What Difference Does the Tool and Placement Make?
Just about everybody on all sides of the abortion issue will agree that a “house of horrors” condition of a medical facility is unacceptable, but I’ve yet to hear articulated a rational reason that the murders with which this doctor is being charged are dramatically different from the services that all abortion doctors are paid to provide:
“[Kermit] Gosnell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women,” the report says. “When you perform late-term ‘abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. . . . Gosnell had a simple solution: he killed them . . . by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.”
According to the article, Gosnell performed about 1,000 abortions per year, not all by this method. Other methods, that other abortionists use, are not described — such as this one:
After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.
Frankly, the procedure being called “murder” sounds more humane to me. Those being torn piece by piece from the womb are, in fact, live, human, and squirming, whether or not anybody gets to look them in the eye before they die.
Justin
Do you wish to see abortion ended by law? If so would you have the state impose legal penalties against providers and patients?
I’m not surprised that this question was to go unanswered. It must be hard for any avowed anti- ( I am used Ayn Rand speak) Statist to recommend State enforced sanctions against those who provide legal medical procedures and those women who seek them.
Failure to respond to a question does not equate with inability to do so. In this case, being inundated with other responsibilities combined with a reaction to the brazenness with which you skipped over the question at hand to rephrase the debate in your preferred context.
So I ask: Which is more humane, ripping an unborn baby limb from limb (often without any sort of anesthetic or euthanization) or delivering the baby and killing him or her with a quick stab of the scissors?
There are no easy answers and extremely hard choices for pregnant women. For many people their support of women being able to have medical options is not support for abortion but support for the abortion option being safe and available.
“I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” he said. “But as district attorney, my job is to carry out the law. A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law.”
That’s from the article you cited. This kind of operation was all too common before the early 1970’s. The unsafe abortions being practiced were putting women at risk. I’ll refrain from asking the simple and obvious question because your track record indicates that you make outrageous statements and then refuse to respond to criticism.
To answer your question properly I think would require a medical license and experience. On the face of it I would say that the most humane method would be the one that is safest for the woman patient.
Just because abortion is legal today doesn’t mean it should be.
You libs want to make illegal all kinds of innocuous activity such as using incandescent light bulbs and driving trucks.
Murder is illegal not only because the vast majority of society wants to prevent it, but because it is a brutal violation of the natural right to life.
Murder of a living, but yet-unborn child, is no different.
All that we have learned about pre-natal life supports the position that a fetus is a living child. None of the science developed since the first fetal photographs appeared in Life magazine in the 1960s supports the opposite claim.
If abortion of viable babies becomes illegal, perhaps it will be an incentive for these “mothers” to keep their legs closed. That’s the real solution to the problem anyway.
Justin asks a question instead of answering the one that was put to him and gets his question answered. Reflect on that as you read his critique of the Governor he wrote today. Opposing views are taken seriously here, right?
So Phil, what’s your point?
So Phil, what’s your point?
Posted by BobN at January 31, 2011 8:04 PM
Justin
Do you wish to see abortion ended by law? If so would you have the state impose legal penalties against providers and patients?
Posted by Phil at January 29, 2011 9:24 PM
If the Left prides itself on being so “compassionate”, why are Leftists so callously indifferent to the intentional infliction of torture and brutal murder of unborn children?
Let’s see Phil answer that one, since he expects so much of Justin.
BobN
First I don’t consider myself a “Leftist”.
If only Leftists are compassionate in your world then I fear for you. The subject of abortion does bring out strong reactions on both sides. I think it is up to every person to wrestle with the conflicting values that make up this debate. Your statement to me that I am callously indifferent is untrue. My question to Justin stands, but I will extend it to you. Do you wish to see abortion services made illegal and would you be in favor of prosecuting the providers of that service and the women who seek those services?
Yes. Unequivocally. Because it is murder.
Phil, you, Russ, David S, and OTL are Leftists, a synonym for “progressives” or any other BS euphemism you might try to hid behind.
You all love government and want to use its power to force other people to do what you think best. Especially when it comes to giving their hard-earned money to your political allies and others who will vote for your corrupt politicians. You like Chafee and the unions strangling generations of children with a Soviet-style iron grip on the throat of education. You hate people who earn large amounts of money, simply because they have it and you don’t.
Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, Democrat, you’re all part of the Modern American Left which has its roots in common with the worst totalitarian regimes in human history. And I hope to live to see your political philosophy rot in the compost heap of history.
This was not abortion,it was eight counts of murder and This “doctor”should be executed if convicted.
This is where the theorizing of Peter Singer leads.if you don’t know who he is,look it up.
Obama appointed him to some health advisory panel.
Partial birth abortion is the true slippery slope.This is the end product.
Phil-I personally would like to see abortion for any reason except to save the mother’s life ended and providers prosecuted.
I do believe we don’t do a good enough job in promoting birth control,which makes abortion uneccesary.
I have a non-religious rationale for this-I believe this life is what you get-I have no idea if there’s anything beyond this,but I sort of think not.
Therefore,why take a life before it’s had a chance to really start off on the journey among the living?The same people who love abortion are often aghast that we’d execute a vicious multiple murderer.
The liberal mind sometimes is a cesspool.
One of the people who sahres my pro-life sentiments,and for much the same reason,is Nat Hentoff,a noted civil libertarian and I guess a liberal by most standards.He,unlike me,is an atheist,and believes your life is all you have.
If your life has turned out to be really miserable,there’s always suicide.
I’m one of those people who doesn’t think it’s immoral.
Do you wish to see abortion services made illegal and would you be in favor of prosecuting the providers of that service and the women who seek those services?
Posted by Phil at February 1, 2011 5:22 PM
“Yes. Unequivocally. Because it is murder.”
“You all love government and want to use its power to force other people to do what you think best.”
BobN
Would you “want to use it’s (government) to force other people to do what you think best” ?
You Lefties love to twist what others say and then argue against your own lie rather than against what they actually said. I reject the premise of your question.
One of the most fundamental purposes of government as conceived uniquely by the Founders is the protection of individual rights. Outlawing the murder of unborn children is not forcing anyone to do what others want – it is protecting the child’s right to life.
I note that this discussion has been entirely among men – none of whom will ever have to face the issues inherent in finding oneself pregnant.
WHEN a man is able to become pregnant and carry a child to term – is when I and most women will give any consideration whatsoever to what you think on this subject. Until then, why don ‘t you (obviously) white guys discuss the problems of being Black in the US? (A subject on which you are just as qualified to give an opinion!)