- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 44,019
- Reaction score
- 29,303
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What would be an example of that?
Not invading patient rooms that have patients in them.
What would be an example of that?
This is murder and not abortion. Killing a viable infant outside the womb us murder.
Do you not understand that legal early term abortion, and what this guy did us not the same?
My understanding was his abortions were late term abortions performed on women and fetuses with health issues.
I wouldn't call him a murderer.
Why are we debating if the baby was "swimming" or just moving around? Does it really make any difference what the baby was doing in the toilet?
The defense attorney for late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is on trial for murdering babies who survived abortions, told a Philadelphia court today that it is "ludicrous" to claim that "a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement."
“If we are going in this room to say a baby is born alive because it moves one time without any other movement, that is ludicrous,” defense attorney Jack McMahon said.
According to the grand jury report, Baby C was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”
Kareema Cross, who worked at the clinic, testified to the grand jury that the baby was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before Lynda Williams cut the back of its neck.
During her testimony [Williams] said cutting the necks of babies born alive during abortion procedures was "standard procedure" at Womens Medical Society, Gosnell’s abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, to "ensure fetal demise."
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart flip-flopped today on which babies late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell could be charged with murdering and which ones he could not.
On Tuesday, Minehart granted Gosnell an acquittal in the alleged murders of three of these babies--“Baby B,” “Baby C,” and “Baby G.”
But today, citing what he called a "clerical error," the judge switched Gosnell's acquittal in the murder of "Baby C" to an acquittal in the murder of "Baby F."
According to the grand jury report, "Baby C" was "moving and breathing for 20 minutes” before it was killed. "Baby F” jerked its leg before Gosnell severed his spinal cord, according to testimony.
Acquitting Gosnell for the alleged murdering of the wrong baby was “my error,” Judge Minehart said.
Minehart is still dropping the charges against Gosnell for the murder of three babies. But today they are the charges for the alleged murders of Baby B, Baby F and Baby G--not Baby B, Baby C and Baby G.
He also faces charges for third-degree murder in the death of a mother, infanticide, as well as conspiracy, abortion at 24 or more weeks, theft, corruption of minors, solicitation and other related offenses.
Steven Massoff, an unlicensed medical school graduate, testified to the grand jury that he was assisting Gosnell with an abortion of Baby F when he saw the baby’s leg “jerk and move.” It was estimated that the gestational age of Baby F was between 25 and 27 weeks (6 to 7 months old).
That charge is now dropped.
The other two charges thrown out include Baby Boy B, a 28-week-old male whose body was discovered at the clinic in the freezer during the raid in 2010, and Baby G, who Massoff testified exhibited “a respiratory excursion,” or breath before its neck was cut.
According to the Grand Jury Report on the case, Baby Boy B’s body “was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, [and] was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. … The 28-week fetus, a male (Baby Boy B) had a surgical incision on the back of the neck, which penetrated the first and second vertebrae.”
No. I
don't see any "obviously big difference". It's arbitrary line drawing that does nothing change the character or reality of what's in the womb.
Tracy Weitz, associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, explained: “When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.”
Dr. Weitz added that third-trimester abortions involve “euthanizing” the baby with a chemical injection, and then basically going through labor and delivery.
Here’s the [partial] transcript of Weitz’s response:
I think it’s important to recognize that this particular procedure is nowhere in the medical literature. When a procedure that usually involves the collapsing of the skull is done, it’s usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus, not when the fetus has been delivered.
Traditionally, when that procedure is done which involves the collapsing of the skull, it’s done at the junction between the later second trimester and the beginning of the third trimester — that’s around 24 weeks. It is not done at this significantly later period.
When inductions for delivery — that is, in the third trimester, when procedures are performed, when abortions are performed, they are usually done as inductions. That is, they look much more like a labor and delivery. And the fetus is traditionally euthanized before that procedure is initiated. Two drugs, either potassium chloride or digoxin, are used to make sure that the fetus is not living before the procedure is initiated.
This story -- which if nothing else suggests that live births do, in fact, happen during late-term abortions -- upsets a particular narrative about the reality of certain types of abortion, and that reality isn’t something some pro-choice absolutists want to discuss.
This has disturbing implications for late-term abortions. It suggests that sometimes those fetuses are delivered alive. Worse, it hints at what we might be doing inside the womb to ensure that the other ones aren't.
Then you haven't read the evidence and are unfamiliar with the history and the court case.
I think she was referring to G tiller, because I did a double take when I first read it as well. But it was a response to a remark about tiller
The
only reason they were out of the womb is because he induced them. If he had cut them apart while in the womb and took them out in pieces, would that be better?
The only
difference is that there's a law permitting early term abortion and a law against what Gosnell did. The difference isn't the definition of "life".
That would actually be considered an abortion. Late term abortion isn't legal in most cases, so even if he did that he would be committing a crime unless the abortions were for health reasons.
The definition of life says life begins at fertilization.
The definition of pregnancy says pregnancy begins at implantation.
If you really want to protect life that early and before the moment of pregnancy, then have fun trying to ban birth control.
I am not pro life because its not practical, I feel the position lacks empathy, and because it mainly puts the life of the unborn over the safety of the woman by making the issue about nothing more than protecting unborn life.
I care
about human life period. Stop going back to the same stupid arguments.
I'm
sorry, SheWolf. These distinctions that make all the difference to you just don't make any sense to me. I have a friend who's 36 weeks pregnant. If he (screw calling him an "it" or a fetus, it is a he) was born today, he'd likely be fine. I just cannot imagine her telling me she wants to abort the pregnancy and me being, "well as long as he stays in the womb while it's done, it somehow completely changes what he is".
You're
being inconsistent. If the unborn life is not worth protecting why do you say you oppose late term abortion?
I am personally pro life and against abortion in many cases. I see nothing wrong with protecting unborn life as you say. However, I don't think outlawing abortion and charging women with murder will have the best outcomes, nor is it the proper path to go down as a society.
There still is a huge difference between late term and early term abortion. Much like there is a big difference between killing somebody by shooting them in the head versus turning a life support system off.
Once a fetus is fully developed or becomes viable, then its not on biological life support and it can sustain its own life outside of the womb.
Furthermore, abortion procedures vary differently between late and full term abortions. A newly implanted zygote and early stage embryos, for example, won't survive if they are detached from the uterine wall. A fertilized egg dies if it never attaches.
That's extremely different from cutting a fully formed fetus apart in the womb and collapsing it's skull.
I was talking about protecting the lives and safety of women. Your comment makes no sense to me.
There's some truth to this. By the same token, the abortion rights crowd tend to talk abortion as if every pregnancy was a result of rape and that every abortion occurs within a few days of conception.
I can explain it to you
In order to maintain their sanctimonious sense of being morally superior, the abortion banners have to dishonestly misrepresent and lie about the people who support the rights of women to have abortions.
No. I don't see any "obviously big difference". It's arbitrary line drawing that does nothing change the character or reality of what's in the womb.
The only arbitrary line being drawn is by the "life begins at the moment of conception" crowd