• 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!

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

That's actually the stance of many pro-choicers. He calls it a "moral consequence", I call it personhood. Same principal though. Exactly the same, actually.

1. I'm not sure that you and I have ever debated the abortion issue. I am relating my experiences with Steen, Granny, and 1069.

2. Jallman specifically stated he does not care about personhood.

3. Do you agree that once a "fetus" is able to feel pain abortions should be criminalized?
 
And? If the development is arrested before the fetus reaches the capacity for suffering, and more specifically spatial awareness, then what's the difference between the deaths of those cheek cells and the death of the fetus?

The cheek cells don't care. The fetus doesn't care. Neither of them can have a care. What is the moral obligation to either one since they are both in the same category of awareness and our ability to feel empathy for either is limited only to imagination of what one or the other might be?

You can be killed without having an awareness that you are dying. You can die without suffering a lick.

The differences between a dead cheek cell and a dead human organism are substantial.

I'm sure a full term infant could be killed without suffering, without awareness, without ever showing signs of caring about what was happening depending on the method used.

Sure, avoiding human suffering is most definitely a moral obligation. But killing can be done quietly without any suffering and we still don't consider that ok. The moral obligation is to not take a human life. You have a moral obligation to not kill another without just cause. Their awareness, their intelligence, their suffering, has nothing to do with the moral obligation not to kill. Sure it would be more heinous to be a butcher who engaged in hours of torture before taking a life but taking a life is taking a life regardless of how it is done. A cheek cell is not a life.
 
2. Jallman specifically stated he does not care about personhood.
Yes, he says that. But his requirements for "drawing the line" are identical to those of us that say the line is "personhood". Identical. He just calls it by a different name.

3. Do you agree that once a "fetus" is able to feel pain abortions should be criminalized?
Once a fetus is viable. Once it is capable of living independent from its host body. (which require a functional CNS)
 
Yes, he says that. But his requirements for "drawing the line" are identical to those of us that say the line is "personhood". Identical. He just calls it by a different name.


Once a fetus is viable. Once it is capable of living independent from its host body. (which require a functional CNS)

I don't think this is quite true. I think if it were scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to Jallman tomorrow that a 2 week gestational age fetus in the womb had the capacity to think and feel he'd be anti-abortion.
 
I don't think this is quite true. I think if it were scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to Jallman tomorrow that a 2 week gestational age fetus in the womb had the capacity to think and feel he'd be anti-abortion.

I certainly would draw the line right there. It's not even proven to me that 21 weeks is the exact line, but it is the most plausible and humane demarcation. I prefer to see the cut-off at 18 weeks just to err on the side of caution.
 
It always amazes me how prochoicers respond to various scenarios. I think the thing that gets me the most is that the response isn't generally tied to the actual human that was killed but the circumstances surrounding it.

Babies birthed into toilets and drowned provokes one response, abortions at 23 weeks provoke an entirely different one, and a born baby at 23 weeks tossed into a bag and suffocated will produce an even different response in many folks.

Let's say the gal went in and had an abortion at 23 weeks gestational age. A non-botched abortion. Is that better/worse/ or the way I see it THE EXACT SAME THING as dumping the born 23 week old in a bag?

Can someone explain it to me?

To me, all three scenarios are exactly the same.
 
To me, all three scenarios are exactly the same.

Yeah I think so too. The only slight differences might be in the amount of suffering. If a successful abortion caused that human more physical pain then suffocation in a bag then one would be a tad more heinous than the other. But if you think about how most late term abortions are done there's a solid chance that suffocating in a bag would be more merciful than collapsing a skull - pain wise.
 
Yeah I think so too. The only slight differences might be in the amount of suffering. If a successful abortion caused that human more physical pain then suffocation in a bag then one would be a tad more heinous than the other. But if you think about how most late term abortions are done there's a solid chance that suffocating in a bag would be more merciful than collapsing a skull - pain wise.

The pain aside...you have a being that is aware of both itself, the space around it, and what is being done to it. I don't have any belief in the idea that a life can be snuffed out without some awareness if the life has reached a point of development where it has ever been aware of itself. There is a moral consequence once life is coupled with awareness and desire.

"I think, therefore I am" actually means something.
 
Is there anyone who does not see this as murder?
It's an abortion, isn't that killing? Botching it doesn't make it worse, does it? Of course liberals will let us know what the nuances are, so let us sit patiently and wait.
 
I don't think this is quite true. I think if it were scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to Jallman tomorrow that a 2 week gestational age fetus in the womb had the capacity to think and feel he'd be anti-abortion.

As would I. Since that would make them a person.
 
It always amazes me how prochoicers respond to various scenarios. I think the thing that gets me the most is that the response isn't generally tied to the actual human that was killed but the circumstances surrounding it.

Babies birthed into toilets and drowned provokes one response, abortions at 23 weeks provoke an entirely different one, and a born baby at 23 weeks tossed into a bag and suffocated will produce an even different response in many folks.

Let's say the gal went in and had an abortion at 23 weeks gestational age. A non-botched abortion. Is that better/worse/ or the way I see it THE EXACT SAME THING as dumping the born 23 week old in a bag?

Can someone explain it to me?

23 weeks is 23 weeks. Makes no difference how it was done. What matters is whether or not the fetus has a functioning CNS to allow them to think and feel and be self-aware. Sentient. Viable. Able to live independent of a host body. As I understand it, at 23 weeks they CAN have all of the above.
 
Not that I agree with any of this, but it's the first logically consistent position I've ever heard coming from a pro-choicer. It has somewhere to go except in a never-ending circle of semantics and deflection. Bravo, Jall, bravo...

If this is the first time you've heard that argument then you obviously haven't been listening, that or you intentionally debate the most extreme fringe in order to prevent any real discussion from occurring.
 
23 weeks is 23 weeks. Makes no difference how it was done. What matters is whether or not the fetus has a functioning CNS to allow them to think and feel and be self-aware. Sentient. Viable. Able to live independent of a host body. As I understand it, at 23 weeks they CAN have all of the above.

River Rat...correct sir. I took care of 23 week prematures infants. They ended up becomeing babies. Its murder at anything beyond a few days . What ...9 weeks fingers ,toes ,movement,eye buds,(not 20/20 vision but eye buds), heads ,arms, legs, I`d have trouble killing even an abortionist with that many elements of humanity, even though the abortionist doesn`t have a heart. A lot of emotion is flying around these days because of this botched abortion. Reality check: Go to your local abortion mill on a saturday morning.Take a cab because parking lots are all full,...the dumpsters are too,at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is how this is an abortion when the baby was born. That's the deciding factor for me. If a fetus never fully materializes into a baby (and is never born), yet stays in the mother and leaches off her body for years, is it ethical to remove the cells, which only serve to provide discomfort to the "mother"?

It's a collection of cells with human DNA that are not completely identical to the host (mother). It follows a differentiation path, yet probably never develops a properly functioning CNS. It "feeds" off the mother like a baby would, but never becomes one. It is never born. It essentially serves no purpose. Is that murder to remove it? Is it murder to remove a parasitic twin?

As far as I stand in abortion, you can't have an abortion if a baby is born. So while the headline reads "botched abortion," it should read "clinic owner kills infant" and should have no bearing on the abortion debate. Not like it should ANYWAY. Even if it was a "botched abortion," why should those against abortion use such a strawman? "Let's not only use an emotionally charged subject, but one that was a result of a mistake and/or ignorant individual."
 
If this is the first time you've heard that argument then you obviously haven't been listening, that or you intentionally debate the most extreme fringe in order to prevent any real discussion from occurring.

No, I've been listening quite intently for some time. Mostly I just hear things about "parasites" or that a right to life is nonexistent or superseded by freedom of choice, you know, silly things that make no sense whatsoever.

Not one pro-choice proponent I've engaged in a debate has made mention of cut-off periods involving viability or the ability to feel pain. Not saying they don't exist, only that I've yet to hear an argument from them, however, Jallman has rectified this disparity, hence my congratulations.
 
What if the abortion was performed perfectly? Clearly that wouldn't be 1st degree murder yet the only thing that changes in the two scenarios is the location of the organism in question.

In my opinion 23 weeks into the pregnancy is WAY too late to perform an abortion period, much less if the birth has already happened.

Seriously to try to spin this as a reason to ban all abortions rather than looking at this extreme instance and prosecute it accordingly just makes your argument look weak. A strong argument wouldn't have to rely on knee-jerk reactions this.
 
Once a fetus is viable. Once it is capable of living independent from its host body. (which require a functional CNS)

Why people have difficulty understanding this argument is beyond me. I guess you have to be patient with some people.
 
It's an abortion, isn't that killing? Botching it doesn't make it worse, does it? Of course liberals will let us know what the nuances are, so let us sit patiently and wait.

So basically what you are saying is that you have no interest in understanding the details of the topic and would rather smugly sit and wait confident in your own infallibility? Is it any wonder why people don't jump at the chance to join your side of this debate?
 
So basically what you are saying is that you have no interest in understanding the details of the topic and would rather smugly sit and wait confident in your own infallibility? Is it any wonder why people don't jump at the chance to join your side of this debate?

I don't have an interest in the "details." The "details" appear to me to be just semantics games to kill babies because they're non-viable (according to some arbitrary measure), they're simply a sack of cells not possessing human qualities or dignity, they lack desire, or some other nonsense to excuse not protecting them.

We have people like Obama that have no problem with babies born after an unsuccessful abortion to be stuck in a closet to die. We have people like jall that think, just as I knew he did, that babies are simply sacks of cells to be done with whatever is convenient for ourselves. We have people that create arbitrary viability standards to draw irrelevant distinctions between a fetus and a baby as though a fetus is something other than a human being in a natural stage of evolution. We have others still who rely on the details to argue that babies are just parasites without any human qualities at all.

It's disgusting. It's pathetic.

As it is often...the devil is, indeed, in the details.
 
In my opinion 23 weeks into the pregnancy is WAY too late to perform an abortion period, much less if the birth has already happened.

Seriously to try to spin this as a reason to ban all abortions rather than looking at this extreme instance and prosecute it accordingly just makes your argument look weak. A strong argument wouldn't have to rely on knee-jerk reactions this.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. There are abortion providers out there who specialize in later term abortions. They're completely legal. Folks don't seem to take an issue with that. I just find it curious and interesting that this Dr. is painted as a heinous monster for putting the born infant in a bag yet had he done the abortion correctly -killing it in the womb- there are many folks who wouldn't be nearly as outraged.

Since the intent of the drs. appointment was to end that human's life and that human life was ended I guess I just fail to see the hysteria. It's not even really newsworthy outside of the shock value it seems to have.

People in this thread are calling for murder charges and the dr. in question may very well face some type of homicide charge. In my mind -given the laws- that's frankly absurd. His JOB was to end the life of that human and the humans location at the time of death seems rather irrelevant in the scope of things.
 
It's not a knee jerk reaction. There are abortion providers out there who specialize in later term abortions. They're completely legal. Folks don't seem to take an issue with that.

Like who?

I just find it curious and interesting that this Dr. is painted as a heinous monster for putting the born infant in a bag yet had he done the abortion correctly -killing it in the womb- there are many folks who wouldn't be nearly as outraged.

Such is the disgusting thinking among the pro-abortionists.

Since the intent of the drs. appointment was to end that human's life and that human life was ended I guess I just fail to see the hysteria. It's not even really newsworthy outside of the shock value it seems to have.

I don't see any hysteria. It's outrage toward the treatment of a born baby, The baby was born.

People in this thread are calling for murder charges and the dr. in question may very well face some type of homicide charge. In my mind -given the laws- that's frankly absurd. His JOB was to end the life of that human and the humans location at the time of death seems rather irrelevant in the scope of things.

Right, 'cuz the important fact here is the mere location of the death. Killing a baby in the womb is perfectly right and sensible, but outside of the womb it becomes a moral outrage.

What retarded thinking people must hold tightly to justify their completely absurd arguments about abortion. :roll:
 
I read they revoked his license today. He can no longer practice any medicine in the state of Florida. I don't consider what he was doing as practicing medicine anyway.

But still, he lost his license. The amazing part is though if you read through the questions he was asked by the state board it appears he lost his license for

1) Not being at the clinic in time and not having a licensed provider available in his place

2)outdated abortion equipment

Those from what I can gather are the MAIN reasons that he lost license. Not cause a born human was tossed in bio hazard bag. In fact that tidbit is hardly mentioned at all.

It's a mad mad world. But you know I guess it makes sense. It would be hypocritical of the state board in Fla to make a fuss over killing a human at 23 weeks gestation when the guy had a license to kill humans at 23 weeks gestation.
 
For those who simply don't get why their attempt to make this an abortion issue is see-through :

NOT A Baby :

embryo-cells.jpg


23 week baby :

foetusDM0302_468x639.jpg


FFS.
 
For those who simply don't get why their attempt to make this an abortion issue is see-through :

NOT A Baby :

embryo-cells.jpg


23 week baby :

foetusDM0302_468x639.jpg


FFS.
How is it NOT an abortion issue when the dr. involved had a legal license to kill both gestational ages?

It is an abortion issue.

The dr. didn't get in trouble for killing a 23 week old. He got in trouble for not properly staffing a clinic that is licensed to kill 23 week olds.
 
Back
Top Bottom