• 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
Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, Tiller just allowed the babies to crown and then shoved foreceps through their skulls, waited until the death tremors ceased and then pieced the child - certainly nothing heinous there. And there is no "vigorous" inspection. I'm sure his cleanliness practice was inspected, but inspections as to procedure are blocked and easy to get around where not.

Gina said:
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
Click to expand...

That's good to hear. However, you must see that it took outrageous behavior to get this notice. The wheel had to be extra squeeky to get the grease. Had he been just a little better about cleanliness, he'd still be going at it.
 
According to the pro-choice crowd, this would be one of their worst fears if abortion were made illegal...essentially a back alley abortionist.
 
clownboy said:
No, Tiller just allowed the babies to crown and then shoved foreceps through their skulls, waited until the death tremors ceased and then pieced the child - certainly nothing heinous there. And there is no "vigorous" inspection. I'm sure his cleanliness practice was inspected, but inspections as to procedure are blocked and easy to get around where not.



That's good to hear. However, you must see that it took outrageous behavior to get this notice. The wheel had to be extra squeeky to get the grease. Had he been just a little better about cleanliness, he'd still be going at it.
Click to expand...

Partial-birth abortion was banned, which then necessitates the more brutal procedure of dismembering.

How do you know there is no vigorous inspection? He was under constant scrutiny and harassment for performing a legal medical procedure.


Jury: Tiller Not Guilty On All Counts

Jurors found Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller not guilty on all 19 counts after deliberating for just over an hour.
Tiller was on trial on 19 misdemeanor charges stemming from some abortions he performed at his Wichita clinic in 2003. He is accused of breaking a state law requiring that two Kansas physicians without legal or financial ties sign off on any late-term procedure.

Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus provided second opinions on late-term abortions before Tiller performed them. Prosecutors contend they had an illegal financial affiliation.

In closing arguments Friday, prosecutors pointed to Tiller's journal about a 1999 conversation between the doctors over Neuhaus' fee as the "smoking gun" in their case.

But the defense said Tiller was trying to comply with the law and relied on the suggestion of a state official when he contacted Neuhaus.
Click to expand...

He was found out because:

Authorities began investigating the clinic over suspicions of illegal drug prescription activity. A detective with the district attorney’s office then became aware of Karnamaya Mongar’s death.
Click to expand...

As I said, there was a multiple agency failure to do their jobs as well as other authorities not pursuing complaints.
 
Cardinal said:
Perhaps this has been addressed already, but I don't understand why this debate is about abortion.
Click to expand...

Because this is about an abortion doctor whose office wasn't "underground" and yet wasn't inspected for years.
 
pbrauer said:
"Pennsylvania, like other states, permits legal abortion within a regulatory framework. Physicians must, for example, provide counseling about the nature of the procedure. Minors must have parental or judicial consent. All women must wait 24 hours after first visiting the facility, in order to fully consider their decision. But Gosnell's compliance with such requirements was casual at best. At the Women's Medical Society, the only question that really mattered was whether you had the cash. Too young? No problem. Didn't want to wait? Gosnell provided same-day service".​
Click to expand...

Uh, maybe I am missing something here, but seemingly didn't address her question. You merely listed a bunch of regulations
 
pbrauer said:
I think anytime roadblocks are put in place in order to stop women from having abortions, the dynamics are put in place to create more "Gosnells." These roadblocks include closing down clinics, wait times and sonograms. There will always be an enterprising person willing to forgo those restrictions.
Click to expand...

There are clinics everywhere.

This man was killing infants, not fetuses. Wait times and sonograms don't make people want to kill their infant.

So, I ask again.... what would you be your "perfect world" approach to abortion? No restrictions at all?
 
Gina said:
Partial-birth abortion was banned, which then necessitates the more brutal procedure of dismembering.

How do you know there is no vigorous inspection? He was under constant scrutiny and harassment for performing a legal medical procedure.
Click to expand...

Because first, the procedure I described was legal where he was operating and second, no one is allowed to monitor these procedures firsthand without both the patient's and the physician's consent.

But I'm glad to hear partial birth abortion was banned in your state.
 
Josie said:
There are clinics everywhere.

This man was killing infants, not fetuses. Wait times and sonograms don't make people want to kill their infant.

So, I ask again.... what would you be your "perfect world" approach to abortion? No restrictions at all?
Click to expand...

There is no perfect world Josie. All I'm saying is that the more restrictions put on women seeking abortions, the greater the chances are they would seek an abortion from butcher like Kermit Gosnell. If you require a 24-hour or longer wait time, the chances are greater a women will seek the path of least resistance. I realize this is probably not what you wanted to read, but that's all I've got.

Abortion: Safe Rare Legal
 
clownboy said:
Because first, the procedure I described was legal where he was operating and second, no one is allowed to monitor these procedures firsthand without both the patient's and the physician's consent.

But I'm glad to hear partial birth abortion was banned in your state.
Click to expand...

Gina's state, my state and your state are all the same. :lol:
 
clownboy said:
Because first, the procedure I described was legal where he was operating and second, no one is allowed to monitor these procedures firsthand without both the patient's and the physician's consent.

But I'm glad to hear partial birth abortion was banned in your state.
Click to expand...

My state is yours and it's banned nation wide:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
Click to expand...
 
pbrauer said:
There is no perfect world Josie. All I'm saying is that the more restrictions put on women seeking abortions, the greater the chances are they would seek an abortion from butcher like Kermit Gosnell. If you require a 24-hour or longer wait time, the chances are greater a women will seek the path of least resistance. I realize this is probably not what you wanted to read, but that's all I've got.

Abortion: Safe Rare Legal
Click to expand...

But what you're saying makes no sense with my question about this specific case. The women who are connected to this trial - the women whose children Gosnell murdered - went to him in the third trimester of pregnancy. How does a 24 hour wait period make someone wait months to seek out a doctor who will abort their infant?

Yes, abortion should be incredibly rare, but it's never safe for the child and sometimes not safe for the mother.
 
A question for pro-choicers - why do you want abortions to be rare?
 
Josie said:
A question for pro-choicers - why do you want abortions to be rare?
Click to expand...

I am not pro-choice, I am pro-abortion rights. However: I personally find abortion distasteful. I do not feel that is good enough to ban them. I also find guns distasteful, and what some people do with their freedom of speech, and religion I find very distasteful, and how people raise their kids, and so on and so on. I pretty much always with issues like this side with personal freedom, even when I do not personally like that freedom.
 
Redress said:
I am not pro-choice, I am pro-abortion rights. However: I personally find abortion distasteful. I do not feel that is good enough to ban them. I also find guns distasteful, and what some people do with their freedom of speech, and religion I find very distasteful, and how people raise their kids, and so on and so on. I pretty much always with issues like this side with personal freedom, even when I do not personally like that freedom.
Click to expand...

Why is it "distasteful" to you?
 
Gina said:
My state is yours and it's banned nation wide:
Click to expand...

Thanks Gina, don't know where I got the idea I can see your location listed. But it doesn't negate my other comments. Tiller did indeed do partial birth abortion. He used the foreceps through the crown method.
 
Josie said:
A question for pro-choicers - why do you want abortions to be rare?
Click to expand...

I personally see it as a compromise to create a situation whereby abortions are rarely needed, i.e. free distribution of birth control and sex education. You get fewer abortions, we get fewer teen pregnancies and std's, everyone wins.
 
Josie said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

You have an opinion as to why we would not want them to be rare. I'd like to hear that.

I think it's pretty self-evident. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. We aren't looking to get women to abort, but if that is the choice they feel is best for them, then we support it. It's much better to prevent an unplanned pregnancy in the first place, hence the advocating for "rare".
 
clownboy said:
Thanks Gina, don't know where I got the idea I can see your location listed. But it doesn't negate my other comments. Tiller did indeed do partial birth abortion. He used the foreceps through the crown method.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Whichever procedure he performed, it was legal and that's the difference between him and Gosnell, cb.
 
Gina said:
You have an opinion as to why we would not want them to be rare. I'd like to hear that.

I think it's pretty self-evident. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. We aren't looking to get women to abort, but if that is the choice they feel is best for them, then we support it. It's much better to prevent an unplanned pregnancy in the first place, hence the advocating for "rare".
Click to expand...

I want to hear your opinion instead of presupposing what you think, Gina. I'm weird like that. :)

I guess I just don't understand why the feeling is there to have abortion be rare if it's just a simple procedure to get rid of some cells.
 
Redress said:
For moral reasons. I am not sure I can define it well in words.
Click to expand...

Because it's not just a simple procedure to rid the body of some cells?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom