Maybe this will change a mind [W:223, 278,342, 805]

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

He was convicted of murder.

Are their any folks on the pro-choice side that believe people like Gosnell are not murderers?

If the an abortion takes place and the baby survives, it would become subject to the same rules any parent faces with a newborn. Parents of superpreemies make the decision to attempt to resuscitate or go to DNR or comfort care every day. DNR and comfort care is not murder. Killing the baby is not comfort care or DNR.

This gets brought up frequently. I ask every time for the poster who bring these cases up to find pro-choicers who agree with doctors murdering babies after failed abortion.

My guess is that you will find more prolifers that think murdering doctors who perform abortion or threaten to bomb abortion clinics acceptable than you will find prochoicers that agree with murdering babies after abortion. But that is just a guess.

The entire intent of my post went right over your head.

I was simply responding to Scrabaholic calling out another poster, demanding he give an example of an infant being torn apart. I did just that. I never said it was rampant, frequent, occasional or even rare - I simply pointed out it exists. I went on to say nothing is gained by playing semantic games and parsing language rather than dealing with the content of themes and thoughts.

It's a shame you misread my point entirely and dove right into the normal attack/defense posturing so tiresome in these abortion threads.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

He was convicted of murder.

Are their any folks on the pro-choice side that believe people like Gosnell are not murderers?

If the an abortion takes place and the baby survives, it would become subject to the same rules any parent faces with a newborn. Parents of superpreemies make the decision to attempt to resuscitate or go to DNR or comfort care every day. DNR and comfort care is not murder. Killing the baby is not comfort care or DNR.

This gets brought up frequently. I ask every time for the poster who bring these cases up to find pro-choicers who agree with doctors murdering babies after failed abortion.

My guess is that you will find more prolifers that think murdering doctors who perform abortion or threaten to bomb abortion clinics acceptable than you will find prochoicers that agree with murdering babies after abortion. But that is just a guess.

EXACTLY, Y2L!

I can't understand why GOSNELL has become the STEREOTYPE for all abortion doctors. Pro-life Advocates love this guy for his evilness. HOWEVER...it's totally unnecessary to exemplify Gosnell's actions for any reason other than to speak directly about Gosnell being a murderous criminal. That is Gosnell claim to fame.

Actually, Gosnell''s actions really has nothing to do with the general discussions in the Abortion Forum. Threads in which Gosnell is brought up need to be posted in the LAW and ORDER FORUM.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

EXACTLY, Y2L!

I can't understand why GOSNELL has become the STEREOTYPE for all abortion doctors. Pro-life Advocates love this guy for his evilness. HOWEVER...it's totally unnecessary to exemplify Gosnell's actions for any reason other than to speak directly about Gosnell being a murderous criminal. That is Gosnell claim to fame.

Actually, Gosnell''s actions really has nothing to do with the general discussions in the Abortion Forum. Threads in which Gosnell is brought up need to be posted in the LAW and ORDER FORUM.

Another poster more interested in defending a posture than actually reading and responding to the post they're attacking.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Another poster more interested in defending a posture than actually reading and responding to the post they're attacking.

John, anytime I see Gosnell brought up...I find it to be nothing short of pro-life advocates wanting the imaginary of Gosnell's murderous, torturous, insane acts of atrocities to be associated with everyday abortions and the medical providers who practice in that field.

His actions are mutually exclusive from probably 99.9% of all other medical practitioners in the field.

There is a standing law called the Partial Abortion Birth Act of 2003. You might check it out.

 

[sangha]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Sangha, I just posted that it shouldn't. And yet you keep beating on me about it. WTF? Do you even read what I post?

I asked you if it should be legal, and you said "It should not"

The entire intent of my post went right over your head.

I was simply responding to Scrabaholic calling out another poster, demanding he give an example of an infant being torn apart.

The request was for an example of an infant being torn apart during an abortion, not after a live birth

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

John, anytime I see Gosnell brought up...I find it to be nothing short of pro-life advocates wanting the imaginary of Gosnell's murderous, torturous, insane acts of atrocities to be associated with everyday abortions and the medical providers who practice in that field.

His actions are mutually exclusive from probably 99.9% of all other medical practitioners in the field.

There is a standing law called the Partial Abortion Birth Act of 2003. You might check it out.

Well, your findings are wrong. And I don't need to check anything out - I wasn't making an abortion argument, for or against, I was responding to a challenge Scrabaholic made. You might want to check out what someone actually posts before you bring out the standard, irrelevant outrage and posturing talking points.

As for the "uniqueness" of Gosnell - you don't know any more than I do if it's unique or simply rare or worse and undiscovered. There isn't a government or justice agent in the room when every abortion is performed, so what's the basis for your 99.9% comment? Hell, I'd hope it was far better than that since there are millions of abortions every year and if 1 out of 1,000 is anything near what Gosnell was convicted of, that's an abomination.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I like you Peter. You make my job easier. You are a professional debater and what ever humanity you used to have is either totally gone, or very well hidden.

Just the way you seem to have cold hard statistics at your fingertips is very impressive. As if you know how to handle lesser debaters by rattling off a bunch of numbers and ignoring your own mind and heart. I almost never do (rattle off meaningless numbers) because I know that this will turn into a senseless "whose got better numbers" game. This debate is about senseless deaths. You know that better than probably anybody else because you have been debating long enough to know that. Except you don't dwell on that because you know that we know it too. I just got done answering a question about an appeal to emotion, which none of you seem to like, but your post attempts the same thing. Imagine that!

Come down off your high horse and be honest with yourself. Don't con me. You know that we are right. But you will never admit to it because you are too political. And I suspect that you probably must have taken an oath to defend abortion to your dying day. But remember this post when you revealed yourself to what you really are by hiding behind a made up identity of a grass roots concerned citizen, and not a politician.

And remember that the defense of abortion means to turn your back on the babies and their deaths seemingly mean nothing to you.

abortion = death and you support abortion.

Ooh, I aim to please.

But my humanity is pretty much intact, I even used to run an self help group for recovering gambling addicts and I know a lot of Americans who would wholeheartedly disagree with you "whatever humanity you used to have is either totally gone, or very well hidden".

To discuss issues with people who often use irrational and incorrect comments (this is a general comment made to no-one in particular). And realizing what the facts and figures are focuses your ability to discuss on factual ground rather than illogical ones. You may think this is ignoring my own mind and heart but my posting here is evidence of heart and mind, my heart primarily goes out to women on whom people like you seem to wage a war on, at least when it comes to that woman's right to privacy and self determination.

This debate is about actual human rights, the rights of women all over the world and in the US and about interfering busybodies who want to interfere and stick their grubby little hands in women's private parts and rights.

I am very honest, I could not be any more honest and you may think need to come off my high horse, but then you do your best to get to an equal footing which does not trample all over the civil liberties and rights of American women.

Not your uterus, not your choice.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

The issue is that ZEF is an actual acronym, you may not like it but that does not change the fact that ZEF is a real acronym/abbreviation.

No in reality on planet Earth "ZEF" means nothing and confirms the absolute ignorance of anyone using it in earnest.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Since they care for others fetuses (feti?) more than born children, I would think they would embrace the term.

By all means, attempt to support this statement of abject retardation.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

...

Is it not also true that President Obama, when a State Senator in Illinois, approved of a measure that would allow for third trimester abortions that effectively killed a living "infant" by crushing their skull when an abortion resulted in a live birth unwanted by the mother? The measure failed to pass the Illinois legislature, but President Obama supported it.
...

I have no idea where you got those lies from but no it is not true.

Illinois had a born alive bill that required any born alive infant to receive life saving treatment.

There was a new bill that was proposed with different wording and then Senator Obama said he would not support that bill since Illinois already a bill requiring doctors to give life saving treatment to a born alive infant.

” The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ”Born Alive” Legislation

Here is the statement that was issued whe President Obama was a senator in Illinois

STATEMENT

“Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions.

But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.

There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.

What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions.

They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society
— a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat.

The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them.”

 

[year2late]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

EXACTLY, Y2L!

I can't understand why GOSNELL has become the STEREOTYPE for all abortion doctors. Pro-life Advocates love this guy for his evilness. HOWEVER...it's totally unnecessary to exemplify Gosnell's actions for any reason other than to speak directly about Gosnell being a murderous criminal. That is Gosnell claim to fame.

Actually, Gosnell''s actions really has nothing to do with the general discussions in the Abortion Forum. Threads in which Gosnell is brought up need to be posted in the LAW and ORDER FORUM.

I agree. The fact that his crimes seem to still be equated with legal abortion is rather odd.

I would be curious to know if in the case of a baby being born with a heartbeat after abortion (let us say at 19 weeks gestation) if the prolifers would insist on full care (attempt resuscitation) of that baby?

I just am curious if they realized there is a difference between DNR/comfort care and killing the baby. I think if they understood the vast difference, they would stop bringing up Gosnell.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Well, your findings are wrong. And I don't need to check anything out - I wasn't making an abortion argument, for or against, I was responding to a challenge Scrabaholic made. You might want to check out what someone actually posts before you bring out the standard, irrelevant outrage and posturing talking points.

As for the "uniqueness" of Gosnell - you don't know any more than I do if it's unique or simply rare or worse and undiscovered. There isn't a government or justice agent in the room when every abortion is performed, so what's the basis for your 99.9% comment? Hell, I'd hope it was far better than that since there are millions of abortions every year and if 1 out of 1,000 is anything near what Gosnell was convicted of, that's an abomination.

Ramfel made another (one of many) totally outrageous claims.

Quote Originally Posted by RamFel View Post
But fetuses are being pulled apart, and guess what? They pull human arms and human legs out. You can say all you want that a fetus is not a baby, but I say it isl

Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post

The claim was made that INFANTS are being pulled apart.

An infant -- under anybody's dictionary is a fully born child.

Your implication is clear, John -- regardless of the actual number of practitioners who has or will commit the atrocities that Gosnell did. IN THE UNITED STATES, there is no proof that Gosnell is anything other than an exception to the common practice with virtually all other clinics and medical providers. There was really no need to bring Gosnell into the discussion. Ramfel loves to use words like INFANTS, CHILDREN, etc being pulled apart during an abortion. Nonsense...and that is a pro-life advocate's fantasy, at best. Gosnell has become pro-life advocates poster boy to demonize all clinics and practitioners.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I have no idea where you got those lies from but no it is not true.

Illinois had a born alive bill that required any born alive infant to receive life saving treatment.

There was a new bill that was proposed with different wording and then Senator Obama said he would not support that bill since Illinois already a bill requiring doctors to give life saving treatment to a born alive infant.

” The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ”Born Alive” Legislation

Here is the statement that was issued whe President Obama was a senator in Illinois

The left seems to like the facts checking of the Washington Post, so I'll rely on it here.

Did Obama deny rights to infants who survive abortion? - The Washington Post

From my reading, it basically calls the President a liar as it relates to his revisionist stance on the legislation that made it's way through the Illinois legislature.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Your implication is clear, John

Yes, my implication is clear and yet it goes right over your head because it doesn't fit with the argument you dishonestly want to implicate me with.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

There is nothing special about Gosnell compared to his peers. He was scum who killed human beings for money, just like every other abortionist.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I asked you if it should be legal, and you said "It should not"

Err. Hmm. I revise my previous post which was in error. The intent was to assert that an abortion to save the mother's life should not be illegal.

Apologizes. Must have been late in the evening, that post.

The request was for an example of an infant being torn apart during an abortion, not after a live birth

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Yes, my implication is clear and yet it goes right over your head because it doesn't fit with the argument you dishonestly want to implicate me with.

John, it would have been truly fitting for your following comments to be made:

I think we all know where each of us resides on the abortion continuum, so it's really kind of pointless to play these semantic games when you know full well what the other poster means/meant.

All that said, I think it's unfortunate that this OP is in the abortion forum subjected to the usual ugliness that necessarily follows.

BUT - prior to making that comment you had to throw in the comments about Gosnell (just more ugliness)and then add insult to injury by chucking rocks at Obama and a Senator for some 3rd trimester claim -- when the above would have pretty much made your point without you doing the same thing that you accuse other posters of doing in this Forum.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

That said, is it not true that the abortionist in Philadelphia - I've forgotten his name, even though I can't forget he exists - was convicted, partially, for murdering new born infants by crushing their skulls and rending them for disposal when the "infant" had the misfortune of surviving an abortion?

That is not ripping them apart.

Is it not also true that President Obama, when a State Senator in Illinois, approved of a measure that would allow for third trimester abortions that effectively killed a living "infant" by crushing their skull when an abortion resulted in a live birth unwanted by the mother? The measure failed to pass the Illinois legislature, but President Obama supported it.

That is not ripping apart infants. There are no infants in uteruses. None.zero.zip.zilch.nada.

All that said, I think it's unfortunate that this OP is in the abortion forum subjected to the usual ugliness that necessarily follows.

Agreed.

 

[year2late]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I have no idea where you got those lies from but no it is not true.

Illinois had a born alive bill that required any born alive infant to receive life saving treatment.

There was a new bill that was proposed with different wording and then Senator Obama said he would not support that bill since Illinois already a bill requiring doctors to give life saving treatment to a born alive infant.

” The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ”Born Alive” Legislation

Here is the statement that was issued whe President Obama was a senator in Illinois

Minnie, if a 20 week gestation infant were born alive in that situation, would heroics be required?

A baby who is born tragically early with a heart beat at 20 weeks, the parents would be allowed to elect comfort measures only.

 

[year2late]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Err. Hmm. I revise my previous post which was in error. The intent was to assert that an abortion to save the mother's life should not be illegal.

Apologizes. Must have been late in the evening, that post.

Silent Scream - I remember that from when I was a teenager in the 1970s.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

The left seems to like the facts checking of the Washington Post, so I'll rely on it here.

Did Obama deny rights to infants who survive abortion? - The Washington Post

And the Washinton Post ignored the fact that Illionios already had a born alive law in place when the new legislation was put to a vote in the Illinois sentence.

Other states did not have the same law however, so yes , some
"born alive" infants were not given care.

That was why a Federal law worded like the Illinois law was impotant.
And Obama said he would have supported a born alive bill that was worded like the Illinois law.

Now there is a federal born alive bill and infants that are born alive after an abortion attemp are given care.
And I am glad the Federal law was passed because giving a born alive infant care is the humane thing to do.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Minnie, if a 20 week gestation infant were born alive in that situation, would heroics be required?

A baby who is born tragically early with a heart beat at 20 weeks, the parents would be allowed to elect comfort measures only.

Yes, comfort care is care for a non viable preemie.

In fact the survival rate is less than 10 percent for those born less than 23 weeks gestation and the major disabilities are so high for those who survive that most US hospitals only give comfort care to any preemie born less than 23 weeks gestation.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Listen to yourself. Re-read your own post and tell me that you really believe that utter nonsense.

Oh and by the way, an excellent appeal to emotion. I'm impressed.

I read my post regularly and I cannot see that I posted any nonsense here.

And my response was not meant to appeal to your emotion but to reality.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

I am not trying to steal anything, and I am NOT VERY impressed by how you try to use women in an attempted appeal to emotion.

How exactly is stating that you are trying to rob women of a civil and constitutional right "an attempted appeal to emotion". My response is one aimed reason and respect for women, not emotion.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Maybe this will change a mind

Maybe not, but everything has a beginning.

And for the rest of America and the world to make an end to that beginning (if there ever was a beginning to begin with).