• 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!

Baby Abortion Survivor Was "Swimming" In Toilet "Trying To Get Out"

SheWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is what I have been saying. This guy committed murder and is charged with three of them, as well as the death of one woman. But that he murdered many more than these three is being investigated, and the evidence strongly suggests there are more. There is more news coming out all the time.

?He Left An Arm And A Leg Inside Me?- PA Abortion Horror Highlights Need For Greater Oversight

Have you read yet about his involvement with the Super Coil??
 
SheWolf said:
My understanding was his abortions were late term abortions performed on women and fetuses with health issues.

I wouldn't call him a murderer.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't read the evidence and are unfamiliar with the history and the court case.
 
Josie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes it does. If the baby wasn't doing the butterfly then the whole thing is clearly false.
 
april 23

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.
Click to expand...

well, he should know

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."
Click to expand...

Gosnell's Attorney: 'Ludicrous' 'To Say a Baby is Born Alive Because It Moves One Time' | CNS News
 
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.”
Click to expand...

Flip Flop: Murder Charge Back for 'Breathing' Baby, Dropped for 'Jerk and Move' Baby | CNS News

if the baby is not living why slit his neck?
 
also thrown out by his honor: 5 counts of mutilating a corpse (by chopping off its feet to collect in jars)
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

the reality of what's in the womb can be a fertilized egg to baby on its way out of the birth canal. It could involve anything from a healthy baby, to a molar pregnancy, fatal deformities, to somethung no longer living.


There is are obvious differences that cannot be ignored or denied. Your position is one that denies such differences for some reason, be it ideological convenience, lack of information and knowledge in, a radical position or something.


I don't understand why you can't hold the same beliefs whilst acknowledging everything involved.
 
april 17

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.
Click to expand...

'The collapsing of the skull' is usually done when the fetus is still in the uterus | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
april 14 or thereabouts

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.
Click to expand...

Why Is the Press Ignoring the Kermit Gosnell Story? - Bloomberg

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.
Click to expand...

Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial--And Why I Should Have - The Daily Beast

why won't barack obama come out against scissors?

why had the executive editor of the washington post never heard of kermit barron gosnell until after kirsten powers appeared in usatoday?
 
Grant said:
Then you haven't read the evidence and are unfamiliar with the history and the court case.
Click to expand...

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
 
X Factor said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Josie said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're being inconsistent. If the unborn life is not worth protecting why do you say you oppose late term abortion?
 
Josie said:
I care
about human life period. Stop going back to the same stupid arguments.
Click to expand...

And yet you said that abortion is more about the unborn life.

Maybe you meant to say that only unborn life matters in abortion, and not the woman's identity or emotions.
 
X Factor said:
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".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be ok with that either. And its not legally acceptable unless her life is in danger.

In fact, I think 36 weeks is beyond the legal time frame to obtain a late term abortion in most states.
 
X Factor said:
You're
being inconsistent. If the unborn life is not worth protecting why do you say you oppose late term abortion?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for explaining. I would just point out that a baby at 26 weeks would still need life some support measures. I know because my friend was in danger of an early delivery and I've actually taken her to some of her appointments.
 
SheWolf said:
I was talking about protecting the lives and safety of women. Your comment makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't but your lie combined with Josie's (who said the exact opposite of what you said) proves that the abortion banners constantly lies about the pro-choice position
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your last 10 or so posts have been along the lines of bashing pro lifers while being completely void of any substance.
 
X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only arbitrary line being drawn is by the "life begins at the moment of conception" crowd
 
sangha said:
The only arbitrary line being drawn is by the "life begins at the moment of conception" crowd
Click to expand...

That's a lot less arbitrary than saying it's not a baby in the first trimester, it kinda sorta starts being baby-like in the second trimester and it is a baby in the third (unless it has physical problems).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom