• 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!

......Kermit Gosnell guilty of murder in 3 infants’ deaths

Rocketman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
5,660
Reaction score
1,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A jury has found abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty of three counts of first-degree murder after deliberating for 10 days on the case.

Prosecutors are expected to now seek the death penalty for Gosnell.

Kermit Gosnell guilty of murder in 3 infants
 
Thank God. Now we need to prosecute these other doctors that have been exposed by undercover operations.
 
The sad part is that if the mother had not died, nobody would have taken a second look at this place and he would still be murdering babies.
 
Thank God. Now we need to prosecute these other doctors that have been exposed by undercover operations.

Which other doctors? Any other houses of horror found? Please bring up the links. :)
 
As demonstrated by Obama, and Planned Parenthood, and pro-choice philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva In the Journal of Medical Ethics , it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside-of and detached-from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

It's good to see pro-choice finally held to some kind of a standard.

No question that Gosnell is a nightmare, but his case doesn't challenge the necessity of legal abortion.
 
No question that Gosnell is a nightmare, but his case doesn't challenge the necessity of legal abortion.

Exactly what is the need of an abortion for convenience?
 
No question that Gosnell is a nightmare, but his case doesn't challenge the necessity of legal abortion.
Necessity only composes 2-3% of all abortions, ie abortion where there is a medical need.

The vast majority of abortions are elective.
 
The real question is why, with them knowing, aren't the mothers' being tried, at least, as accessories to the manslaughter?
 
Exactly what is the need of an abortion for convenience?

I probably don't feel much different about "abortions for convenience" than you do, except that the consequences of attempting to suppress them is too terrible.
 
So... no house of horrors? Any babies swimming in toilets?

Glad to see the health of the mother is so important to the "very liberal""

"Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, former employee said, "It was just unsafe. I couldn't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was."

Werbrich alleges conditions inside the facility were unsanitary.

"He didn't wear gloves," said Werbrich.

Another former employee, Joyce Vasikonis told Action News, "They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile."

The former nurses claim that a rush to get patients in and out left operating tables soiled and unclean.

Werbrich said "It's not washed down, it's not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it."

"They could be at risk of getting hepatitis, even AIDS," added Vasikonis."
 
Necessity only composes 2-3% of all abortions, ie abortion where there is a medical need.

The vast majority of abortions are elective.

You think you could find juries which would convict women of an elective abortion?
 
I'm not in the business of jury selection, so I don't know if I could find a jury to convict anyone of anything. I'm trained in Construction.

My point is that there are some immoral acts which you cannot, or should not, make illegal.
 
Glad to see the health of the mother is so important to the "very liberal""

"Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, former employee said, "It was just unsafe. I couldn't tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was."

Werbrich alleges conditions inside the facility were unsanitary.

"He didn't wear gloves," said Werbrich.

Another former employee, Joyce Vasikonis told Action News, "They were using instruments on patients that were not sterile."

The former nurses claim that a rush to get patients in and out left operating tables soiled and unclean.

Werbrich said "It's not washed down, it's not even cleaned off. It has bloody drainage on it."

"They could be at risk of getting hepatitis, even AIDS," added Vasikonis."

So - I ask for a house of horrors, just like Gosnell, and the most you can come up with is a few health violations? Fine the clinics like any other hospital, don't let them open until they can ensure they'll stay up to code. Problem solved. Any house of horrors for me bro? Or you gonna keep showing me how much of a liberal you are?
 
Because abortion is legal. Infanticide isn't.

But taking a baby to be aborted after you know it's past the legal "age" to be aborted?

They knowingly broke the law. It's no different then paying someone to kill your ex wife.
 
The real question is why, with them knowing, aren't the mothers' being tried, at least, as accessories to the manslaughter?
I heard somewhere that immunity was a condition of cooperation, but I don't have a source for it.
 
But taking a baby to be aborted after you know it's past the legal "age" to be aborted?

They knowingly broke the law. It's no different then paying someone to kill your ex wife.

There is no such "past legal age to be aborted".
 
My point is that there are some immoral acts which you cannot, or should not, make illegal.
Who's talking about morality? Please keep your morals in your church and your bible out of my face, thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom