Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Dr. Kermit Gosnell


Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L
I’ll admit, for most of my adult life I’d have considered myself “agnostic” concerning the abortion “third rail”, tending to fall on the side that it is none of my business and something “other people do”…….
But now with this criminal case involving Dr Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds. Now I’m fully aware that there are many instances surrounding legal abortion that more then morally absolve such practices (In my opinion) like rape or health concerns for the mother………..But this case or other late term abortions for that mater have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue:

Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate's coverage includes testimony as grisly as you'd expect. "An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions," the channel reports. "Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.' He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, 'it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.'"

One former employee described hearing a baby screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. "I can't describe it. It sounded like a little alien," she testified. Said the Philadelphia Inquirer in its coverage, "Prosecutors have cited the dozens of jars of severed baby feet as an example of Gosnell's idiosyncratic and illegal practice of providing abortions for cash to poor women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania."

I just can’t square this circle and help to feel this practices is approaching Josef Mengele type levels………utterly disgusting:

grand%20jury%20report%20image.png

So my question, if “bad abortion” is considered anything past 24 weeks, is a child aborted at 23 weeks ok?
Where is the moral “cut-off”?
And for the record, I’m not a religious person but I am parent.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is why 3rd term abortions are illegal for the most part, and for good reason. With each day closer to birth the baby has a better chance of surviving out of the womb.

It's illegal in Canada and Illegal in the USA. What this doctor did is simply break all those rules/laws. This doctor is a horrible person and should get the same treatment he gave the aborted babies. I'll get my scissors.

I don't believe you need to change your stance on it Derek L, but this man need to suffer some pain. What he did is absolutely deplorable. Hmm, maybe garden shears would work better on him.

=====

Not to mention this man was not certified, no legal documents, and all his staff seemed to be unqualified. This is one of those back alley abortion centers. Everything about what he did was illegal.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think this sort of thing would become the norm if abortion laws (or in our case, lack of them) are changed.

I would not doubt that there are more of these illegal centers putting the lives of the women at stake across the US. No matter the laws, someone is going to go against them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll admit, for most of my adult life I’d have considered myself “agnostic” concerning the abortion “third rail”, tending to fall on the side that it is none of my business and something “other people do”…….

But now with this criminal case involving Dr Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds. Now I’m fully aware that there are many instances surrounding legal abortion that more then morally absolve such practices (In my opinion) like rape or health concerns for the mother………..But this case or other late term abortions for that mater have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue:

I just can’t square this circle and help to feel this practices is approaching Josef Mengele type levels………utterly disgusting:

So my question, if “bad abortion” is considered anything past 24 weeks, is a child aborted at 23 weeks ok?

Where is the moral “cut-off”?

And for the record, I’m not a religious person but I am parent.

Indeed, it is a disgusting situation. It is the existence of places like Gosnell's clinic that made three juries in Canada refuse to find Morgantaler guilty,

and ultimately, why Canada has no abortion laws.

In Pennsylvania it is illegal to abort a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks gestation. It is that illegality and (more iimportantly) the complete lack of regulatory oversight that leads to the butcheries and deaths reported here.

We could argue the morality of abortions from now until doomsday, but for pregnant women who do not want to be pregnant anymore, our morality on the issue is entirely meaningless. Such women will find their abortion. In Pennsylvania they seek backstreet dumps like Gosnell's clinic due to the Illegality of thier actions.

To quote The American Prospect: "women kept going to Gosnell's clinic'because they felt they had no alternative.' That alternative is clinics where even poor women can obtain safe first-trimester abortions in a timely manner, without having to navigate a blizzard of regulatory impediments with the sole purpose of inhibiting access to abortion."

http://prospect.org/article/five-lessons-we-should-learn-gosnell-case#13660387032951&action=collapse_widget&id=9341749

To sum up...another quote from the above linked article:

"The Gosnell case certainly represents a failure by the state of Pennsylvania to protect women. Enacting more regulations that make safe, pre-viability abortions more scarce would be precisely the wrong lesson to take from it, and would mean more Gosnells, not fewer. Making abortion safe, legal, and accessible for all women is more important than ever."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

and for the record, I am not a religious person either - though I believe in God. and a parent too.

Edited by Peter F
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still maintain that what Gosnell is on trial for and abortion are not related.

And I strongly echo the statement that increasing the number of restrictive laws, or worse yet outlawing abortion would just encourage the establishment of more of these types of charlatan's basement clinics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll admit, for most of my adult life I’d have considered myself “agnostic” concerning the abortion “third rail”, tending to fall on the side that it is none of my business and something “other people do”…….

But now with this criminal case involving Dr Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic in Philadelphia, I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds. Now I’m fully aware that there are many instances surrounding legal abortion that more then morally absolve such practices (In my opinion) like rape or health concerns for the mother………..But this case or other late term abortions for that mater have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue:

I have to say I find this post most surprising coming from you.

Had I wrote......'I find for most of my life guns were something I didnt have much to say about. They are legal, and people by and large are good with them. It aint my place to push for restrictions or other limitations.

However with this Sandy Hook school shooting "have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue"

I think you see my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

I have to say I find this post most surprising coming from you.

Had I wrote......'I find for most of my life guns were something I didnt have much to say about. They are legal, and people by and large are good with them. It aint my place to push for restrictions or other limitations.

However with this Sandy Hook school shooting "have really forced me to reconsider my stance on the issue"

I think you see my point.

I can certainly differentiate between the two topics, and I haven’t called for a “ban on abortion”, but have started questioning the morale grounds……..I will cede that the majority of abortion clinics are law abiding, but form a moral point of view, is 23 weeks into a pregnancy that much better than 24 weeks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly differentiate between the two topics, and I haven’t called for a “ban on abortion”, but have started questioning the morale grounds……..I will cede that the majority of abortion clinics are law abiding, but form a moral point of view, is 23 weeks into a pregnancy that much better than 24 weeks?

I am not considering a ban on guns, but rather "I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds."

The gist is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will find more and more of these shoddy practices as abortion in America becomes less and less available.

Then one might want to reconsider going to them. Is that what you are saying? Or just that demand and lack of supply will make it too costly for most to afford so they will turn to the unlicensed lo-cost, yet riskier street level of abortion?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is why 3rd term abortions are illegal for the most part, and for good reason. With each day closer to birth the baby has a better chance of surviving out of the womb.

It's illegal in Canada and Illegal in the USA. What this doctor did is simply break all those rules/laws. This doctor is a horrible person and should get the same treatment he gave the aborted babies. I'll get my scissors.

I don't believe you need to change your stance on it Derek L, but this man need to suffer some pain. What he did is absolutely deplorable. Hmm, maybe garden shears would work better on him.

=====

Not to mention this man was not certified, no legal documents, and all his staff seemed to be unqualified. This is one of those back alley abortion centers. Everything about what he did was illegal.

We have no law on abortion in Canada, so late term abortions are just as legal as any other. However the CMA has issued very strong guidelines that doctors must follow or face discipline. We don't perform late term abortions in Canada just because the woman decides to terminate, AFAIK.

My understanding is that partial birth abortions area legal in the US, certainly late term ones are, with restrictions varying from state to state.

You can be pro-choice, as I am, and still be in favor of laws limiting abortion, as I am. Essentially codify the CMA guidelines.

Edited by Canuckistani
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no law on abortion in Canada, so late term abortions are just as legal as any other. However the CMA has issued very strong guidelines that doctors must follow or face discipline. We don't perform late term abortions in Canada just because the woman decides to terminate, AFAIK.

My understanding is that partial birth abortions area legal in the US, certainly late term ones are, with restrictions varying from state to state.

You can be pro-choice, as I am, and still be in favor of laws limiting abortion, as I am. Essentially codify the CMA guidelines.

Well looks like you are right, there are no limits laws for abortion in Canada. However the number of late term abortions seem to be so small it's not even worth talking about.

Paper explaining Canada and abortions.. http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

This other 'doctor' was a butcher and put the woman's life in peril as well. Not licensed as a doctor and the staff has no documented qualifications either. Since everything this man did was illegal to begin with (practicing without a license) we don't even need to get into the abortion debate to see how wrong this situation all is. He did not even have the woman's interest in sight, he did not care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What he's saying Pliny is that when people like you force abortions underground you create the demand for the Dr Gosnell's of America.

The only one who needs to reconsider what they're doing here is you.

You misread me as usual.

Those basement "clinics" existed because abortion was illegal, and for no other reason. If Dr. Gosnell upsets you then

perhaps you should rethink your position because abortion is legal and it seems like some people are now upset about it.

I am not trying to take any one's ability to get an abortion away if the circumstances warrant it or it is desirable to get one. I would counsel against abortion especially as a means of birth control or for the reason of gender preference or for late term pregnancy. The sanctity of life should be upheld wherever possible. No law needs to be made regarding

abortion. People should be able to do what they choose to do but I expect they would make the most rational educated

choice.

Sort of like forced marriages. I don't expect that a woman would make the greatest choice in husbands if she has been

constrained under the authoritarian hand of her father. She would have, if she should escape the authority of her fatherwho has made a choice for her, neither the ability or experience to make a good choice. In a freer world where the woman makes her choice of a husband I would think she would avail herself of available knowledge and would get to know a man before making a choice.

The same for drugs and for abortion. People need to understand them and be educated about them before making choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not considering a ban on guns, but rather "I’m truly starting to reconsider my “stance” on moral grounds."

The gist is the same.

The topics are hardly comparable.

But if I have the right to my own body then I should have the right to be able to defend myself in the manner I see most effective or choose to get an abortion if I want. I do not currently feel it necessary for me to carry a firearm for my

protection but if circumstances change then I would like to have the option. If I were a woman I would probably not get into a situation where I needed an abortion but if the circumstances warranted it in my view then I would like to have

the option available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well looks like you are right, there are no limits laws for abortion in Canada. However the number of late term abortions seem to be so small it's not even worth talking about.

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Given the reactions that the murder of even a single baby elicit, I would think that people would want to talk about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Given the reactions that the murder of even a single baby elicit, I would think that people would want to talk about it.

Until the baby is considered human he has no rights. So when is it a human? I would consider it to be at conception the law in the

US says when it is viable outside the womb but what a choice to have to make simply for inconvenience or economic reasons as I believe so many abortions are. All that reproductive rights have done is sanctify and make the decision easier, the

law then becomes the justification and is responsible not the persons making the decision. It's a painful subject, made

even more painful by Roe vs Wade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner, on 22 Apr 2013 - 07:02, said:

I'm not sure why you're saying that. Given the reactions that the murder of even a single baby elicit, I would think that people would want to talk about it.

It's so rare it's not even really an issue. The one big issue is that this guy in the US was unlicensed as was every member of his staff. That should be sending up alarms to those reading this. He put the mother's life in jeopardy in many of the cases that we have read in the OP. Procedures were not followed, the 'clinic' was contaminated as were the instruments he used. Proper equipment seemed to be lacking as well.

So you don't even need to get to the abortion issue when he violated everything outright by not being licensed.

I am against late term abortions unless the mother is in a life/death situation. Babies have a good chance of surviving out of the womb in the 3rd trimester, which to me is enough reason to ban it unless life threatening situation is present. I am for abortion overall, well more like pro-choice, but there are some restrictions that need to be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The topics are hardly comparable.

You are missing the point of the exchange.

Something happened to which the other poster has changed his mind. The poster wants to restrict the rights of a woman vis a vis abortion.

Something happened to which this poster has changed his mind. I now want to restrict the rights of gun owners.

(none of which is true as far as I am concerned)

Both are rights in the whole, one wants to restrict one of those rights but leave his untouched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You misread me as usual.

No I didn't, you're one of the most transparent posters on here. The circumstances in which as you say demand and lack of supply will make it too costly for most to afford so they will turn to the unlicensed lo-cost, yet riskier street level of abortion, will be even more assured in the completely privatized zero-public-funding system you advocate. So I say again, people like you are actively causing what's already happening while proposing to make things worse.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didn't, you're one of the most transparent posters on here. The circumstances in which as you say demand and lack of supply will make it too costly for most to afford so they will turn to the unlicensed lo-cost, yet riskier street level of abortion, will be even more assured in the completely privatized zero-public-funding system you advocate. So I say again, people like you are actively causing what's already happening while proposing to make things worse.

In the system I advocate abortions would be few and far between. I would prefer that there were no reason for anyone to feel the need to demand an abortion, that would be ideal but I know it is unrealistic to expect it to be zero as even I realize there are circumstances that could make one necessary.

Probably, besides it being illegal prior to 1969, the reason for the back street abortions was that there was not enough of them to warrant opening a clinic. It being illegal no one could make it their profession besides the

immoral stigma attached to out of wed-lock pregnancy at the time made it a clandestine activity.

You believe that the backstreet basement abortion clinics existed because "free enterprise" created that, and

real standard procedures will not develop, only the quicky in and out slam bam thank you ma'am types will turn up.

Obviously, an illegal activity, will produce that.

Your left wing idea of libertarianism seems to contain a healthy dose of authoritarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your ideas seem to have you rather than the other way around.

I am of the opinion that the majority of people will do the best they can and are basically good. It seems your view of people is rather pessimistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      There are currently zero restrictions on when an abortion can take place in Canada, including up to the expected birth date.  Most countries/states set the limit as the first trimester (first three months), or at the very least, the week beyond which the fetus could survive outside the womb (viability).  In Canada a woman can have a fetus destroyed one day before the expected date of birth, a viable baby that would survive outside of the mother. 
      https://nationalpost.com/news/as-abortion-debate-becomes-increasingly-polarized-poll-shows-the-views-of-many-canadians-are-more-complicated
    • By Anthony
      Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman. 
      For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant.  Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full term pregnancy with post birth options. 
      However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father. Given that the man and woman do not stay together as a family,  If the would be “mother “decides to raise the child, the would be “father” would have to pay child support. If the “mother” decides to get an abortion the “father” has no rights to deny the abortion. 
      (Now I am not going to say the “father” should have a right to force the “mother” to give birth to a child she does not wish to have, although some arguments could be made for such cases. For instance, if she does not wish to have the baby and wishes to abort, then she would be liable for compensation to the “father” as  he has lost the ability to have that child, “denial of child” support. So basically if the woman wants to abort she would have to pay the man “denial of child support for the next 18 years, a reverse of the situation. ( again this is too extreme and would never happen))
      Lets look at a different option, say the woman wishes to have the baby, however the man does not wish to have the baby (he does not wish to become a father). Could a system be in place where when accidental pregnancy happens and the woman wishes to have a child, the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? In other words, the would be father pays a certain amount equivalent to an abortion, to ensure that he is not legally the father and he has no duty to pay child care. This gives semi rights to both parties involved vs a system were all decisions are made by the woman. 
       
      Current system:
      Sex               Abortion?               Accepting pregnancy?                     agree?                                        Result?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
      Woman>       yes/no                              yes/no                                they both agree                      equal, mother/none, success
      Man >            yes/no                              yes/no                                they both agree                       equal, father/none, success
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
      Woman>         no                                       yes                                           NO                            Mother, gets child support +18
      Man >             yes                                      no                                             NO                      Forced fatherhood, forced child support +18 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
      Woman>        yes                                       no                                            NO                         She has abortion, no further action
      Man >             no                                        yes                                          NO                 He has no father rights, no ability for further action 

       
      Amendment recommendation:
      Sex             Abortion?                   Accepting pregnancy?                     agree?                                                                                   Result?
      Woman>       no                                         yes                                             NO                              Mother gives birth to the baby, accepts abortion financial aid equivalency
      Man >          yes                                          no                                               NO                             He has no fatherly rights to the baby, pays financial abortion aid equivalency
       
      Thoughts?
       
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...