• 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:

  • Yes, there probably are more abortion doctors like Gosnell

    Votes: 23 79.3%

  • No, Gosnell is an anomaly

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Total voters
    29
Josie said:
And "going elsewhere" has the same results - the only difference is Gosnell was sloppy.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why?

So ban guns and only criminals will have guns, right?

There is every reason in the world why a woman who wants an abortion might not want to submit herself to a lecture from someone who knows nothing about her. There is every reason in the world why a woman might not want to be forced to wait because some sanctimonious politician doesn't think she's capable of making reasoned decisions. There is every reason in the world why a teen girl might not want have her parents informed if she thinks it is likely they will threaten or coerce her, and her only option will be to either have an unwanted child or go to court.

There is every reason in the world why a perfectly reasonable woman would not want to submit themselves to any of these pointless, condescending restrictions. But it's the law.

So they find a doctor who doesn't follow the law. And since this doctor is willing to ignore THOSE laws, it's more likely he's willing to ignore other laws.

Create roadblocks for women, and only criminals will take them down.

And unfortunately, there's no way for the woman to know if he stops at roadblocks, or if his entire practice is shoddy, illegal, and dangerous.

Plenty of places don't have all these roadblocks. Canada doesn't. Women don't have to seek out a law-breaker in order to have some hope that they'll be treated with respect. And yet, they have lower abortion rates than we do.
 
Perhaps this has been addressed already, but I don't understand why this debate is about abortion.
 
Cardinal said:
Perhaps this has been addressed already, but I don't understand why this debate is about abortion.
Click to expand...

I can explain:

The moral fascists who want to ban abortion think they can convince others of their moral superiority by making dishonest arguments.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is false.

Some pro-abortion folks, including on this forum, do not believe that it should be murder to kill an infant. They support legal infanticide.
 
JayDubya said:
That is false.

Some pro-abortion folks, including on this forum, do not believe that it should be murder to kill an infant. They support legal infanticide.
Click to expand...

With arguments like this, I can't understand how pro-life and pro-choice haven't come together in mutual understanding by now.
 
Cardinal said:
With arguments like this, I can't understand how pro-life and pro-choice haven't come together in mutual understanding by now.
Click to expand...

What "argument?"

It's just stating fact. There are at least two pro-abortion posters on Debate Politics who literally have asserted their support for infanticide, that newborns should not be people with legal protections.

I made no argument nor even value judgement. But they do exist.
 
JayDubya said:
What "argument?"

It's just stating fact. There are at least two pro-abortion posters on Debate Politics who literally have asserted their support for infanticide, that newborns should not be people with legal protections.

I made no argument nor even value judgement. But they do exist.
Click to expand...

A professor in college once told me that the frontlines in debate are who controls the definitions, and you demonstrate your understanding of this fact bluntly, if not necessarily admirably. So when you say that there are posters on this board who have advocated for infanticide I think I can safely assume that this is not true.
 
Cardinal said:
A professor in college once told me that the frontlines in debate are who controls the definitions, and you demonstrate your understanding of this fact bluntly, if not necessarily admirably. So when you say that there are posters on this board who have advocated for infanticide I think I can safely assume that this is not true.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's true. Although I only know of one. So at least half-right, if not more. Stopped clock, and all that...
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
A professor in college once told me that the frontlines in debate are who controls the definitions, and you demonstrate your understanding of this fact bluntly, if not necessarily admirably. So when you say that there are posters on this board who have advocated for infanticide I think I can safely assume that this is not true.
Click to expand...

So basically you just want to make ****ty passive aggressive personal attacks and to deny reality... Rock on, broheim.

So if it's left for me to determine that if you're the sort that is gracious when proven wrong, or shameless, I'd guess the latter.

Just the same, the post history of Viktyr and GEXI are available to you at your leisure. Cheers.
 
JayDubya said:
So basically you just want to make ****ty passive aggressive personal attacks and to deny reality... Rock on, broheim.

So if it's left for me to determine that if you're the sort that is gracious when proven wrong, or shameless, I'd guess the latter.

Just the same, the post history of Viktyr and GEXI are available to you at your leisure. Cheers.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he's not unreasonable for assuming what you say is less than accurate because, well... it usually is.

But let it never be said I'm not fair enough to give you credit when it's due.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Vik. He kind of wants to go back to the old mores of reproduction and family building, combined with some brand of nationalism, for want of a better.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Vik. Some of the things he says can be pretty far off the reservation.
 
pbrauer said:
The more you restrict it, the more they will go elsewhere, that's the unintended consequence.
Click to expand...

Which is a silly concept to govern by. Like saying, hey, we restrict pedos too much, they are just driven to Thailand by regulation.

Much of that regulation is for patient safety. No matter where you set the bar some base criminal like this will always offer a way under it.
 
JayDubya said:
So basically you just want to make ****ty passive aggressive personal attacks and to deny reality... Rock on, broheim.

So if it's left for me to determine that if you're the sort that is gracious when proven wrong, or shameless, I'd guess the latter.

Just the same, the post history of Viktyr and GEXI are available to you at your leisure. Cheers.
Click to expand...

1) You falsely frame people's positions to control the definitions, so I'm not wrong. Calling people "pro abortion" is a perfect example. Actually, the term "pro life" is an example of this too, you just take it to the next level.
2) While I'm surprised that there is in fact someone who may have come out in favor of infanticide (though I'd still have to see the context), that's not a pro-choice thing (or even an abortion thing), that's a crazy thing.
 
Gina said:
You answered your own question, Josie. "We cannot let clinics go without inspection for years on end..." The outraged should be directed at the officials who shirked their duty to protect the Gosnell's patients. If they had done that, he would have been shut down in the 80's.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but the inspectors really don't exist. These clinics are so shielded by privacy laws, what normally may have been caught in a regular clinic goes unreported here. We can't say how many women have been scarred or even died as a result of abortion clinics, the numbers out there vary depending upon the bias of whom you're talking to.
 
clownboy said:
I agree with that, but the inspectors really don't exist. These clinics are so shielded by privacy laws, what normally may have been caught in a regular clinic goes unreported here. We can't say how many women have been scarred or even died as a result of abortion clinics, the numbers out there vary depending upon the bias of whom you're talking to.
Click to expand...

Here?

There are state agencies in Pennsylvania that are supposed to have inspectors charged with examining conditions in clinics like Gosnell's. The filth alone would have closed him down, without touching privacy, though I understand he taught ultra scan technicians how to cheat the angle so that the fetus was measured by the machine as smaller than it was. He was compelled by law to back up his records, so to me, that speaks to him expecting some agency would be looking into his practices. If there were no inspectors or departments examining is records, why even do that much? I guess I'm saying I'm skeptical that inspectors don't exist, but I agree, there was a multiple agency failure to close Gosnells down.
 
Cardinal said:
1) You falsely frame people's positions to control the definitions, so I'm not wrong. Calling people "pro abortion" is a perfect example. Actually, the term "pro life" is an example of this too, you just take it to the next level.
2) While I'm surprised that there is in fact someone who may have come out in favor of infanticide (though I'd still have to see the context), that's not a pro-choice thing (or even an abortion thing), that's a crazy thing.
Click to expand...

I had you pegged right: utterly shameless. You accused me of lying, appropriate of nothing; when noting the reality that there are, in fact, posters here who do not believe in birth personhood, which is all I had stated, you doubled down because of course, you couldn't be wrong.


Furthermore, it's no more and no less "crazy" to want to deny the human rights of neonates than it is to deny the human rights of that same organism a few minutes or even a few months before. Frankly, it's logically consistent - it's not as though a newborn exhibits the higher order sentience or sapience that is a hallmark of our species and the basis for our rights.

In any event, it stands to reason that those in the pro-abortion camp who do believe in restricting personhood from newborns would not condemn Gosnell for infanticide.



As a final aside, pro-abortion and anti-abortion are simple, accurate terms. I assume most people like life and choice as general, nebulous concepts, very few hold the consistent life ethic, and fewer still are anarchists opposed to the very idea of laws banning violence. So I will continue to use accurate terms, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
Here?

There are state agencies in Pennsylvania that are supposed to have inspectors charged with examining conditions in clinics like Gosnell's. The filth alone would have closed him down, without touching privacy, though I understand he taught ultra scan technicians how to cheat the angle so that the fetus was measured by the machine as smaller than it was. He was compelled by law to back up his records, so to me, that speaks to him expecting some agency would be looking into his practices. If there were no inspectors or departments examining is records, why even do that much? I guess I'm saying I'm skeptical that inspectors don't exist, but I agree, there was a multiple agency failure to close Gosnells down.
Click to expand...

Perhaps PA does mandate special inspectors for abortion clinics. Generally speaking from my experience out West the clinics are given a great deal of latitude in recordkeeping, and it is terribly easy to falsify them as the inspectors cannot interview the patients, they cannot even know who they are.

Cleanliness can be solved for the inspection period and AFAIK inspections are scheduled so as not to interfere with patient privacy.
 
clownboy said:
Perhaps PA does mandate special inspectors for abortion clinics. Generally speaking from my experience out West the clinics are given a great deal of latitude in recordkeeping, and it is terribly easy to falsify them as the inspectors cannot interview the patients, they cannot even know who they are.

Cleanliness can be solved for the inspection period and AFAIK inspections are scheduled so as not to interfere with patient privacy.
Click to expand...

From articles that I've read on this case, there are multiple agencies requiring inspection of conditions and records of Pennsylvania's clinics. There are records dating back to the 80's reporting violations in Gosnell's clinic.

If inspectors are not doing their jobs or if a state lacks inspectors, forcing them to do their jobs or getting inspectors in there, would seem to me to be the answer here, not restricting abortion. Patient privacy should be respected, but there are ways to do that and protect patients from monsters like Gosnell.
 
JayDubya said:
I had you pegged right: utterly shameless. You accused me of lying, appropriate of nothing; when noting the reality that there are, in fact, posters here who do not believe in birth personhood, which is all I had stated, you doubled down because of course, you couldn't be wrong.
Click to expand...

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. So long as you continue to do that you're just going to have to expect anyone you're talking with to confirm your claims with somebody else. If you don't like it, change your behavior.

As a final aside, pro-abortion and anti-abortion are simple, accurate terms. I assume most people like life and choice as general, nebulous concepts, very few hold the consistent life ethic, and fewer still are anarchists opposed to the very idea of laws banning violence. So I will continue to use accurate terms, thanks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gina said:
From articles that I've read on this case, there are multiple agencies requiring inspection of conditions and records of Pennsylvania's clinics. There are records dating back to the 80's reporting violations in Gosnell's clinic.

If inspectors are not doing their jobs or if a state lacks inspectors, forcing them to do their jobs or getting inspectors in there, would seem to me to be the answer here, not restricting abortion. Patient privacy should be respected, but there are ways to do that and protect patients from monsters like Gosnell.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, wherever late term abortions are allowed there will always be these sort of problems and they will go uncovered for long periods of time. Partial birth abortion - is it allowed by law still in PA?
 
clownboy said:
Agreed. However, wherever late term abortions are allowed there will always be these sort of problems and they will go uncovered for long periods of time. Partial birth abortion - is it allowed by law still in PA?
Click to expand...

I cannot agree that wherever late-term abortions are permitted there will always be these sorts of problems. Dr. Tiller was never accused of this kind of egregious violation and I have to believe he was vigorously inspected.
Pennsylvania law bars abortions after 24 weeks’ gestation, at which point a fetus is considered to be likely viable outside the womb. Gosnell performed multiple abortions at 24.5 weeks, and the grand jury report found that many of those procedures underestimated the period of gestation. One Gosnell employee estimated that about 40 percent of the clinic’s abortions occurred after 24 weeks. Gosnell, the grand jury found, killed the babies born alive in his clinic.
Click to expand...

There were also multiple complaints by other doctors who believe their patients were infected with STD's at Gosnell's clinic. He was suspected of bad medical practice and the authorities receiving the complaints, obviously did nothing. New laws were passed and went into effect in 2011. Inspections are now taking place and five more clinics are closed, though it's not clear why.

Pennsylvania Tightens Abortion Rules Following Clinic Deaths : NPR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom