pro-choice and not-religious-right-wing and not Republican voters permanently as convicted felons of the offense of murder. Maybe for past cases they'll be "merciful" and only make it manslaughter.

It will only be lower income mostly minority teenage girls in the future they'll try to have executed or imprisoned for life without parole where they can then have babies from rape by the male guards.

Of course, they want to exempt upper income women who can merely travel to another country - because it is more likely upper income women will vote Republican and, of course, the anti-abortion laws would actually affect them or their daughters and grand-daughters. Wealthy Republicans get abortions. Poor Democrats are executed, imprisoned or minimally banned from ever voting again.

Click to expand...

So, you're of the "since it's a difficult topic, it's better not to address it" frame of mind? If it's wrong to kill a child who can live without the mother, then it's wrong - regardless of what's happening to all the children who can't live without the mother (fetus). Saying "but it's a slippery slope" is a cop out. If it's a slippery slope, go down the slope a little way and shovel out a place to stand. Does your toe hold only exist at the point that the child drops onto the floor? Or, maybe it's a few days after? You're not a politician, Joko (at least I don't think so), so what's wrong with just saying that certain behavior deserves to be punished.

Odd that they'd store the fetus's in a freezer. Sickos.

GreenvilleGrows said:

edited for clarity And yet you have indicated multiple times in this thread that the ability to keep it alive did not matter in your reasoning. After all, that's what this thread was about - babies that had the ability to live outside of the mother but were killed anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting this from, but I never said such a thing.