(warning at least one rather gruesome picture)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-story/274944/
It includes a link to the grand jury report, and does confirm mouses article. Quite frankly what I read started to make me physically ill. Not sure I have the stomach for the 284 page grand jury report.
While I am not normally in favor of the death penalty, it would seem this guy would be a candidate for a slow, painful death if there ever was one.
...
The state attorney's office, meanwhile, said its criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and no charges have been filed. A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion, police said when the incident occurred in 2006.
?http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/
(at 23 weeks)Renelique was still not present when Williams "felt a large pain" and delivered a baby girl, according to the suit.
"The staff began screaming and pandemonium ensued. Sycloria watched in horror and shock as her baby writhed with her chest rising and falling as she breathed."
A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby's umbilical cord, the suit said. She "then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash
Do Pro-choice people think this is how you dispose of something that was breathing?
No. That clinic worker should face charges.
Any other strawmen?
Not sure how that contradicts anything I said? The State is legally able to do whatever it wants after the 1st trimester.
Pretty ed up. Abortion in general is ed up but this takes it to a new level.
How is a question a strawman?
If you placed a seed in the dirt and it sprouted roots and finally pokes out the dirt you would consider it a plant. If someone came by and yanked it out the ground you wouldn't say "hey that was my seed" you would say you killed my plant.
Why should a living fetus be any different? I know its not really a living child until it's potty trained.
I have no problem with any woman that wants to kill her fetus just as long as she gets at least 10 years for doing it. I bet a lot of rubbers get put on after that law is past.
yall ever watch The Silent Scream?
holy we had to watch that in school and i almost lost my lunch.
here's a published journal paper on fetal pain with regard to neonatal perception
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/s.../fetalpain.pdf
I read recently that in Sweden the women average over 2 abortions for every birth, while the Muslim immigrant women average 5+ kids.
That should end well. Nothing describes a healthy society better than the woman exterminating their own offspring in the womb, routinely. Progress is awesome!
Before the term came to mean a question that is not meant to be answered, the rhetorical question was just that: a question meant to achieve a rhetorical goal. In this case, you posted a horrific description of an abortion which led to a doctor losing his license to practice and has occasioned a criminal investigation, then asked whether pro-choice advocates support this kind of activity. Given everyone who has argued the pro-choice tack in this thread has made an effort to underscore the need for following the legal guidelines of Roe vs. Wade your quack example appears to have been more cavalier about, it seems pretty clear you made a weak-sauce strawman.
So we should take a Muslim view of abortion in order ti not be overrun by Muslims. Makes sense to me.I read recently that in Sweden the women average over 2 abortions for every birth, while the Muslim immigrant women average 5+ kids.
That should end well. Nothing describes a healthy society better than the woman exterminating their own offspring in the womb, routinely. Progress is awesome!
Your paranoia led you to read into my question as an abortion question. The question was in regard to how the "fetus" is disposed of.
You are not good at this.
You are the most conceited moron on this site.congrats
Still haven't figured out what logical fallacies are....
not to start another thread, Galileo-like
Why We Need to Talk About the Horrifying Gosnell Abortion Trial
His business was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.
Philadelphia abortion provider Dr. Kermit Gosnell is accused of running a clinic straight out of the Saw horror franchise: standard practices allegedly included snipping the spines of live newborns with rusty equipment, storing feces in cat-food containers and fetus feet in jars, and overdosing patients, particularly those who were poor women of color. Make no mistake: if these charges are correct, Gosnell is a monster. But his business was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.
From the pages of the grisly grand jury report detailing the case against 72-year-old Dr. Kermit Gosnell, accused of murdering one woman and seven infants (Here's a good chronological recap from Philadelphia Weekly's Tara Murtha if you want more background):This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.Anti-abortion advocates, naturally, are thrilled that Gosnell is on trial. Horrified along with the rest of us, but thrilled at a chance to argue that this case illustrates how unspeakably disgusting abortion is using the most visceral evidence imaginable. "This is not about being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life,'" Kristen Powers argues in a USA Today op-ed that seems to have drawn significant national attention to the case for the first time since Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society" was raided in early 2010. "It's about basic human rights."
But this case is all about the difference between supporting and blocking reproductive choice.
http://www.alternet.org/why-we-need-...abortion-trial
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-14-2013 at 08:00 PM.
Howard Kurtz refutes Fox News pundit: ‘Conservative media didn’t do much’ on Gosnell case
CNN media critic Howard Kurtz on Sunday pushed back against a Fox News pundit who slammed the “deafening silence of too much of the media” over coverage of a Philadelphia doctor accused of killing seven babies and one woman while performing late-term abortions.
In a USA Today column last week, Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers pointed to former Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell as evidence that Planned Parenthood has been wrong to claim that it’s “highly unusual” that infants survive late-term abortions.
Powers said that there was a double standard because conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh had received front page coverage after he called Sandra Fluke a “ ” over her advocacy of contraception coverage for students, but Gosnell had not gotten the same attention.
“You don’t have to oppose abortion rights to find late-term abortion abhorrent or to find the Gosnell trial eminently newsworthy,” the Fox News pundit wrote. “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.”
In his “Media Monitor” segment on Sunday, Kurtz agreed that the Gosnell case had not gotten enough national coverage, but suggested that conservatives had oversimplified the argument to attack the “liberal media.”
“Some conservatives are saying this amounts to blackout by the so-called liberal media, but it’s more complicated than that,” he explained. “First, the Gosnell case has drawn some coverage since the FBI first raided that clinic back in 2010, in such outlets as Time, NPR, the AP, The New York Times, Slate and The Daily Beast. Now since Gosnell’s trial began, CNN has done a half dozen segments, including one by Jake Tapper back on March 21 and Fox News did a story that same day.”
“MSNBC, like Fox, has done a few stories,” Kurtz continued. “CBS and ABC carried evening news segments back in January, but there hasn’t been nearly enough on the trial. Almost nothing in The Washington Post, not enough in The New York Times. Perhaps the mainstream press is less attuned to a story that cast a shadow on abortion, but the conservative media didn’t do much either.”
“And it’s not like even the staunchest pro-choice advocate would defend what Gosnell is alleged to have done. This is a gruesome case that journalists on both sides of the abortion question have told me is hard to stomach.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/1...e+Raw+Story%29
Did somebody catch Fox Repug Propaganda network distorting, misrepresenting, LYING yet again? yawn
The answer is no.
Pretty clear. Don't even see why this would need to be asked.
Pro-life jeebo Ayn Rand advocates like spursncowboys and Wild Cobra are a shining example of unintentional comedy
Ayn Rand probably said more negative stuff about religion and god in a week than I have in my entire life, while she was outspokenly pro-choice and outright said "fetuses don't have rights" on several occasions. Her views on social issues were as left wing as it gets.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
