Abortion Doctor Found Guilty of Murder

What about in Abu Dhabi?

I do it because you love it so much.

I'll be honest: I've had a lot of talks with other Christians about what our response to abortion clinics should be. These weren't soft Christians either, these were Southern, Right Wing, hated by Southern Poverty Law Center Christians.

We started at the base: As Christians, it is our obligation to defend the unborn. As Christians, it is our obligation to obey the government as much as is possible. As Christians, we shall not murder (and murder is defined as immoral killing).

The conclusion that we came to was that no person should be our target; anything in that area constitutes an immoral killing. And since no one can guarantee a bomb won't kill someone, bombing empty clinics would never be an option. You see, the goal is to help, not hurt.

So, everyone that I've talked to puts our time, money, and effort into things like adopting, pregnancy crisis centers, taking in single moms while they get on their feet, etc.

As much as I support Abortion Rights, I think the conviction is perfectly valid and acceptable, assuming the blurb I read on it is accurate. You can't abort an infant that's been born.

Despite whatever other lines may blur for different points of view, this one is crystal clear. Live birth = person. Killing a newborn is murder.

And yet, the lens through which you see crystal clarity will be scratched to frost within a generation.

I highly doubt that. Modern society accepts a very limited number of ways to kill a living person without it being murder:
- Self-defense,
- Soldiers at war acting under valid orders against enemy combatants,
- Government-approved death sentences for criminals convicted after due process of law,
- Law Enforcement officials protecting the public (in certain circumstances under a complex set of rules).

Now the abortion debate seems to ultimate center upon when life begins (oversimplification, I understand, but not totally out of place). I've yet to find anyone who'd argue that a live birth =/= LIFE.

Your post is just another example of fear-mongering hyperbole among the Fundamentalist Christian Right.

Anyone yet?

I wonder if it isn't lack of accurate information more than anything else? It's easy to misconstrue the phrase "abortion on demand" (a very poor choice of words, IMO) to conjure some red-toothed cliché of abortion providers running around doing just what Gosnell did in the service of women who sit around for 39 weeks and then suddenly decide "Oh, hey, I gotta get rid of this thing!"

That's a strawman with roots in the historic treatment of women as lesser beings who just can't make decisions for themselves. And once it's fixed in the mind, it's hard to dislodge it with new information.

That would be none. Disappointed?

Rick hinted at it, but one can only assume he knows little of the case.

Curious that no one started a thread on this case sooner though, given the universal outrage.

Nobody will. It's odd that he thought somebody might, when Gosnell's actions were well beyond even the slightest bit of ambiguity.

And yet people, not people here, mind you, will defend partial birth abortion, which if basically the same thing. I've never understood that, regardless of anyone's stance on abortion. Of which mine is, first trimester, knock yourself out.

Okay, not "yourself" but you get the gist.

It really isn't.

But it's not the same thing, so the fact that some people won't rule out intact dilation and extraction under certain rare circumstances really doesn't have anything to do with Gosnell.

Looked it up, jsut so we'd be on the same page.

So bottom line, a PBA is somewhere less likely than having your hand amputated for a hang nail.

Otherwise, yeah. I think the standard pro choice position is the first 100 days is no body's business. After that, it's a bit more substantial a procedure and ethical issue.

Normal, sane people? No. Political activists? Damn skippy.

Let a legislature try even something as incurious as insisting an abortion clinic maintain the same health regulations as any other outpatient surgical clinic and Planned parenthood et all will be in their tooth and nail fighting it. The operate on a notorious "slippery slope" mindset. All legislation is considered creeping infringement on rights which will lead to others.


and yes, it's true that abortion opponents will whittle away as much as possible - but sensible people should be able to identify where the actual happy medium is - not fight for the furthermost extreme "just to be safe"

or...about as statistically likely as becoming pregnant from a rape and seeking an abortion.

both sides use such tactics.

The key question though, is this, if so-called PBAs are so very very rare - WHY is every effort to ban them so strongly opposed?

shouldn't it be the one thing the senate could vote 100-0 on and move on to more controversial things?

It IS statistically true that the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, and conversely it is true that the later you go in pregnancy, the less likely you are to have a medically indicated need to have one.

In a reasonable world, limiting abortions to the first trimester with specific exceptions for serious medical issues (not mental health other than pre-existing conditions as that's a catch-all) SHOULD be an obvious middle ground that could be legislated and then advocates can try to move from there.

But "pro-choice" activists scream that's draconian restrictions and "pro-life" activists declare it's giving legal cover to murder and politicians choose up sides and nothing reasonable gets done.

That's not to say I personally endorse that limit, I still think something more like 10 weeks is more reasonable for reasons which I've explained many times...but it's a reasonable starting place.

Google Peter Singer. He is an outlier to be sure - but he's lying out there.

All products sold in retail have a grace period to return them if you're not satisfied.

For first time mothers, they don't know what to expect in regards to raising a newborn. Therefore, we should slightly shift the acceptable "refund" date of a baby to around the 1-month old mark.

That way, mothers can have even more control over their lives and customer service representatives like the good Dr. Gosnell here can make his customers satisfied without repercussions from the moral busybodies who need to mind their own business.

They are rare because the conditions for which it is the best medical recommendation are rare. Legislation won't change the fact that sometimes it is the only way to save the woman.

If he had killed those babies with a gun, we all know who would be defending him.

We also know who would be blaming the gun....

Nah, guns are blameless. It's the gun owners who make poor choices who are to blame.

Thank you for helping me turn this into another gun thread, Dayton.

well, that of course depends on which side you listen to - I've read and heard medical experts and doctors who say the procedure is NEVER medically indicated because one the child is in the birth canal whatever risk are associated with delivery have already been incurred (and ditto a C-Section)

Which, to my layperson's logic, makes obvioussense. but i couldbewrong.

so let's assume for the moment that it is, 1 in a thousand times or less, medically indicated. Guess what, ALL abortion limitations have medically necessary exceptions so those very rare cases would not be affected.

I stand by the view that both extremes use manipulative half-truths to push their position.

Clearly, we need to have a national conversation about common-sense regulation of people named Kermit.

We kind of have that with safe haven laws...