• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"The House of Horrors" Gosnell case

Vote:


  • Total voters
    29
Show me it is.

I want to know how many abortion clinics like Gosnell's have gone without inspection for years like his did. Don't you want to make sure they're all inspected to make sure this isn't happening elsewhere?
 
And every woman has the right to take an unborn childs life. So you're wrong about that too.

Yes, I know they do. I said that. And it sickens me that you can say that so nonchalantly.
 
I want to know how many abortion clinics like Gosnell's have gone without inspection for years like his did. Don't you want to make sure they're all inspected to make sure this isn't happening elsewhere?
When an Oklahoma dental clinic was found to be exposing patients to AIDS and Hepatitis, did you suddenly become concerned with all the dentist offices that "have gone without inspections for years"? Or did you, like a rational person, realize that what happens in one dentist's office doesn't automatically reflect on every dentist office in the country?
 
I want to know how many abortion clinics like Gosnell's have gone without inspection for years like his did. Don't you want to make sure they're all inspected to make sure this isn't happening elsewhere?

So you want a national witch hunt based on what was Philadelphia's failure to check up on the sanitary state of abortion clinics? Nonsense. First:

1. Show that there is a large number of clinics who haven't been inspected.
2. Then ask for them to be inspected.
3. Show that there is a large number of illegal abortions taking place.

If you can't show #1 - all of which is public record - then no - I don't really care for your national witch hunt. Let's start simple, let Philadelphia conduct an inspection of it's abortion clinics, if a sizeable percentage are found to be conducting illegal abortions - then maybe I'll side on the need for a national witch hunt.

However, even if we start one, an un-inspected abortion facility does not equate to illegal abortions or unsanitary conditions. Even if they're all inspected and say 5% of them haven't been inspected in 10 years, what does that have to do with illegal abortions or unsanitary conditions? Non inspection can be due to budget cuts or simple bureaucratic mismanagement. It says nothing about illegality or the uncleanliness of a place.
 
Last edited:
So you want a national witch hunt based on what was Philadelphia's failure to check up on the sanitary state of abortion clinics? Nonsense. First:

1. Show that there is a large number of clinics who haven't been inspected.
2. Then ask for them to be inspected.

If you can't show #1 - all of which is public record - then no - I don't really care for your national witch hunt.

It's not a "witch hunt" to do inspections that are already on the books. Gosnell's clinic obviously wasn't being inspected for years on end and no one knew it. How did that happen? It needs to be looked in to. If any clinics aren't being inspected, they need to be immediately. Agreed?
 
When an Oklahoma dental clinic was found to be exposing patients to AIDS and Hepatitis, did you suddenly become concerned with all the dentist offices that "have gone without inspections for years"? Or did you, like a rational person, realize that what happens in one dentist's office doesn't automatically reflect on every dentist office in the country?

Wouldn't you be concerned with any sort of medical practice that hadn't been inspected in years? Would you want to eat at a restaurant that hadn't had an inspection from the Health Department in years? Ew.
 
Thanks Gina, don't know where I got the idea I can see your location listed. But it doesn't negate my other comments. Tiller did indeed do partial birth abortion. He used the foreceps through the crown method.

You are confusing a regular D and E which is legal with intact D and E which was banned.

Forceps through the crown is a regular D and E and is legal.

Intact D and E is type of abortion which is often referred to as partial birth abortion.

In that type of abortion the fetus is removed with head intact.

Now that intact D and E has been banned the skull of a fetus past 20 weeks gestation is crushed during a legal abortion so it can fit through the non dilated cervix.
 
You are confusing a regular D and E which is legal with intact D and E which was banned.

Forceps through the crown is a regular D and E and is legal.

Intact D and E is type of abortion which is often referred to as partial birth abortion.

In that type of abortion the fetus is removed with head intact.

Now that intact D and E has been banned the skull of a fetus past 20 weeks gestation is crushed during and abortion so it can fit through the non dilated cervix.

How can that NOT make you cringe?
 
Wouldn't you be concerned with any sort of medical practice that hadn't been inspected in years? Would you want to eat at a restaurant that hadn't had an inspection from the Health Department in years? Ew.
You're evading the question.

When an Oklahoma dental clinic was found to be exposing patients to AIDS and Hepatitis, did you suddenly become concerned with all the dentist offices that "have gone without inspections for years"? Or did you, like a rational person, realize that what happens in one dentist's office doesn't automatically reflect on every dentist office in the country?
 
How can that NOT make you cringe?

My dad and my brother both had MCAB's. The cut their rib cage right through the middle and opened them up like a filleted fish. During the operation, the doctors stopped their hearts for a short time.

Many years ago, there was a show that televised operations on TV. I remember watching a knee replacement operation. They took an electric saw and cut the bone most of the way through. To complete the break, he put the leg on top of a tube and pushed down with both his arms, with all of his strength, on either side.

I once had a cyst just below my left ear. To remove it, the doctor cut a slice in the side of my face, and pulled half of my face up and then cut it out. I was conscious, and could see my left cheek stretched out to the side of my nose. Then, he burned off a small growth I had just below my nostril. I could smell the burning flesh.

Doctors do cringe-worthy things all the time. It doesn't make it immoral.
 
Stop playing these games, in no way what this guy did give any credence to an argument for making abortion illegal. Because he wasn't preforming abortions, he was murdering children, and no pro-choice person is for that, obviously, and to suggest otherwise is just silly.

Try this bastard, and give him the worst possible punishment, and anyone who helped him as well.
They're not people, they're cells. Get over it.

I think anytime roadblocks are put in place in order to stop women from having abortions, the dynamics are put in place to create more "Gosnells." These roadblocks include closing down clinics, wait times and sonograms. There will always be an enterprising person willing to forgo those restrictions.

It's like when you outlaw rape, and therefore the rapist ends up killing the woman to avoid prosecution. We should legalize rape, just like abortion for this reason.

Sure, rape is unfortunate, but it's more important to be practical than to be ethical.
 
How can that NOT make you cringe?

I do feel bad that women who have late term abortions because of the extreme cases can no longer have an intact D and E .

If the fetus died a natural death in the womb or would have had a medical problem that would have caused it be stillborn or only live a few minutes or hours Doctors who performed legal late term abortion used to be able to abort and deliver the fetus still intact so the woman and her family could spend a few minutes with the intact body and mourn.

Since the partial birth ban that is no longer possible.
----------------------------------
Kansas was one of a small handful of states that allowed legal late term abortions in 2008
Dr. Tiller ( he was killed a few years later ) was only only one of 5 Doctors who performed legal term abortions in the US in 2008 .
Many OB/GYNs from all over the US whose patients had extreme case pregnancies sent their patients to Dr. tiller.

The extreme cases were the cases where the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus had died a natural death in the womb ( yes, when a doctor removes a dead fetus and the fetal material from the womb it is still called an abortion and those abortions are included in the abortion stats ) where the fetus would be stillborn or would be so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.

Kansas recorded all the legal abortion that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation in 2008.

There were 323 late term (22 weeks gestation or after ) abortions and many had come from out of state.

192 of those abortions were because the fetus was not viable.
The fetus had died in the womb or would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours.
Theses fetuses were NOT viable. They would never live.

The other 131 abortions took place because the woman would have irrepairable damage to a major bodily function would have taken place if the pregnancy had continued.

They were extreme cases.
 
It's not a "witch hunt" to do inspections that are already on the books. Gosnell's clinic obviously wasn't being inspected for years on end and no one knew it. How did that happen? It needs to be looked in to. If any clinics aren't being inspected, they need to be immediately. Agreed?

Of course it is because you're hunting for a non-existent epidemic of illegal abortions. :shrug:
 
It's not a "witch hunt" to do inspections that are already on the books. Gosnell's clinic obviously wasn't being inspected for years on end and no one knew it. How did that happen? It needs to be looked in to. If any clinics aren't being inspected, they need to be immediately. Agreed?

What would that have to do with Gosnell not being the norm? :Shrug: - Again, witch hunt. It's the 1980s child molestation epidemic all over again. You're making the case that they should be checked so cases like Gosnell's aren't the norm, however, there is nothing to suggest that they are the norm or even close. If anything, everything suggests Gosnell is an anomaly and there is no reason to conduct a witch hunt and start checking every abortion clinic to avoid the slightest of health violations that would happen even in major privately hospitals.

You are conducting a witch hunt and pretending it's a genuine concern. Forgive me if I don't buy into it. :Shrug:
 
Well, when you skew definitions to try to demonize your opponent in a blunt attempt to control the debate, your credibility is going to be the first thing to go.

Wanting people to use words correctly is a prerequisite for communication. You're not a demon if you can't use words correctly, you're just demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the thing you apparently want to talk about, and that doesn't help you make an argument very well.

Anti-abortion is certainly accurate enough, but not pro-abortion because it assumes that everyone who is pro-choice automatically advocates abortion. The grammatically correct term would be pro-abortion-rights.

No, that would be another inaccurate term. I would not use it. To use it would suggest that I agree with you that abortion is a right at all. Never was, isn't, will never be.
 
Again, the cheerleading I saw was from people who aren't on the forum anymore. Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it never happened.

No, none of my friends or family have had abortions (that I know of).

Could you please name them so I may see?

If you don't know anyone who's had an abortion, that they've told you about, then your opinion is based on hearsay. Don't mistake me, you are definitely welcome to have one, but not knowing someone as an example to know their circumstances and what they were facing were they to become a mother, might give you more insight.
 
I do. Several, actually.

And Gina, there is one "regular" in the Abortion forum who hasn't posted in the last several days who has referred to a fetus as "garbage" (as well as an invading parasite intent on draining the lifeforce from a woman, etc. Ugly stuff, no matter what your POV).

That does sound ugly nota bene. I was interested in viewing the discussion.
 
Wanting people to use words correctly is a prerequisite for communication. You're not a demon if you can't use words correctly, you're just demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the thing you apparently want to talk about, and that doesn't help you make an argument very well.



No, that would be another inaccurate term. I would not use it. To use it would suggest that I agree with you that abortion is a right at all. Never was, isn't, will never be.

Well you've got a bit of a conundrum there, don't you? To use "pro-abortion" is inaccurate because it assumes that everyone heretofore labeled "pro-choice" advocates abortion (obviously and demonstrably wrong), and pro-abortion-rights is accurate because it is a position in favor of its right, and just because you don't agree with a position is no basis for the naming of that position being inaccurate. But since it's still wrong for you what would you prefer as an alternative? [/I].
 
Last edited:
Well you've got a bit of a conundrum there, don't you?

Nope. I have the accurate terms already laid out, which I will continue to use: pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
 
Nope. I have the accurate terms already laid out, which I will continue to use: pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

You do realize though that if someone is pro in choice of abortion rights that "pro abortion" can't apply, since that position would automatically demand that someone would be in favor of abortion over any other choice?

Tell me you can see that.
 
Back
Top Bottom