jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (83 posts)

Kermit Gosnell

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image84
    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago

    The president has talked up abortion as a safe choice.  Kermit Gosnell has just been indited for 1st degree murder of 3 aborted babies that were killed after they were born alive.  He was indited for performing late term abortions.(24 weeks +) There were 200 charges. Whew.!  Is He the only one who has operate clinics like this?   .

    1. swordsbane profile image60
      swordsbaneposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Abortion IS a safe choice.  He wasn't performing abortions.  He was killing children.  BIG difference.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, he's not the only one.   I've seen news about others also.   And it's really nothing new!   It's always been this way,  ever since America was stupid and wicked enough to legalize abortion.   The clinic where the woman worked whose case actually instigated legalized abortion was similar!;  the doctor who ran that clinic was similar to Gosnell.   She tells the story in her books "I Am Roe" and "Won By Love".   Her name is Norma McCorvey  (she was called "Jane Roe" in the Court case) and she later realized that abortion (at ANY age) is wrong,  and she now speaks out for the unborn children's right to Life.
      Abortion was installed into our American legal system for political reasons/power (by corrupt liberal advocate lawyers, one in particular)  in a time of liberal push that cared nothing about the actual subjects of the Court case----------unborn babies!    And it has continued since then,  because people refuse to even listen to anyone including the one person (Norma McCorvey) who has since repented and tried to guide America toward seeing that we need to correct the laws regarding killing unborn babies.   

      I find it crazy and ironic that American law has convicted Gosnell of kiling babies born alive (which he needed to be convicted of!) but yet refuse to see that even if they hadn't been born yet, they were still children.   
      America is a Nation that does try to correct the wrongs it does.   We (it) ended slavery, etc., though it took a while;  too long,  but still we do hold ourselves accountable eventually.    Yet in the case of abortion,  American society had been blinded by the onslaught of the liberal agenda.   So it keeps on killin' babies inside the womb.


      There is no "big difference" between what Gosnell did and what any abortionist does.  It's murder, period.   Abortion is not safe.   Never safe for the victim (the baby),  and not always even physically safe for the confused Mother-to-be who thinks she has a moral right to have her baby killed;  and never psychologically safe for her.

      I tell everyone to read Norma's books.   The first one is an example of the typical liberal-minded girl who's confused and victimized;
      the second is the story of her wake-up (you might say) as she grows older and realized that abortion is murder and how she was used as a guinea pig in a legal battle,  and how that has led to people claiming that abortion is okay.    That's how people have been led to the false ironic assumption that abortion clinics are okay as long as they're sterile.    Pshaw!   There's no such thing as a "good" or "sterile" place nor way to commit murder!   

      And it's a damning statement about our Supreme Court,  which, at the hands of ignorant or else wicked people like Sandra Day O'Connor,  legalized baby-killing 40 years ago.    If that's the mentality of Supreme Court Justices,  I could do a better job than that any day.    Corruption is in the highest Court in our land.   
      And while I do still have "faith" in the system,  I have NONE in the people in those positions at this time.

      And you're right----the President (Obama) has indeed "talked up" abortion as a safe choice.   And he's immensely full of carp.

      1. swordsbane profile image60
        swordsbaneposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not a Liberal, and I accept abortion.  You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you get into stupid arguments like "Is sperm a child?  It certainly has potential to grow into a human being.  It needs help, sure, but so does the fetus until it reaches a certain age.

        How about the eggs of women.  They can't be reproduced.  Women don't manufacture more of them, so does the government have the right to tell her what to do with each and every one?  Of course not, but that is the the rationale to take the "right to life" all the way back to conception.  A child that has just been conceived looks no different than an unfertilized egg.  It can't live outside the body and the unfertilized egg has just as much potential as the fertilized one.  It's just further along by a few minutes.  This is what you want to give rights to?  Where is your justification and how is it different than telling me I can't masturbate because I would be killing potential children or that a woman who decides not to have children is "aborting" all those eggs she destroyed with negligence?

        Seriously?

        Or are we only protecting things that LOOK like children?  Is that where you're coming from?  A fetus looks like a child and it has rights.  It looks like a lizard and it has none.  Never mind the fact that most of the time there is very little clinical difference except the time spent growing.

        So exactly what do you mean when you say that Abortion shouldn't be legal?  Who gets to draw the line? and why?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You said it yourself above, if you'd just follow your own train of thought! lol.

          An egg and a blob of sperm are just that----individual body secretions.

          When the two join, however, there is LIFE.

          I personally don't care if, nor how often, anyone masturbates!   That's their business!  Just keep it to themselves!

          But as soon as conception occurs from joining egg and sperm together,  there is LIFE that has the right to be nurtured and given the opportunity to see the light of day upon maturity.


          It's the same with contraception.   Contraception prevents........what?...........conception!   So there is no baby yet.
          But abortion at any stage is intended to kill a fetus that's already been conceived.

          1. swordsbane profile image60
            swordsbaneposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            So what does conception do to the fetus to make it a child?

            1. bBerean profile image62
              bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Prior to conception you have two separate components, both with the potential of being combined to create life, but that if left alone, will not result in life.  Once combined in conception we have life, which if left alone, grows up just like you or me.  So, before conception, inaction means no life.  At conception the life has been initiated, which barring some natural biological failure, will progress for around 80 more years.  Unless someone intentionally kills them.

              1. swordsbane profile image60
                swordsbaneposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Incorrect.  The only difference between conception and before conception is development.  The current state of the fetus doesn't change.  It is still susceptible to all the same dangers that an unfertilized egg is.  Let alone, it will die.  It still need the mother to survive, just as it did in it's unfertilized state.  What you're thinking about is potential only, and potential is no basis for making laws about something, or as I said... exactly the same rationale can be used to tell you or I what to do with unfertilized eggs or sperm.  There is NO difference.

                Having said all that, I don't think that abortion should be anything except a last resort, but I absolutely do NOT believe that the government or the church or you or I has ANY business telling people what is MORAL when it comes to this issue.  They must decide for themselves, and then live with the decision.

                1. bBerean profile image62
                  bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  The only difference between you and you before conception is development.
                  Fetus is a term applied at 9 weeks gestation...not that it matters...it is a developing human from conception regardless of what anyone calls it.  The difference between an unfertilized and fertilized egg is one is an actively developing human.
                    Yes, it will need it's natural habitat to develop and grow.  It need's it's mother to survive.  It will need assistance until it is at least in early childhood, (many until they are 30 these days).  I have a child with multiple disabilities who is in their 20s and still totally dependent on us for survival.  I am not being flippant, it is just a lame argument to say we are not human until we can fend for ourselves.  It is just a matter of if the child is wanted as to whether it is legally considered human in our current environment.  The kidnapper in the news recently will face murder charges for inducing abortions through beatings.  Babies who are viable outside the womb are not granted the same status, if not wanted. 
                    If killed in an auto accident, a wage earner's family can appeal to the law for remedy regarding the potential to provide of the lost loved one.  If injured in such a way as to limit my abilities, the law may offer a remedy to pursue compensation for my lost potential.  Even those examples belittle the subject of the conversation.  What is important is that if you don't take actions to stop the developing human, they will likely live a long life.  If you stop that life prematurely, be it before birth, at 1, 5, 20, 50 or 70 years, you have still simply limited it's potential. 
                    Without intervention, that egg or sperm will not become a developing human.  Something must change to initiate that process...conception.  Therefore, again, it is not equivalent to an actively developing human which if left alone, rather than becoming nothing, as the sperm or egg would if left alone, will continue to live and grow.
                    If it truly is as you describe it, your moral apprehension makes no sense.

                  1. swordsbane profile image60
                    swordsbaneposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    At least I admit I don't know when human life begins.  You seem to have decided it, and decided it rather arbitrarily.  Life begins at conception; you say, yet the only evidence of this is the assertion that a DEVELOPING organism is somehow more precious than one that isn't developing, and not just slightly more precious.  It doesn't matter at all what happens to unfertilized eggs.  Never mind that each has the potential for an individual, and unique identity.  You kill one egg, and you've destroyed something that is irreplacable (at least with current technology).  Whatever it's innate value to you, that specific combination of DNA is gone, yet you can destroy them in droves and no one would bat an eye.

                    However, you introduce other genetic material and begin a chain reaction that makes the egg begin to divide (it's still a single cell at this point) and it suddenly becomes a human that requires the government to step in and in part claim ownership of it and force it to come to term if at all possible.

                    This, to you is a rational argument?

        2. tirelesstraveler profile image84
          tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The more sophisticated science gets the more specific they have gotten concerning when life begins.  Today, the heart beat of a fetus can be heard within weeks of conception. Have you seen a high definition ultra sounds?  My grand daughter who will be born in September looks very much like her brother who is 1 ; she hasn't even made 6 months gestation yet; she has quite a little personality.  Ask the ultra sound tech who had to do two ultra sounds to get all the information the doctor wanted.

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If abortion were illegal he certainly would not be the only one who operated like this without licensing.

      He is an anomaly, a psycho... and he was convicted of three counts of murder.

      I agree with you too, abortion should be the ultimate last resort. But, it should be allowed to be that last resort. It is not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies.

    4. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Abortion is safe, fourteen times safer than giving birth, that doctor was simply murdering babies, which is not abortion and that is why he is now going to jail for a very long time.

      1. bBerean profile image62
        bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Abortion is safe?  Really?  At least 50% of the humans involved don't survive, and that is if you don't consider complications with many mothers.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Safe for the mother obviously, the point of the operation is to get rid of the zygote/fetus. Which by law are not human beings.

          1. bBerean profile image62
            bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Trying to place that...why does that sound familiar?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              If you are referring ti slavery then no, slaves were considered human beings.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                No they weren't,  not by many.  And the impression the slave and even later the freed black man got was that he wasn't considered a human being by those who approved of slavery and/or who disapproved of the right of blacks to vote.   I recall seeing pictures of black men who picketed holding signs that said "I AM A MAN".   

                What a shame that black people were made to feel that way.

                What an even more atrocious shame that little babies in the womb don't even get THAT chance!   They can't walk, much less hold up a sign that says "I AM A HUMAN".

              2. bBerean profile image62
                bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                No, that's not it.  Legal definitions may comfort guilty consciences, but in the end it is semantics.  If you can convince yourself humans in the earliest stages of development, are something other than human, more power to you.  Fail to kill them in the womb though, and at some point, you will have to admit they are human.  Is that when they are delivered?  When they are two?  When they move out of their parent's basement?  When they get their AARP card?  Whatever line you decide I guess, but don't fool yourself, because unless someone intervenes, all those things are likely to happen with that "thing" you tell yourself is not human.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I'll stick with the legal definition 22 to 24 weeks, when the baby is able to live outside the womb, before that it's part of the mother unable to live without anyone but her.

                  1. bBerean profile image62
                    bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Okay.  I'd advise staying away from ultrasounds though, lest your conscience get the better of your rationalization.

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image84
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Please site sources.  One is surgery and the other is a natural process.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview


          One is an incredibly safe procedure the other is an incredibly dangerous natural process, fourteen times more likely to kill you.

          "the pregnancy-associated mortality rate in the United States from 1998-2005 among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion."

          1. Huntgoddess profile image81
            Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have time to read that entire article right now, but I've seen it before. I think they're talking about early abortions, for one thing.

            I admit, the earlier the safer --- FOR THE MOM.

            Yet, it's not psychologically safe ever, for the mom. I would refer you to some places on the I'net where woman and men speak and write about the trauma and horrors of abortion. You might say I'm poisoning your mind with "pro-life propaganda" though. So I'll let you find these websites yourself --- if you're really interested in finding facts.

            Or, are you just in denial?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Actually it's throughout pregnancy, early abortions are like 40 times safer than birth.

              Yeah and the MOM has the right to not want to risk dying.

              Sometimes people suffer psychological damage from abortions but is actually very rare, the suicide rate for example for people who have had abortions is significantly lower than that of the general population so this is obviously not too bad.

              1. bBerean profile image62
                bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks for clarifying.  By this post you have confirmed to me that you have no first hand, (or close second hand), knowledge of what many, if not most, women go through mentally after an abortion.

                1. tirelesstraveler profile image84
                  tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Most post abortion syndrome occurs 10 to 15 years after the abortion. Frequently PAS strikes very suddenly around the anniversary of the abortion.

                  1. Huntgoddess profile image81
                    Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Apparently it's so bad that their suicide rate is still significantly lower.

                2. Huntgoddess profile image81
                  Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree, bBerean.

                3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I would assume it's significantly less than women who have babies who watch them get beaten, starve, fall through the cracks, become criminals etc.

                  I would also assume it's significantly less than those who carry around the spawn of their rapist.

                  I would also assume it's significantly less than those who have a severely disabled child, raise the child into toddler hood, and then watch him die in front of their eyes.

                  1. tirelesstraveler profile image84
                    tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Hope you are not speaking from experience.

                  2. Huntgoddess profile image81
                    Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    There's no need to assume. Just get some facts.

                  3. bBerean profile image62
                    bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    So here's a quandary.  You've responded to me, and I would be happy to address these, but based on the next few posts, as well as this...



                    I am guessing you weren't looking for a response.  I am trying to be respectful of how personal this is to you.  It is to me too, and if you want to question that, please be respectful as well or you may find it embarrassing.  If you really did want me to respond to your statements directly, please let me know.

              2. bBerean profile image62
                bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                This statement is far too vague to be of any value, since I don't know who "their" refers to, or who your sources are.  I am guessing you are referencing your earlier statement:

                Still vague and questionable.  What demographic is being compared?  Those who are on the record as having an abortion?  Remember, confidentiality is held in high regard among those seeking abortion.  Often even their loved ones aren't aware this is in their past.  How accurate can your numbers be?  Are we talking about all who have had abortions, (pretending anyone knows), or are we talking about the suicide rate among those suffering from PAS?  It appears to me you have a dubious and vague demographic on that end of the equation, so now lets look at the other end of it...the "general population".  That would include elderly folks, terminal patients, teens, people with mental disorders, drug abusers, veterans with PTSD, etc.  You didn't quantify "significantly lower", but if you are saying reasonably young ladies, (those within say 10 years of "child bearing years"), who have had abortions, have suicide rates anywhere close to those of the "general population" as described above, that's horrible! 

                If you wanted a meaningful comparison, you would have to first have an accurate record of who had an abortion.  Once you established the age range for that demographic, you would need to make a comparison between the suicide rate of the women within that age range who had an abortion, verses those who did not.  To accurately isolate the effect of abortion on the likelihood of suicide, you would have to consider other mitigating factors even within that demographic, to try and determine if those with other risk factors for suicide, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, clinical depression, etc. suffered from these things due to the impact of the abortion experience or some other reason.  Realistically, since suicidal folks are notoriously unreliable for exit interviews or filling out any pre-suicide surveys, the reason for their choice is rarely known with any degree of certainty.

                Although it would be nearly impossible to accurately determine the effect of abortion on suicide, for a moment lets polish your proposed point up the best in can be, and pretend for the sake of argument that the suicide rate were the same between women who did or did not have an abortion.  What insight would you gain from that regarding the emotional and psychological impact of abortion on young women who very possibly gained a new respect for the value of life from their experience or ordeal?  Are you saying "they didn't kill themselves so this is obviously not too bad."  Brilliant.  Good to know there is no problem there.

  2. Huntgoddess profile image81
    Huntgoddessposted 4 years ago

    There is only one DEFINITION of what a human being is:  Twenty three pairs of chromosomes makes a being human. Nobody need go into "opinions" theories or speculation. There is one and only one definition.

    Before conception ---- there are two separate sex cells:  Sperm cell; Egg cell. Each has twenty-three SINGLE chromosomes. They're not paired up yet.

    Any other "definition" can only lead to the unthinkable:  One group of humans decides for other humans which may live and which must die.

    The problem with the unborn is that Roe v. Wade has decided that one's CIVIL RIGHTS (as in the right to life) do not accrue until after one has been born. However, the Supreme Court did not "decide" when the new being becomes human. Therefore, we have legal abortion.

    However, even though the Supreme Court verifies that BIRTH is what gives us the civil right to life --- babies who somehow manage to get born against all odds are still left to die. Sometimes they are even directly killed, as Kermit Gosnell has done. He is guilty of murder of three babies, but perhaps he did that to many more babies? We will never know.

    Gosnell is NOT the only one who has done this. There was a medical journal article by two doctors who stated that if a baby does somehow manage to be born despite attempt to abort him or her, the mom and clinicians should "decide" whether or not it will be allowed to live or left to die.

    That is the purpose of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act --- to protect the lives of these tiny survivors ---- and heroes.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Our chromosomal data and DNA are nothing more than blue prints they tell our body what to build, saying that is a baby is as daft as saying a blueprint is a house. It is obviously not.

      1. bBerean profile image62
        bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Hmmmm.  That depends if that is a unique blueprint which will physically morph into the house. If so, the blueprint is the house.  If not, it is just a blueprint.  Pretty lame analogy, but if it is something you can relate to, why not go with it?

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I will just say this. If I were to express my feelings towards these... things... I would be permanently banned from HP.

  4. profile image56
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    Kermit Gosnell

    Is simply a convicted murderer.

    1. bBerean profile image62
      bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Due to the unpleasantness of the reality surrounding Gosnell, I can see where it would be convenient to simply dismiss this as a resolved issue that is safely locked away with him.  Unfortunately Gosnell's practices are indicative of a bigger issue that should not be ignored or swept under the rug. 

      Kermit Gosnell is a monster who left a wake of death and destruction behind him, the depths of which we shall never know.  Early investigations have indicated he and his practices are not as unique as we wish them to be.  Folks who know, need to come forward and expose others, so society can pursue whatever legal remedies are available, and correct the problems moving forward.  Abortion is such a sordid affair, most would prefer to ignore it.  Societal apathy allows purveyors of evil such as Gosnell, who act beyond the bounds of the law as a fringe element of the industry, to remain below the radar. They do not operate alone, however, and can only continue with the complicity of their support staff and associates.

      Gosnell's case, considering the sensational nature of the evil on display, should have by all accounts garnered record setting coverage.  Instead, the press played it down and ignored it until near the verdict, and if allowed to, will similarly ignore future cases of other clinics.  One can only hope the outrage of those who are driven by compassion and reason will keep the problems within the industry in the public eye, and work to have them corrected.  It is a lucrative industry however, which also enjoys major support from certain cultural and political ideologies, who hope the detestable violations such as Gosnell's disappear from the headlines.  After all, they could be bad for business.  Please don't perpetuate that by dismissing Gosnell as "simply a convicted murderer" and pretending he is an anomaly rather than a glimpse of a bigger issue which should outrage society. 

      Folks who support currently legal abortion practices should be on the forefront of wanting these issues dealt with, because otherwise extremists such as Gosnell will likely be the undoing of the industry they hold so sacred.

      1. Huntgoddess profile image81
        Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I think you are quite correct. " . .  . glimpse of a bigger issue . . ."

        Are you old enough to remember that movie, Judgment at Nuremberg, with Richard Widmark, Max Schell, Spencer Tracey (Tracy?). The German people were shocked when Colonel Lawson showed video tapes of what had been going on right under their noses.

        1. bBerean profile image62
          bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I am aware of the film, but have not seen it.  There is a correlation with people being genuinely or willingly ignorant of the facts and details, if not simply choosing to ignore the unpleasantness altogether.   The empty press area for the majority of the trial is at least evidence of that, if not a willful avoidance of the case due to a political agenda.

          1. Huntgoddess profile image81
            Huntgoddessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I agree, absolutely.

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image84
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Too true.

 
working