The New York Times has more info:

A Philadelphia abortion doctor has been charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman patient and seven babies that prosecutors say were born alive and then killed with scissors.

The charges against Dr. Kermit Gosnell follow a long grand jury investigation.

District Attorney Seth Williams says state regulators ignored complaints and failed to visit the clinic since 1993.

Williams says the women were subjected to squalid and barbaric conditions at Gosnell's Women's Medical Society, which was shut down last year.

Gosnell has been named in at least 10 malpractice suits, including one over the death of a woman who died of sepsis and a perforated uterus.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/19/us/AP-US-Abortion-Clinic-Investigation.html?hp

robian: We don't have much info to go on yet, but I believe that the woman's death of sepsis is a separate incident and is not involved in the murder of the babies.

I find the fact that this "clinic" was not even visited by regulators for 17 years far more interesting.

This will be an interesting case to watch unfold. It will be especially interesting to see how the media and the left deals with it because it involves two terms they would rather not see in the same sentence: "Late term abortion" and "murder". I also suspect there will be hesitancy to see an "abortion doctor" (if he can be called that) charged with murder, although the charges don't seem unjustified in this case.

Here's something to think about: If he does the same thing with the baby inside the mommy, no crime, not even a $50 fine. 5 minutes later and it's murder.

How the legal standard isn't viability, is beyond all reason. All we have to know is how early can a baby survive outside the womb. We have dealt with millions of preemies. This is not something new.

The cutoff for abortions should be the age that the earliest preemie survived.

Here's something else to think about: What if Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, but instead had forced all Jewish pregnant women to have early term abortions. If abortion is not killing of a child, why would you have a problem with Hitler doing that?

Something to think about.

Other news details...:Authorities went to investigate drug-related complaints at the clinic last year and stumbled on what [was] called a "house of horrors."

"There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building," Williams said. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

The clinic was shut down and Gosnell's (age 69) medical license was suspended after the raid."...

It was also noted that the guy had a high school student doing anesthesia, and that the clinic "catered to minorities, immigrants, and the poor" - which would somewhat explain the lack of follow up on complaints - but not excuse it.

If this is true then it's simply a murderous act on the part of the doctor. This still doesn't change how I feel about abortion and that it is a woman's right to choose. Abortion is not something that anyone take lightly (well the people I have been around that has experience with it). I do understand that some viners will lose their minds and cry for banning abortion, but that will be just like the "liberals" calling for gun control after the AZ shooting. Neither make any sense, because both are an emotional response to a horrific situation. Think before you over react.

This "doctor" needs the death penalty. Killing 7 babies with scissors? Are you serious? The "mothers" need to be charged as well. I use the terms mother and doctor very, very loosely. This is UNFORGIVABLE, there is absolutely no excuse for this.

there are absolutely no facts presented in this article...just allegations. i guess Americans forgot about "innocent until PROVEN guilty" geez

Ryan in Texas,

The reason why pro-choice advocates would have a problem with Hitler forcing abortions on Jews, is that "force" indicates it's no longer a "choice". I don't think anyone thinks of abortion as a "great idea". It is simply, for some, the lesser of two evils. If one is in a situation where they are contemplating abortion, any decision they make is going to have life-long consquences. Pro-choice advocates simply believe that, even though it may not be something that makes any of us feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is necessary to have the option to make that choice if need be.

why is the choice on whether another individual may live or die in anyone's hands but that individual??? Your lesser of two evils is that a person will die. How would you like it if someone had made the choice for you that your death was the lesser of two evils??? I wish that "pro-choicers" would at least acknowledge that their "right to choice" is overriding the right of another human being to live.

I'm not sure I understand this article. Whats the difference between abortion and the killing the doctor did. Abortion means to abort (kill) the child plain and simple. So he did. It doesn't matter how you do it that should be an issue, the child will still die. Thats why these so called mothers (?) come to the clinic isn't it. Abortion should be outlawed, period! Just my opinion.

I am surprised that any of you were "surprised" about the use of scissors. Do you not know how later term abortion is done? Look it up. that is the optimal tool. Ideally the babe is born feet first. Before the head can come out and take a breath it is not considered alive. The doctor inserts scissors into the base of the baby's scull and kills it. Because the child does not breathe it is considered not born.

Ryan in Texas:Here's something else to think about: What if Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, but instead had forced all Jewish pregnant women to have early term abortions. If abortion is not killing of a child, why would you have a problem with Hitler doing that?

The above comment is utterly moronic. The poster apparently isn't able to distinguish between a voluntary abortion performed at the request of a woman and a forced termination of a pregnancy performed against the will of the woman.

And, since he's decided to use Holocaust-era Jewish women and Hitler as a hypothetical, the poster might also be interested to read in the Bible (Numbers 5) how "god" mandates that the high priest sort out whether a married woman has illegitimately conceived a fetus through infidelity. In short, the high priest forces the woman to undergo a "trial by ordeal" in which, if guilty of infidelity, she spontaneously miscarries her "bastard" fetus and becomes infertile, presumably through the power of god's divine will (and against her own). So, on the one hand, we have Hitler hypothetically performing forced abortions (bad), and also god and the high priest doing it in the Bible (apparently, good). Egads.

This has to do with a doctor who did illegal abortions and ran a 'hospital' that was far from safe. It has nothing to do with a woman's choice. Keep you religion out of politcs!!!!!!!

Actually if one is a politician then yes keep Religion out. But since most of us aren't then one can mix religion in with politics if they so choose. Freedom of speech is for all...or it used to be anyway until 2008.

Morgen34,

I do understand why this is such a widely controversial topic. I also understand that you believe a human life is a blessing, but are you also considering the other aspects of this child's life? Let's assume the child is going to be carried to term and given up for adoption: There is a relatively large chance that if this child does not get adopted at infancy, it never will. It will end up in our foster care system, where the many of the homes it is placed in do not foster love and growth, but can be abusive in all aspects. And I understand that they should not be, but that doesn't change the hard fact that many of them are. Option number 2 is that the child is carried to term and kept with it's biological mother. This is a poor option because I would hate to see what happens to a child that was not wanted in the first place. The foster care system mentioned above might have been the "lesser of two evils" here. There is the other option that the child may have been painfully, terminally ill. I know that many pro-lifers will preach about the santicty of life, but what is sacred about an infant life wrought with turmoil? Most people euthanize dogs so they don't have to go through things like that. And finally our last option, option number 4 would be for you to adopt all of the babies that would have otherwise been aborted.

Sadly, even if abortions were illegal, this wicked man and his cohorts would have set up shop in the back of a restaurant or store, using rusty knives. However, sadly, abortion is legal, and he went beyond the limits and committed murder. This should not be trumpeted by the foes of abortion as proof of the evils of abortion, nor should the pro-choice crowd have to defend their views in light of this doctor's actions.

If we must vehemently disagree, let us agree to do so in truth, as best we are able.

morgen it depends what your definition of "life" or "person" is. A fetus in the womb is only alive because of the mother. The mother's blood, oxygen, nutrients are shared. So in that case, perhaps one can argue that the mother and child are one life, one person, and according to your argument the mother can make any choice she wants regarding herself/itself. In MOST cases, abortions are NOT performed late-term, and usually only when medically necessary (i.e. the fetus is not viable/alive, will not survive after birth, or the mother is in danger). In most cases there is no guarantee that coming to term(birth) will produce a viable, living human being. Again, it should be up to the mother to make those decision concerning her own life.

If my mother had made the decision to abort me, I wouldn't know, because I would never have been born or alive in the first place.

Terra - Thank you for your intelligent post.

"Abortion means to abort (kill) the child plain and simple."

Actually, the word "abort" means end before completion, and it refers to the pregnancy, not the child. In fact, if a baby dies in utero, an abortion can be performed to take it out of the mother. Not plain, not simple.

NOTHING justify the killing of those babies, this is not what the Judges rule in Rove vs Wade . This is a cold blood MURDERER , he and any other person that was involve in this massacre should go to jail , the clinic closed and regulate and inverstigate the abortion clinics to make sure this is not a common practice.

There are bad peolple in all walks of life.

Well said. God forbid anyone stand up and say abortion is murder. What about the fetus' choice? I do agree the article is lacking more information.

jwhite1083 - Thanks for posting the NY time article (much better reporting)

This man (doctor not more) was a killer - while I know that these were unwanted children, to induce labor only to cut their spines is something out of a movie.

Here's something else to think about: What if Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, but instead had forced all Jewish pregnant women to have early term abortions. If abortion is not killing of a child, why would you have a problem with Hitler doing that?

I see something wrong with this on many levels.

Interesting that a couple of bloggers have chosen to bring into this discussion the violent acts commited against those in the medical profession that perform abortions.

What those bloggers have apparently chosen to ignore is that for many people those involved in abortions have committed murder and are in violation of not only Christian values but also the tenets of every civilized religion in the world.

So rather than discuss our individual opinions on abortion why not stick to the topic that this man has been accused of but not found guilty of crimes that most of us find outragious.

Well here is something to ponder; A fellow up here in Alaska shot his wife in the second trimester and killed the fetus. Mother died a little later and the fellow got charged with two murders.

Hmm, should he not have been charged with killing the fetus and only charged for killing the mother? After all it seems that those commenting here, the fetus is not a life. Double standard, I believe!

Oh! by the way both parties in the case was highly educated middle class. Not poor, not dumb, not in any way disadvantaged nor a minority. Cause, lose of temper while discussing the pregnancy. Weapon used, stolen service pistol.

It is high time these so-called "doctors" were charged with murder put out of business. Doctors are supposed to be healers who promote life, whereas abortionists have only death to sell.

Women in advanced pregnancy who do not want their children should have the babies and then put them up for adoption. There are so many people who cannot have children and other families who have the love and room for one more in their homes. I would urge these women to choose life for their children, not death.

Do we now need to have "tougher legislation" for people to get abortions so this does not happen again. Or do we need a 7 day "cooling off" period before the abortion can be performed???

Personally I think the guy should fry. BUT where is the outcry from the Liberals like they have on gun control or other issues??????

Who really cares huh? with all the millions that are aborted ... who really cares? People have sex too early- the baby is an inconvenience to their lifestyle. NO personal responsibility these days.

1.5 million per year in the US.

If you believe it is human life, then we are talking about an atrocity on an unimaginable scale.

All because people could not be inconvenienced by having to use contraception.

Or perhaps a baby would infringe on their lifestyle.

I have spent time around premature babies. Viability is presently around the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

Any abortion past that point is nearly always the killing of viable human life. Those of us who care call them babies.

TinStar - thanks but I stand by my comment.

I think it would do this topic a world of good if people who were against abortion realized that the argument in favor of the right to choose does not hinge on whether a fetus is living (it is) or if it is human (which it also is). It has to do with whether or not the fetus has a claim to moral rights that exceed those of the pregnant woman. In short, we can either respect the right of the pregnant woman to choose to do with her own body as she pleases, or we can respect the right of the fetus to be born and live -- we can't do both. In the case of the former, the woman clearly does have a Constitutional (as well as a case law) right to do with her body as she pleases. By contrast, there's no indication that a fetus has any claim to moral rights, much less any rights that exceed those of the mother. The only consistent, Constitutionally justifiable conclusion to draw is that abortion should be legal,and that's exactly why it is, and exactly why it will continue to be.

Roe vs Wade says a woman has the right to chose to abort.

There is no Constitutional protection for the Doctors. (There isn't really any for the Mother's either, but that is the new law the Supreme Court created.)The best tactic now is to encourage legislation that removes the medical license from any doctor performing late term abortions.

Abortion, though legal, is difficult to get. Most OB/GYN's won't do the procedure any longer. Not because they don't agree with woman's choice, but because of the danger to themselves and their families.

In many areas, the only places women have available are this "little shop of horrors". Poor women don't have the option of getting in the car and heading to a safer place to have the procedure done.

I'm conservative, but pro-choice. People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that abortion is going to happen, legal or not. If you drive out the safe practitioners, you get people like this providing the services. Since abortion became legal in the 1970's, the number of providers has dropped significantly. And again, not because doctors don't believe in pro choice, but because our fellow citizens have made it unsafe for them to provide the procedure to women acting within the law.

Ryan -

The best tactic now is to encourage legislation that removes the medical license from any doctor performing late term abortions.

Do you understand the laws around late-term abortions? If you do, then you already know that . . . BY LAW . . . they are only allowed when the fetus is NOT viable outside the womb, or the mother will die during birth. In addition, they need 3 doctors to verify this before they can get the procedure.

So, the fetus can either die a very painful death outside the womb, or go peacefully in a late term abortion. You would rather have the child die a painful death instead of go peacefully? Really?

Or perhaps you would like to personally tell the mother that will die during birth that she can not have a late term abortion. You would like to pass a death sentence on to an innocent woman, and force her to die because you do not believe in late term abortions.

I'm sorry, but what kind of person does that to a fetus, or a mother?

I'm not sure what the law is regarding Partial birth abortions, which is what these sound like they are, but Obozo and his wife both support this procedure, so I'll be following this story to see if the charges are actually brought to trial.

Myself, I don't understand the logic of WHY this should be illegal when aborting a baby at a month or 2 isn't..but that's just me.

Irresponsibility doesn't have to be the cause of death for another individual. There's always the option of contraceptives.

Terra - I just read Numbers 5 and you got it wrong. It didn't talk about miscarriage. It just said that the woman who cheated on her husband would be cursed, and there was a process they went through for that.

I guess all this talk comes down to what is your basis for life? If you believe that we were created in the image of God, then you view even unborn babies as having intrinsic value and so you do your best to preserve that life, even if they might turn out to do evil later in life. If you believe that life is just some random event, a part of evolution, then you don't give a flip about unborn babies. You might even view them as being inconvenient. And you want the right to choose death for your unborn baby.

Well, on that judgement day, don't say I didn't warn you. The Bible says, "seek the Lord while He may be found.."

That clinic wasn't an abortion clinic. It was an "execution" clinic where desperate parents go to kill their babies. Not even an animal deserve that kind of cruelty. Abortion clinics need to be regulated in order to provide clear information about what the pregnant woman will go trough and offer other posibilities like adoption before make their choice or/and end in hand of murdereres like this case.

Well, on that judgement day, don't say I didn't warn you. The Bible says, "seek the Lord while He may be found.."

Andy -

The Bible also says that you need only to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior to gain access to heaven. And that he will forgive all your sins . . . you know, that whole dying on the cross thing.

Thoughts from Cali - excellent post.

when will we start bringing all the families of ancestors of the crusades to trial for atrocities against humanity?

sorry doesn't cut it.

"Safety of Abortion clinics? Botched Abortions and the women who thought they were getting a safe abortion."

Why doesn't Oprah do a show on this?

The fact is that Vets are under more regulations concerning care of animals, then abortion clinics are under in most states. Red Flag, anyone?

There needs to be more Gov. regulation (state and fed) over this industry: As they should have to exist under the same rules as any other Surgery Center.

The Fact is: NO one ENTERS MEDICAL SCHOOL with the hopes of becoming an abortion Doctor. Those who run abortion clinics, you can bet, graduated at the bottom of their class or who have washed out of some other form of medicine!

So who is speaking up for women on this issue? I'm sure the pro-lifers would support more regulations. More regulations would mean greater safety for women as they exercise their chioce. But more regulation my run some abortion clinic out of business as they do not want to cope with the added hassles of doing business

Thoughts from Cali - You're simply misguided on all your comments. This has nothing to do with the law. The decision to end a life should never be placed in the hands of a human being.

And, please dont throw up reasons or examples why choice is viable. I've been there. My wife and I, just 6 years ago, got the news at 16 weeks that our child had a form of fatal dwarfism and could not possibly survive outside the womb. We made the decision together to carry the baby to term and I watched as my wife got larger and larger. But, in exchange for that 9 months of sheer panic, we were able to see the natural death of our child at birth. We got the opportunity to meet him, and he us, be it ever so brief. We gave him all we could and that was his God given right to fight for life.

As for the doctor, I thought people were innocent until PROVED guilty. Ah, yes, the Rule of Law that the Right Wing screams about but jettisons whenever convenient.

Ecclesiastes 4:3 ... Better never to have been born than be born to see the evil work that is done

Ecclesiastes 4:3 "

So for all the anti-abortion posters on Newsvine, what in your opinion should the punishment be for a woman who gets an abortion if it is outlawed?

You are partially correct @Cattitudes... it appears as though the comments are already assuming this doctors guilt. I would argue, however, that it is coming from both sides of the spectrum and to point ONLY at the Right is an injustice in-and-of itself.

Shame on you (and all the other 'haters' out there) for throwing rocks while living in a glass house...

jspe -

And you believe that you should force others to go through that same thing? Just because you were capable of handling it, does not mean others are. Don't you see what you are saying . . . you made the CHOICE. You choose to undergo "9 months of sheer panic", just to see your child die. And you want to deny that same choice to others? You want to stand on your soapbox and proclaim that your decision is right and everyone else is wrong? Who are you do deny another person this choice in their own life?

Many people, including myself, look at your decision as inhumane. In my opinion, you forced your child to undergo a painful death instead of allowing it to pass peacefully. Sorry, you will not get compassion from me. All I see is someone trying to FORCE others into a decision they made.

So the question is to my above post what is N.O.W to do? Demand higher standards or continue to remain silent (about higher standards and qualifications of the doctors) in fear of hurting the abortion mill industry?

I find it really sad how many are willing to wait to see and not pass judgment, with the only motivation clearly being their rabid desire to kill unborn children under the guise of "right to choose". Well good for you, keep your murderous right, I find these people to be some of the most disgusting on earth, but I will tolerate their hate and murder.

What is interesting is that this is just another example of failed government - 17 years this clinic goes unmonitored, un-regulated? Seems to me the real story is what an utter failure our government is at doing their job!

The liberal solution is always more government, more regulation, and yet here we are 50 years or so down the liberal road and what do we have to show for it? Failed government at every level, sky high salaries and benefits for these failures, sky high taxes to pay these incompetent fools and a President and ruling class that wants to add more regulation, more control, take away more freedoms by taking our money and regulating every aspect of our lives.

I happen to be pro-choice. I can understand and respect a woman's rights, and needs, when it comes to abortion. However, i have always felt that a partial birth abortion (at least that's what it sounds like to me) is just wrong. There is a reason why abortions are legal only to a certain gestation period. If you have to give birth to a child before it can be aborted than the chances of it surviving outside the womb are higher than say in the 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy. It is sad that any women would feel they have no other option then to choose to do what this doctor allowed.

That being said, and yes I am a mother, according to science something is not alive unless it can respire (breathe), which a fetus cannot until it is born. So from a science stand point a fetus is not actually alive, and is likely a defense this doctor will use. As a mother, there was not one moment that I regarded my unborn babies as not alive. And from the moment you feel that movement inside of you there is no denying it.

This whole story really makes me sick.

Janine-1645002 wrote: "Obozo and his wife both support this procedure..."

How old are you Janine? Twelve? Shame on you.

Whatever happens to this "Doctor", I'm sure Obama will grant him a full and complete pardon right before he leaves office!

If what is reported in this article is true, the doctor should be in prison for life. I don't know the reason the "mothers" chose to terminate their pregnancy at such a late date. But, I am totally against what was done. Having said that, I am pro-choice. It should be a woman's choice to have a child or not - through the first tri-mester. That's it unless the pregnancy becomes a threat to the mother's health. Then it is between the mother and her doctor to decide what to do. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

This will be something now that I will follow with interest.

For those of you who do not know what a "late abortion" or partial birth abortion entails, a "doctor" turns the baby still inside the mother to deliver it breech so that the legs are first to come out, not the head as in most births.

Then, the baby is delivered, all except the head. A pair of surgical scissors is then inserted into the spinal column just below the baby's cranium which is still inside the mother's body. This essentially severs the spinal cord & the autonomic nervous system. Then, the "dead" baby is delivered as an "abortion."

(R.N.)

Terra - I just read Numbers 5 and you got it wrong. It didn't talk about miscarriage. It just said that the woman who cheated on her husband would be cursed, and there was a process they went through for that.

Andy, the problem is that you're reading (I believe) the New International Version rendering of the text. The NIV Bible is a fundamentalist translation of the Bible that was specifically published in the late 1960s by Biblical literalists for the sole purpose of "massaging" texts to make them fall more in line with the conservative social viewpoints of fundamentalist Christians. The editors of the NIV openly admit in the preface to the original edition that, where the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic manuscripts were unclear as to their meaning and intent, the personal religious convictions of the NIV editors were their guide in choosing how to render the text. To be honest, this is actually putting it mildly, since the NIV is well known for having intentionally changed words in order to make the text mean something that it originally didn't (the controversy over Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 is a great example, as is this issue with Numbers 5). Regardless, one only need look at even the NIV's rendering of the passage to see that divinely caused miscarriages (i.e., abortions caused by god) were still the ultimate punishment for unfaithful wives:

²⁰But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband"— ²¹here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—"may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ²²May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." -- Numbers 5:20-22 (NIV)

Granted, according to the NIV rendering of the text, only a "curse" is placed on the woman, but it's that curse that causes her to miscarry in the future. Ergo, miscarriage of a pregnancy is the ultimate penalty handed down from god for her infidelity, which means that god uses miscarriage as punish for cheating wives, and hence, that god is really the big abortion doctor in the sky.

Regardless, like I said before, the NIV's rendering of this text is notoriously clumsy and unfaithful, itself (and for the obvious reason that fundamentalist Bible translators tend to take liberties with Biblical texts in order to hide things they don't like about what the Bible actually says). A reading of the Revised Standard Version is better, and a reading of the Hebrew Tanakh is better still. Even the Mishnah and Talmud, when dealing with the "Sotah" (i.e., the ritual described in Numbers 5), admits that the whole ordeal was meant to cause an unfaithful pregnant wife to spontaneously abort her fetus.

Paul F -

How many women in your family have experienced a miscarriage? Please, inform me. Because if abortion is murder, as you believe, then a miscarriage is manslaughter. By your definition, if the intent to end a fetus is murder, then the unintentional death of a fetus is manslaughter.

So man up, Paul. How many women in your family are guilty of manslaughter? Will you stick to your morals and turn them in? How deep do your convictions really go?

Or will you make an excuse for manslaughter? Will you bend your convictions and beliefs to fit your own situation?

Once again, I ask: since many want abortion outlawed, what should the punishment be for a woman who gets an abortion?

Thoughts from Cali - a woman has no control over her body miscarrying - you have just jumped the proverbial shark on this one.

kstarr1 -

It does not matter if you believe you have control over it, or not . . . if your actions result in a death, that is considered manslaughter. If your womb is inhospitable, and you DECIDE to bring a fetus into it, you are responsible for the miscarriage. If your actions, diet, activity, etc. are not perfect, then I can make the argument that you are responsible. Did you take EVERY SINGLE vitamin, at the appropriate time? Did you exercise enough, too much, not enough? Did you strain your body? Were you too lazy?

See how easy that is.

I guess all this talk comes down to what is your basis for life? If you believe that we were created in the image of God, then you view even unborn babies as having intrinsic value and so you do your best to preserve that life, even if they might turn out to do evil later in life.

Agreed, it does come down to what your basis for belief is. My own basis is evidence and moral pragmatism, which is to say, I believe in the laws of nature, and where those are unclear, the principle of doing the least harm possible. By contrast, your basis is tan untenable belief in the existence of an invisible supernatural being who doles out acts of divine retribution which deft any sense of moral order or purpose (hence, 250,000 mostly innocent Haitians can die in an earthquake while your god supposedly laments violent video games and the widespread use of condoms).

If you believe that life is just some random event, a part of evolution ...

It is.

... then you don't give a flip about unborn babies. You might even view them as being inconvenient.

The above is a classic example of a straw-man argument -- ascribing a belief or position to an opponent that does not logically follow from what they've actually argued. Nowhere have I suggested, Andy, that I don't "give a flip about unborn babies" -- I do. But, I also care about the Constitutional rights of freedom and self-autonomy, and in the case of a pregnant women who wants an abortion, we can't respect the freedoms of both the woman and the fetus -- we have to choose one. And in that instance, we absolutely must admit that the women is the only one of the two who has a clear Constitutional right to freedom and self-autonomy. It's not even clear that a fetus does, or even should, have such rights.

I here what you are saying & understand however I challenge you to know that most probably the Moms would've had absolutely no idea that the babies were actually alive. It is a very sad scenario (late term abortions can not be easy for any Mom) & sad to hear of the barbaric conditions.

ThoughtsfromCali -what "actions" would the mother have taken for it to be considered "manslaughter" then? Breathing?

"A Philadelphia abortion doctor has been charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman patient and seven babies that prosecutors say were born alive and then killed with scissors."

I don't see the problem here. Isn't that what they do?

Texasgirl, too late, ThoughtsfromCali just couldn't quit while he/she was ahead I guess.

I understand, Texasgirl

You believe abortion is murder but want to turn a blind eye towards miscarriage. I guess you believe the death of a "child", as a result of the mother neglecting her own body, is perfectly acceptable.

Or perhaps you are a typical pro-lifer, only promoting issues that do not affect you personally. It is easy to pass judgment on others until the pendulum swings your way. What's wrong? Afraid you would be found guilty?

I miscarried. I treated my body and that of my childs better than I had thought to treat anything. I was so excited, you couldn't imagine. At 5 months, I miscarried. There was nothing I could do differently. Gawd, I was behaving better than a nun (minus the obvious). Many women go through that. A doctor will tell you 'a lot of first timers miscarry.' Do your research or go away.

Dirtydog,

Not all abortions are the result of irresponsibility. Many happen because of danger to the mother, or exceptional circumstances.

I'm with Paul F....This Liberalized society is so peachy, no social program is a good program !

Yeah, all those evil liberal social programs... like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public education, fire departments, the armed services, OSHA safety standards, FDA regulations, etc., etc., etc. ALL EVIL LIBERAL CONSPIRACIES THAT WORK TO THE DETRIMENT OF HUMANKIND! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!!!

The tragic thing about you Republican voters is that despite your endless ranting against the government, socialism, and the Democratic Party, all you're really doing is allowing yourselves to be duped by the Republicans into ensuring that the majority of wealth and power in this country stays firmly in the hands of the already-wealthy and already-powerful. It's ironic -- completely sad and utterly counterproductive, mind you -- but ironic, all the same.

Thoughts from Cali - since you insist on opening yourself up here and removing all doubt - I suggest you read some information on how a miscarriage occurs. They are not a result of a mother neglecting her body. They are in most cases unexplained involuntary occurrences, unknown genetic factors. Women have been miscarrying throughout the ages, with or without prenatal vitamins, with or without proper diet, with or without modern medical information. They just happen.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2011/01/abortion_doctor_charged_with_m.html

According to the Baltimore Sun, the victim who died in 2009, was named Karnamaya Mangar. Also prosecutors say that over 30 yrs. of doing this, the doctor made millions & that he let a H.S. student administer narcotics! And yes, they haven't been inspected since 1993. Unbelievable.

kstarr -

You are making this too easy. Ok . . . I will play.

Is your womb hospitable, or should you have not introduced a fetus into your womb in the first place? What was your heart rate and blood pressure during pregnancy? Were you at perfect health to make sure that adequate blood flow was present in the womb? What was your diet? Did you take in all necessary vitamins and nutrients to provide for the growth of the fetus? Did you smoke? Drink alcohol? Did you maintain the appropriate level of exercise without going over the limit and straining your body? Did you do the correct prenatal exercises, or did you perform traditional exercise routines? Were you put on bed rest, and did you stay in bed? Can you PROVE all of this in a court of law, to convince everyone that you did not neglect your own body or the fetus in any way?

You see, neglect is a popular action in manslaughter cases. Of course, people always tell mothers of miscarriage that "it just happens" . . . they don't want to hurt her delicate feelings. But in reality, she probably neglected her body. I've worked with enough prenatal cases to know that very VERY few women can actually be considered "healthy" when they become pregnant. In fact, out of the hundreds of cases I have worked, 2 of them were considered in perfect health . . . only 2.

Thoughts From Cali / Scales - the manslaughter comparison gave me pause to rethink the debate, which few comments are able to do. But, I have to agree with kstarr and jspe; it shows you really just don't understand the definition of manslaughter. There are many degrees; the two most general being voluntary and involuntary. Bottom line, I guess you COULD prosecute a mother for a miscarriage IF YOU COULD SHOW INTENT, as in she did things harmfully to her body, withheld nutrition, threw her self down a flight of stairs in order to kill the child. That would be voluntary. Involuntary would be...say; if she accidentally ran a red light and lost the baby in a car accident. But in most cases a miscarriage occurs due to natural causes, so if you believe that I guess you would also have to say people who have heart attacks or die from AIDS committed suicide. Good for a philosophical debate, but a thin logic thread.

Also, ThoughtsfromCali - you were pretty harsh on JSPE there, I guess your ok with the right to choose as long as it agrees with your choice. But then again, your someone who would prosecute a woman who lost her baby in a car accident. Pretty diabolical.

Thoughts from Cali - READ - Miscarriages are not a result of any actions taken by the mother. Is that clear? There may be cases where a mother is guilty of gross negligence in causing herself to miscarry. But the vast majority of miscarriages have no reason behind them. I've wasted too much time trying to educate you for free today. Like another poster said, either educate yourself or get out of here. I don't believe any of your story - it's just your angle in the argument, nothing more.

@Paula-how dare you! These mothers only got abortions because there was no other way out for them. That does not mean they should get life in prison! What if they had been raped? Or what if the baby would've been born out of incest? Would you really send a woman to jail for refusing to give birth to a baby with so many health risks and problems? Maybe you should get life in prison, or these poor women will suffer under people like you.

@Terra-I agree with you. A woman should have her own say in what goes on with her body.

Terra, you are an amazing at debate and expressing yourself! I agree with everything you've said so far and wish I could bring it in to the world the way you do! You go with your bad self!!!! If I feel this way, then I'm sure there are others out there that also do. It's a sad topic, but Constitutionality is key. In the case of this article that everyone is talking about, the Higher Court will be the judge, though it is verrrrry interesting to see how people are so adamant about their beliefs. Although it is written in the Constitution, Freedom of Speech can be really scary when it comes to these arguments.

Thoughts from Cali, judging from your previous post, I would be interested in knowing what you do for a living.

I'm a pro-lifer, AND I've had a miscarriage. My baby quit growing. I was told this was nature's way of ending his/her life because, if he/she had made it to term, he/she would have had a lot of developmental problems.

Now, to submit the argument that I should be guilty of manslaughter is weak, because a court would see that I did everything I could to ensure that my baby would be healthy, but nature deemed my baby not viable.

This is similar to having a child die from cancer or something that they were born with.

Now, mothers that smoke, drink, and do drugs while pregnant and miscarry could theoretically be tried for manslaughter, because they are knowingly endangering their baby.

But not the average woman who takes her vitamins regularly.

CalifGina -

I actually agree with you, even though I am completely heartless and diabolical. :) My point was simply to show that a lawyer could, under our law, make a case for it. Furthermore, I wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy in the pro-life crowd where they are so quick to place blame in abortion, but want to completely dissolve themselves of all responsibility in a miscarriage. If they believe a fetus is a life, and it's death is in fact a death . . . then, by law, it would garner a full investigation into the cause of such death. Would you, or any woman, be willing to undergo a full investigation into the cause of a death . . . the same as any investigation into any death? Doubtful. Again, they love to point fingers and place blame, until someone points a finger at them.

Your second point confuses me. I argue that everyone should have the right to make their own choice, and you say that I am pushing my choice on them? So I am pushing my choice that they make their own choice? That does not really make sense. I could care less about their choice, my opinion is that it was inhumane, but that is merely an opinion. I still maintain that they have the right to make the decision themselves (yes, I was harsh . . . but I am diabolical, so what do you expect?) Basically the argument comes down to everyone makes their own choice (my preference), or everyone has JSPE and his ilk make the choice for them (force).

This is such an emotional subject, and we all have our feelings about it, regardless of what side of the issue we advocate. I personally have never had an abortion, nor would I ever want to be in a position where I would need to think about having to even think about it one way or the other. I know that women AGONIZE over such decisions. I have no judgment either for it, or against it.

Here's the issue, as I see it. The DOCTOR, (being the supposed professional)has an obligation to make sure that his patients are safe, and that they understand the procedure (any procedure), and the outcome of such procedures. The patient looks to the doctor for his professional care, and trusts that his actions are above board.

HE (the doctor) was very unscrupulous in his practice, and put his patients in jeopardy, not to mention the 'murder' of the infants. HE is suppose to be the professional. Abortion is one thing, because there is a criteria set up for it, and a definition for it under the law (whether we like it or not). MURDER is quite another. In my opinion, his methods were barbaric, callous, and indefensible. The desperate women who sought his 'professional' help, probably didn't realize the true outcome of what was to happen. We do not know the stories of these women, so to sit in judgment of them, without being on a jury, or having the facts would be presumptuous, self rightesous, and critical on our part, not to mention down right disgusting! I just hope that the facts of the case can come out, and that each person involved will be dealt with a manner in which is appropriate according to their level of involvment. Isn't that what justice should be? Where is the MERCY? Someone earlier said they had no sympathy for the one woman who died, due to unsanitary conditions (sepsis) SHAME ON YOU. What a terrible way to die, and for you to rejoyce in her death in such a manner sends chills up my spine. You are less than human, even though you have set yourself up as a person who is 'better than'. People with attitudes like yours better watch out, because often times the pit they dig for someone else, is the one they themselves fall into.

So if we remove the 1% of abortions that are the result of rape or danger to the mother from the argument, we are left with people that behaved in a reckless manner. (Yes, that's 2 people.)

We frequently get monetary punishments from the Gov't even when they do not result in harm to another being. Tens of millions of speeding tickets are given in cases where no wreck occurs. Though the act of speeding did not in those cases result in any harm, we still accept the fact that punishment can be given.

For us to allow a woman to just decide that she wants to kill her 20 week old baby and not even have the consequences of going 1 mph over the speed limit is insanity.

We may be able to allow her to do it, but certainly we should place regulatory burdens on her decision and the procedure including those that perform it.

The permitting process for building a shed in your backyard is more rigorous and expensive than for getting an abortion at 20 weeks.

I find it madness that our gov't, with it hands in every activity, and without limits to it's desire to regulate, to treat abortion as less serious than building a shed or driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit.

I see several posts saying 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S. I personally believe it is the womans choice provided it is early in the pregnancy.The fact that the majority of those aborted would not be adopted is an actual fact,so I guess what I'm saying is for all those against abortion come up with a way to get all of the children currently in foster care adopted and then and only then can you argue your point,

Thoughts from Cali: Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, and have in my past had an abortion procedure. It was not the best thing I have ever done nor was it an easy decision. I was young and I didn't know what else to do. Now that I had my own children, I have deep regrets and would probably do things differently. Having experienced my children growing inside me and seeing them grow up, I feel so guilty that I didn't give my first child a chance to essentially live.

I would never tell a woman what to do in that situation, it's hard enough to deal. Having said that, I think abortion should be your very last resort. In my opinion, late term abortion, unless it's medically necessary, should be punishable by law.

I find it madness that our gov't, with it hands in every activity, and without limits to it's desire to regulate, to treat abortion as less serious than building a shed or driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit.

Ryan, your logic is so persistently confused and self-refuting that it's a mystery why you're even bothering to formulate an opinion on this matter.

On the one hand, you rail against the government for having its "hands in every activity" of American life (which is a common Tea Party refrain, though god only knows why), and yet your prescribed remedy for this is... wait for it, wait for it... to expand the power of government to having a regulatory hand in abortion! You do realize, don't you, that the Roe v. Wade decision was a decision specifically handed down to limit the powers of government in personal affairs, right?

I looked around and it appears that cases like this are almost unheard of in the US. Most abortion clinics seem to be safe for women. I could only find three other cases of severe life threatening infection and death due to a botched abortion procedure. All had these three things in common.

1) poor minority women (two black, one hispanic)

2) shoddily run unlicensed facility

3) late term abortion

4) Lax regulation and supervision from state/local government

Whenever a healthcare facility is involved, oversight is a MUST. Governments must step in to guarantee the life of its citizens even if they're getting a controversial procedure.

This allergy to controversy is probably why this particular "clinic" went on completely unregulated for 13 years.

Aimee -

You bring up a valid point when you talk about smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. However, what is the number 1 leading cause of death in this country? What is the single highest cause of death, more than smoking and drinking combined? Obesity. This is a fact. This is also a lifestyle choice . . . there is enough science to back that up.

So, given the fact that the majority of women in this country are obese, what about them? They knowingly live an unhealthy lifestyle that has been proven to be the leading cause of death . . . think about that. They are living in a way that will cause more death than cancer, or car accidents. Then, they knowingly get pregnant, bringing a fetus into this unhealthy lifestyle. Again, they bring a fetus into a body and lifestyle which is the LEADING CAUSE of death in this country. Now you want to completely absolve these women of ALL responsibility for bringing a fetus into a lifestyle that is PROVEN to cause more death than anything else?

Again, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy in the pro-life argument. They want to say that abortion is murder. However, they have no problem with a woman knowingly bringing a child into a body and lifestyle that is proven to be the leading cause of death, and they don't even bat an eyelash when that fetus dies. If that is not neglect of their own body, the vessel for carrying the fetus, I don't know what is.

@WhatAWorld-2751957,

Since you thought u should bring up the "force/choice" issue, lets say that hypothetically, Hitler allowed the Jewish women to choose to kill/abort their children. Let's say he set up abortion clinics right in the concentration camps and allowed the women to choose give birth or have an abortion. The children would be "UNWANTED" and their life would be "WROUGHT WITH TURMOIL" if they were born. So, would it be ok then if Hitler allowed the Jewish people to choose to die or suffer?

Yes, there are most certainly things that need to be changed in the world-- including the foster system-- but killing people is not the solution. The world is a bad place. All children, whether they are wanted by their "parents" or not, face the possibility of all kinds of monstrocities-- kids from good, loving families are molested, kidnapped, or hurt in accidents everyday. Do you propose that we should kill all children before they are born so that nothing bad will happen to them? Because I personally think that it would be better to try to make the world a better/safer place for them-- for example, cracking down on sex offenders and criminals and reforming the foster care system.

O, and by the way, there are many women/girls who are forced by their parents or boyfriend to get an abortion. There are also girls who change their minds on the operating table and are forced to go through with the abortion anyways. Not much of a "choice" if you aske me. Just food for thought.

Oops that was 4 things. lol

MJAN72 -

I agree with you. Although I will point out that late term abortions ARE only legal as a medical necessity (mothers life in danger, child unviable, etc.) Furthermore, by law, you need at least 3 doctors . . . if I remember correctly . . . to verify that it is actually a medical necessity. Any other late term abortion that does not meet these requirements IS punishable by law. As is the case in this article.

Thoughts from Cali....Your, If abortion=murder then Miscarriage=manslaughter, is as lame as it was the first time and every time you've used it since, right up to today. Let's play the scenario game, shall we ??

1. The woman wants an abortion....the father of the baby wants the baby. She has the abortion......This is ______________.

2. The woman wants an abortion...the father wants the baby and keeps her from getting an abortion.....This is _______________.

3. The woman wants the baby...The father doesn't and forces her to get an abortion....This is _________.

4. The woman doesn't want the baby so she has the father kick her in the abdomen to cause a miscarriage. This is ____________.

5. The woman wants the baby. The father kicks her in the abdomen causing a miscarriage because he doesn't want to pay child support. This is ______.

6. The woman has no way of knowing the umbilical chord wrapped around the baby's neck and it dies in the womb ...a miscarriage. This is _________.

7. The woman trips and falls down the stairs and loses the baby...a miscarriage. This is ___________.

I am guessing in your world, if the woman wants an abortion, even over the objection of the man, he has no say.

And if she wants to have the baby, even over the objection of the man, he pays.

Where is the "equal protection under the law" in that ????

Since you thought u should bring up the "force/choice" issue, lets say that hypothetically, Hitler allowed the Jewish women to choose to kill/abort their children. Let's say he set up abortion clinics right in the concentration camps and allowed the women to choose give birth or have an abortion. The children would be "UNWANTED" and their life would be "WROUGHT WITH TURMOIL" if they were born. So, would it be ok then if Hitler allowed the Jewish people to choose to die or suffer?

This whole scenario is conflating two very different things. It's perfectly okay for people to choose their own fate (i.e., to live or to die), but in the context within which you pose the question, I suspect it's impossible for people to get past the whole "Hitler+concentration camps" thing, which in truth, has nothing to really do with the question. I mean, what does Hitler even have to do with it? We're already having essentially the same discussion about whether people should have the moral autonomy to choose their own fate, and we're doing so without having to confuse the issue with Hitler. You only bring up Hitler, I suspect, to cast the whole scenario in a dark, nefarious light, which is nothing but an intentional distraction away from the real issue.

Yes, there are most certainly things that need to be changed in the world-- including the foster system-- but killing people is not the solution.

Fetuses aren't people. They're human, true, but they're not people. You would do well to actually investigate the social and legal definition of a person.

The world is a bad place. All children, whether they are wanted by their "parents" or not, face the possibility of all kinds of monstrocities-- kids from good, loving families are molested, kidnapped, or hurt in accidents everyday. Do you propose that we should kill all children before they are born so that nothing bad will happen to them?

This doesn't follow from the discussion here. No one is arguing that abortion should be legal so that we can prevent fetuses-become-children from experiencing hurtful things. We're arguing that abortion should be legal because it would be immoral and unconstitutional for a woman to be deprived of the right of doing with her own body what she chooses.

O, and by the way, there are many women/girls who are forced by their parents or boyfriend to get an abortion.

And that, if true, is a tragedy. But making abortion illegal just to deal with that tragedy only creates a much bigger problem.

There are also girls who change their minds on the operating table and are forced to go through with the abortion anyways.

I severely doubt it. Do you have a news reference to prove this claim?

At: Mike in Delray

My sentiments exactly. Everyone of the "ProChoice" people argue that it is a woman's body and it should be her decision, but that leaves the scales tilted to one side now doesn't it. It effectively makes pregnancy an economic weapon for women to use. Their arguments often fall back to worst case scenarios like rape and the mother's health to justify their support for abortion, but that is not the factor in the majority of abortions. Abortion unconstitutionally gives women the power to control another human beings life, two if you count the baby. Before an abortion can take place that does not involve rape, the mother and the father BOTH should have to approve of the procedure. And if the mother wants to carry the baby and the dad wants an abortion, then the mother should have to make the decision on whether to have the baby and take full financial responsibility for the baby or have the abortion. This would quickly result in the over turning of Roe V/S Wade since the issue would no longer benefit the majority of the women who have the abortions currently. If you take away the power than the "NEED" for abortion will go away.

Thoughts from Cali...One more question

How much income do you get from the Abortion Industry ???? I'de find it hard to believe you don't have a financial stake in this.

@Suze the Muze,

Just fyi, abortion clinics are very accesible, and with the new ObamaCare bill, doctors who do not wish to perform abortions can be forced to.

Everyone of the "ProChoice" people argue that it is a woman's body and it should be her decision, but that leaves the scales tilted to one side now doesn't it. It effectively makes pregnancy an economic weapon for women to use.

As a man, I want to point out that the above comments are nothing but paranoid male psychobabble, and I strongly believe that most men are intelligent and emotionally stable enough to disagree with Travis. Regardless, we have to realize that when it comes to the issue of abortion and maternal vs paternal rights, only the mother's rights can be reasonably considered in a legal sense, since the issue of abortion is an either/or scenario -- either the woman has an abortion, or she doesn't. No court of law could devise a system where a man has a certain percent say in the outcome of the pregnancy while the woman has the remaining balance. Since it's the woman who is being demonstrably affected during the pregnancy, the only reasonable decision is to confer all rights concerning it on her.

Their arguments often fall back to worst case scenarios like rape and the mother's health to justify their support for abortion ...

That might be your experience in discussing this topic, but that's not the basis of the pro-choice position. Abortion should be legal in all cases because it's the only Constitutionally defensible position. A woman either has a Constitutional right to freedom and self-autonomy, or she doesn't. The Constitution clearly says that she does. A fetus has no such rights -- neither explicitly stated in the Constitution, nor implicitly expressed in nature.

Abortion unconstitutionally gives women the power to control another human beings life, two if you count the baby.

More paranoid psychobabble. Men who have sex knowingly do so with the understanding that it may lead to a pregnancy. As such, they check their rights concerning the outcome of that pregnancy at the door. As well, fetuses aren't people, and as such, they have no legal standing and can't be thought of as being "under the control" of the woman since there are no rights for her to be "unconstitutionally" in control of.

Before an abortion can take place that does not involve rape, the mother and the father BOTH should have to approve of the procedure.

For that to be legally feasible, you would have to be able to demonstrate that the man is as affected by the pregnancy as the woman, which he clearly is not.

And if the mother wants to carry the baby and the dad wants an abortion, then the mother should have to make the decision on whether to have the baby and take full financial responsibility for the baby or have the abortion.

This one's in a bit of a gray area, but again, the law essentially sides with what I stated earlier: that a man who willfully engages in sexual intercourse accepts the responsibility for the potential pregnancy.

This would quickly result in the over turning of Roe V/S Wade since the issue would no longer benefit the majority of the women who have the abortions currently.

The poster, in his paranoid rage, apparently isn't aware that it's already illegal for a pregnant women to extort money from the potential father over the threat of carrying her pregnancy to term. As such, there's no issue here.

If you take away the power than the "NEED" for abortion will go away.

Right, and if you take away condoms from kids, they'll stop having sex, eh?

Is it just me? Why are so many pro-lifers on this board men? Unless you can pass a bowling ball, please stay out of it!

Is it just me? Why are so many pro-lifers on this board men?

Yeah, as a man, it's kinda embarrassing to see the vitriol and paranoia coming from these nuts. But I don't think it's a coincidence: most of these guys have no respect for abortion rights because they simply have no respect for women (and probably people of other ethnicities, religions, etc., but that's just a guess). A lot of the anti-choice anger can simply be chalked up to paranoia over the thought of women having the right to do as they wish with their own lives, which conservative men typically are terrified of (generally owing to their extreme sexual insecurities, I suspect). Having been to the Middle East a number of times, I can tell you it's shocking how similarly Christian conservative men and Muslim-Arab men see eye-to-eye on social issues, especially considering how paranoid Christian conservatives typically are with regard to Islam, in general.

@Lady Liberty,

I'm not following the point of your Hitler argument, nor am I sure why you are stuck on it. Hitler really has nothing to do with it, and why would I see it differently if he were involved? The point I was trying to make is that, no, it's not a great choice, and I don't know anyone who would think it is, but it is necessary to have the right to make that choice.

justthefax: You make a good argument for a deadbeat dad. Deadbeat dads reason that if the woman carried, and they can go out of the child's life. (most of them irresponsible boys) help in a good measure to create unwanted pregnancies.

The opposite is also true. Fathers who are loving and supportive of the women who are carrying their children are what prevent many abortions from happening.

If people really want to "save the babies" they should raise boys into mature and responsible men.

"miscarriage=manslaughter"? um, so if a person dies of disease or in an accident, did they just commit suicide?

Let me state, im pro-choice.

What drives me up the wall about anti-abortion folks, is that 99% of them are also pro-war folks. So, in one breath you cant tolerate the notion that a mother would abort a fetus. But the idea of american soldiers killing innocent foreigners, eh, well...thats life, right?

Have i pretty much summed it up accurately?

justhtefax,

"Is it just me? Why are so many pro-lifers on this board men? Unless you can pass a bowling ball, please stay out of it!"

Why? How about this. The husband of a woman who is pregnant forces her to have an abortion. Using your logic this shouldn't be an issue. After all she's not having to pass that bowling ball.

Lady Liberty...I take it you have read the healthcare reform law as it was passed then...word for word...all 2000 plus pages of it?

If you had then you would have read "PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS

No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

Quoted Directly from the healthcare reform law. Get you facts straight and educate ypurself before you make such a comment. That is part of the problem with people being against this law they have no real knowledge of what is actually in it.

Wow. Just wow. All of you should read the FULL article that is linked to at the very top of this discussion page. This "Doctor" never completed his OB/GYN residency, and is not qualified to perform an abortion to begin with. He was delivering live babies, and killing them with scissors to the spinal cord (with the sedated mothers never knowing this). He was performing abortions after the legal cut-off of 24 weeks, and lying to some of the mothers that their fetus was "only 24 weeks". None of his staff was medically trained, his "anesthetist" was a high school kid. He was preying on the poor and the desperate.

Jessica: I would say that 99% of prolifers have not spoken to you and therefore, you don't know what 99% of prolifers believe.

At Terra Incognita:

Since it's the woman who is being demonstrably affected during the pregnancy, the only reasonable decision is to confer all rights concerning it on her.

So a man that has to take on a major financial burden for up to 26 years is not affected demonstrably?

This one's in a bit of a gray area, but again, the law essentially sides with what I stated earlier: that a man who willfully engages in sexual intercourse accepts the responsibility for the potential pregnancy.

So let me get this straight, the man is held to his responsibility at conception but the woman isn't held to hers until birth?

The poster, in his paranoid rage, apparently isn't aware that it's already illegal for a pregnant women to extort money from the potential father over the threat of carrying her pregnancy to term. As such, there's no issue here.

If a woman gets pregnant by a wealthy man she LEGALLY can receive a lump sum of money from the man to have an abortion, or she can settle for jackpot in large weekly sums paid over a time of 20 or more years. Funny, that is the same rules for Powerball winners.

The fact that you can deny the fairness gap between the sexes in regards to pregnancy makes you blinded by political correctness. It is not only obvious but insanely easy to see. Until you have a future son systematically killed because you do not have the capability to carry him yourself, you should refrain from discussing this topic. My son would be 11 this month, but because my ex thought it more important to finish college first before starting a family, I lost my son, LEGALLY. Without any say! It was like I didn't matter. My unborn son was taken away from me because he was going to be an inconvenience to his narcissistic mother. Reverse the situation and I would be paying for the kid for 20 plus years! How can you possibly think that this is what the constitution was set up for. Think before you post.

@WhatAWorld-2751957

I'm not following the point of your Hitler argument, nor am I sure why you are stuck on it.

As I said before, it was a scenario which was brought up by someone earlier. As I also said before, I am wondering what your opinion would be if the Jews were allowed to choose to abort their children rather than allow them to live in the concentration camps, since your point was that they were forced. I did not bring up the point, nor am I stuck on it-- I simply asked you to answer a question which you seem to wish to avoid answering.

it is necessary to have the right to make that choice.

Is it? Because, as far as I can see, there are plenty of other options that would not require anyone to die...

Also, as I said before, the child is a seperate entity, so the women has the right to treat her body as she pleases, but the child's body is seperate from her own, so she cannot choose to harm it.

Gosnell charged $325 for first-trimester abortions and $1,600 to $3,000 for abortions up to 30 weeks. Abortions are legal up to 24 weeks gestation in Pennsylvania, although most doctors won't perform them after 20 weeks, prosecutors said.

Some women came from across the mid-Atlantic for the illegal late-term abortions, authorities said. White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, Williams said.

"People knew near and far that if you needed a late-term abortion you could go see Dr. Gosnell," Williams said.

Few if any of the sedated women knew their babies were born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were further along, authorities said.

Gosnell got his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and is board certified in family practice. He started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology, authorities said.

"He does not know how to do an abortion. He's not board certified," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said. "Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/19/us/AP-US-Abortion-Clinic-Investigation.html?hp

Read the grand jury report here.

http://tinyurl.com/4737pb7

jwhite - they dont have to speak DIRECTLY to me, they have their politicians talking for them. The only anti-abortion folks that i've heard of being anti-war, are libertarians...and the anti-war aspect, is more from a fiscal standpoint...not a moral one.

But hey, if you know of some anti-abortion folks who are oposed to war, for moral reasons, let me know...especially politicians. I struggle to believe there's millions of unrepresented americans, who hate abortion so they side with conservative politicians who agree on that...but are anti-war too, and just have to grin and bear the fact that their representative in washington happens to be pro-war.

lol Jessica. Nice try. You just have to grin and bear the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Implying that all pro-lifers are warmongering lunatics isn't much different than pro-lifers implying that all pro-choicers want to wantonly and brutally kill babies for fun.

@MelBel

Obviously, that was my mistake. I was under the impression that this was the case as this was a hotly debated issue. There may have been a change in the bill at some point that I was not aware of, or perhaps that was a proposed part of the bill. I must have misunderstood with all the steam swirling around between opposing sides at the heat of the debate. My apologies.

Lady Liberty, that is fine. It is to be expected from many Americans not just yourself, because the average person is not going to take the time to read a 2700 page law that can be very confusing to begin with, so they take the word of their favorite political party and run with it. Both Dems and Reps alike. It is sad that they cant even tell the truth about the law instead only tell what they feel will scare and intimidate the people into believing what they want them to believe. That is why I defend the healthcare reform law because a lot of what peopl "know" is in there isnt and what they think has been ommitted hasnt. Certain areas are paraphrased or taken completly out of context. I strongly reccommend that anyone and everyone who can get their hands on a copy of it take the time to read and understand it. I guarantee you will be surprised a lot of good stuff in ther. Not all good but tons of it is. I myself have a copy and if you want it contact me thru my newsvine page. I'd be happy to send it to you. It is very lengthy tho so make sure you want to take the time. That goes for anyone else on here as well.

Lady Liberty "As I said before, it was a scenario which was brought up by someone earlier. As I also said before, I am wondering what your opinion would be if the Jews were allowed to choose to abort their children rather than allow them to live in the concentration camps, since your point was that they were forced. I did not bring up the point, nor am I stuck on it-- I simply asked you to answer a question which you seem to wish to avoid answering."

If american women were given the choice of having an abortion or forcing their kids to live in concetration camps, would you be pro-choice? Or would you demand that they bring all their babies to term, even if they didnt want to subject their babies to a lifetime of torture, ending most likely and termination at the hands of whoever was giving them only these 2 choices?

its about as logical as your offering above.

as quoted in a movie I recently watched:

"strange game, the only way to win is to lose"

@Lady Liberty,

I do not have a problem answering your question, I just wish it was relevant to the topic at had, which it is not. If a woman of any race feels the need to have an abortion, I believe she should have the right to do so. If a woman's only options are to abort or let her child withstand concentration camps, then I believe the more humane choice is to abort. As I said before, we euthanize our pets so they don't have to suffer. According to your argument then, your family pet is held to a more humane standard than your child. You are quite a philanthropist.

@Jessica-1170252

If that were the situation, I would most definitely be pro-LIFE. I'm sure you will be horrified as you read this. But, honestly, I think that those kids should be given the chance to rise above their circumstances. What if one of those kids was to be the one that helped bring about the end of the concentration camps? Obviously, that situation is only hypothetical, but it applies to real life. Everyone should get to have a chance to make their own life choices-- that includes children that aren't born yet. They should have the opportunity to wait it out for the liberating army, to go back to the metaphor; no one should choose to deprive a child of that.

@WhatAWorld-2751957,

First of all, I don't see what is humane about killing a child-- this goes back to my earlier statment, people would rather use a band-aid than fix the actuall problem. Secondly, people aren't pets; they're people. Animals are euthenized because they can't understand pain, they don't understand that they are sick, or that any medical procedures that they could undergo are to help them-- all they know is that it is causing them pain. People have the ability to rationalize.

Now, based on your statement that death would be humane, lets say you were in a situation in which you were going through excrutiating pain for one reason or another-- pain that you would be able to get rid of after a period of time. Would you want someone else to be able to decide that the pain is too great and that you should be put out of your misery, rather than wait it out until the pain is gone?

Funny, our ever present Nanny state has no problem regulating everything else in the country.

Regulating gruesome late term murders abortions, not so much.

But try to build a shed in your backyard without a permit....

Ryan, a nanny state would be them government forcing every woman to go to term with a pregnancy. A nanny state would see a police officer in every maternity ward to ensure by FORCE that every woman gives birth.

@Travis E.

[Terra Incognita]: Since it's the woman who is being demonstrably affected during the pregnancy, the only reasonable decision is to confer all rights concerning it on her.

[Travis E.]: So a man that has to take on a major financial burden for up to 26 years is not affected demonstrably?

Notice that I said "during the pregnancy". The woman is the only one being demonstrably affected during the pregnancy. As such, she's the only one who can reasonably have rights concerning the outcome of that pregnancy. It's true that the potential father can be affected subsequent to the birth of the child, but the birth cannot happen before the pregnancy. As such, there is simply no reasonable Constitutional way to grant rights to the potential father as it concerns the pregnancy. What part of that don't you understand?

[Terra Incognita]: This one's in a bit of a gray area, but again, the law essentially sides with what I stated earlier: that a man who willfully engages in sexual intercourse accepts the responsibility for the potential pregnancy.

[Travis E.]: So let me get this straight, the man is held to his responsibility at conception but the woman isn't held to hers until birth?

No, both the man and the woman are held to their responsibility only at birth, provided the woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term and provided she successfully gives birth. It's funny, but reading through your rants, you seem to think that women don't have any responsibilities once they become mothers. You seem to define "responsibility" only in monetary terms -- i.e., men are "responsible" financially for the child, but women have no legal "responsibility" as regards the child's rearing. You seem to be arguing from the position of someone whose view on the subject is colored by your own personal experience instead of arguing from the position of informed objectivity. What are you angry about?

[Terra Incognita]: The poster, in his paranoid rage, apparently isn't aware that it's already illegal for a pregnant women to extort money from the potential father over the threat of carrying her pregnancy to term. As such, there's no issue here.

[Travis E.]: If a woman gets pregnant by a wealthy man she LEGALLY can receive a lump sum of money from the man to have an abortion, or she can settle for jackpot in large weekly sums paid over a time of 20 or more years. Funny, that is the same rules for Powerball winners.

Pal, you're seriously paranoid and angry. Besides, if the man willfully decides to pay for her abortion, why are you angry at only the woman? Shouldn't you be just as angry at the man for acquiescing to the abortion? Also, do you really regard child support as a "jackpot" for the woman, whose child is now fatherless? It's telling that your entire position is one that is specifically anti-woman and regards men as perpetual victims.

The fact that you can deny the fairness gap between the sexes in regards to pregnancy makes you blinded by political correctness. It is not only obvious but insanely easy to see.

It's not political correctness, Travis. It's a legal matter with no better solution than the one we have, which is that women have all the rights over their own pregnancies. There's simply no other way of handling the situation while staying within the guidelines of the Constitution. I mean, do you think that a wife should have a legal say in whether her husband undergoes a vasectomy?

Until you have a future son systematically killed because you do not have the capability to carry him yourself, you should refrain from discussing this topic.

You fail to recognize that, because you're a man and lacking the necessary physiological equipment to carry a gestating fetus, the fate of that fetus was never in your hands. As well, it's ironic that you think I should be prohibited from weighing in on this topic because I haven't had your experience, but you seem to reserve for yourself the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

My son would be 11 this month, but because my ex thought it more important to finish college first before starting a family, I lost my son, LEGALLY. Without any say! It was like I didn't matter. My unborn son was taken away from me because he was going to be an inconvenience to his narcissistic mother.

Just as I expected -- you have a personal gripe against one person (your ex), and so you've now extended your anger to all women who might seek abortions. Not all women are your ex, and quite frankly, I suspect that not even your ex (as you've described her) is really your ex (I'm highly suspicious of your characterization of her, as it seems pretty hyperbolic and self-serving to your argument). Heck, finishing a college education is probably a pretty good reason to not want to have a child. Even beyond that, though, has it occurred to you that she may have had other reasons for not wanting to be a parent with you (like, say, your apparent predispostioin toward anger and male chauvinism)?

Reverse the situation and I would be paying for the kid for 20 plus years!

I'm confused -- on the one hand, you're railing against women for having abortions and taking men out of the equation, but then on the other hand, you're angry about men having to be financially responsible for the children that those women give birth to. So which are you more angry about?... Or are you just blindly angry?

How can you possibly think that this is what the constitution was set up for.

It's exactly these kinds of legal disputes that the Constitutional was designed to settle.

Paula, the article states clearly that most of his patients were unconscious when he killed the viable babies, and that he and his staff regularly lied to the women about how far along they were. I suspect you may be bringing some anti-abortion feelings to the table in condemning these women, feelings that have no bearing on the facts of this truly horrendous story.

Me? Pro-choice all the way and I'll never back down on that. But this is utterly vile, regardless of where you stand on legal abortion.

If you are 7-8 months along, you know perfectly well that your baby can live outside the womb. There is no excuse for what this "doctor" did and there is no excuse for the "mothers" to allow it to be done!

i agree, the women should also be held accountable. still no records, no evidence, other than the fetuses at his office. be nice if they could be used as evidence.

If you are 7-8 months along, you know perfectly well that your baby can live outside the womb.

So what? The point is that they aren't living outside the womb, and aren't conscious, and aren't entitled to any moral or legal rights. Only the woman has any moral and legal claim to rights, and as such, she's perfectly entitled to having an abortion if she chooses, at any point in the pregnancy, and for any reason whatsoever. It's her body.

Thank God they caught the Monster...and thank you Seth Williams for your truthful stating of the horrid facts.

For those who want to distance the abortion issue from this heinous criminal investigation, remember that this clinic was not hidden in a back alley, was not unknown to the authorities, and was not regulated by Government/State authorities, nor investigated upon complaints...how does that happen? For starters, how much effort would it have taken to check the monsters credentials and discover that he was not accredited in OB/Gyn practice? Do you really believe that nobody knew what was going on? And do you really believe that this is the only unregulated abortion practice where crimes such as infantcide occur?

In truth, any late term abortion is murder of a viable (able to live and survive outside the womb) infant...the fact that this sick, unethical murderer did the killing after birth does not change the fact that when the baby is killed in-utero at third trimester gestations, it is also murder of a viable infant. When a woman has made it to this late pregnancy gestation, there is NO MEDICAL REASON of mother's health to justify an abortion...a live baby could be delivered if labor induction or C-section was indicated for mother's health...and that happens in hospitals every day. We criminally charge those who kill an unborn baby while committing a crime against the mother, so it is very contradictory and unethical that we allow the murder in a clinical setting...if we truly value life, as we claim. No woman should be forced to be a parent...that is why adoption has been a choice/option for centuries, and by the third trimester, a woman is only weeks from a term delivery. Many people wait for years on adoption lists and some are never able to receive an infant for adoption.

I am most appalled that the government agencies responsible for regulating healthcare as a promise to the taxpayers who pay them...to keep people safe, allowed this mass murderer (serial killer) and his accomplices to continue his harm to women and infant murders for so long over so many years. Maybe they cannot be criminally charged but they will still have a lot to answer to.

Terra Incognita says,...

"So what? The point is that they aren't living outside the womb, and aren't conscious, and aren'tentitled to any moral or legal rights. Only the woman has any moral and legal claim to rights, and as such, she's perfectly entitled to having an abortion.."

In FACT they ARE conscious, and ARE entitled to rights when murdered during a crime against the mother, as I pointed out above. Clearly you are not knowledgeable on the issue so maybe refrain from commenting with false information.

The fact of the matter is, it all comes down to responsibility. Unwanted pregnancies are 100% preventable, either through responsible sex (birth control) or abstinence. The biological function of sex is reproduction. If you aren't willing to deal with the potential consequences of exercising that biological function, you should probably abstain. That being said, many people argue that sex is a totally inevitable thing and do not seem to have the power to control their own bodies when it comes to that - if you seem to be lacking in such control, at least be responsible about it. Actions have consequences - with sex, the consequence is pregnancy.

The rape argument comes to mind. Mathematically, the number of women who become pregnant due to rape or incest is statistically insignificant, rendering this argument invalid when examining the issue on a global scale.

However, my main reason for being pro-life comes straight from biology. The six criteria for life are:

1. Reaction to environment

2. Adaptation to environment

3. Ability of species to reproduce

4. Ability to grow

5. Ability to use energy

6. Made of cells

A human fetus meets all of these requirements. However, beyond that there is the argument that a woman can do what she wants with her own body. Unfortunately, a fertilized egg is not a part of her own body. A fertilized egg has a completely separate and unique genetic code from the mother, and possibly is even coded to a different gender. While it may contain elements of the mother's DNA, it is unique in and of itself from either the mother or the father. From the moment an egg is fertilized, it begins to grow, react, adapt, use energy and multiply its cells. While it itself does not yet have the ability to reproduce, its DNA identifies it as a member of the species Homo sapiens which does, indeed, have the ability to reproduce (this criterion for life cannot be based on a single organism within the species, as a multitude of factors can contribute to an individual organism's ability or inability to reproduce).

Beyond that, I have my own religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, however I have reconciled those beliefs with biological evidence that is more easily justified.

Bottom line: from the moment of conception, there is another life at stake, and as it is the responsibility of the mother to care for her body and ensure to the best of her ability that nothing undesirable or harmful happens to it (I believe this argument was being used profusely earlier in this thread), if a woman becomes pregnant, she is ultimately responsible, as it is a direct result of her own controllable and ultimately preventable actions. We as a society need to learn to live with responsibility.

This is the link to the original story on MSNBC that had more of the FACTS about what went on. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154668/, very few comments were posted as of yet.

It amazes me that so many Pro-choice supporters would weigh in on a story that exemplifies what so many Pro-Life supporters say is wrong with abortion in general.

There is no way to defend what went on at this "clinic", I would think that the Pro-choice crowd would at least have the sense to come out against this type of practice in force and try to distance it from other abortions. By allowing all abortions to be tied to this story it only proves what Pro-lifers are saying about all abortions.

What happened there can not be defended from any point of view, what he and his staff ( wife ) did is nothing short of out right murder, the "trophies" he kept at his clinic are just what other sociopaths ( mass murders, serial killers ) have done and speak volumes about his state of mind. He is a murder, worse still is the fact that tax payer money was used to pay him while he got rich killing people.

Robbob - if you read the entire thread (and there are way too many posts to really do that - I understand), you would see where MANY Pro-Choice people ARE condemning this man's actions AND illustrating the difference between a legal abortion and what this man did. Many Pro-choice (including myself) are saying that if this man is guilty then he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

For those who want to distance the abortion issue from this heinous criminal investigation, remember that this clinic was not hidden in a back alley, was not unknown to the authorities, and was not regulated by Government/State authorities, nor investigated upon complaints...

The heinousness, as you put it, of this crime has nothing implicitly to do with abortion. What the doctor was doing was illegal on its own accord, but not for the simple fact that it was abortions he was performing. If, for example, a doctor was illegally harvesting organs and tissues from recently deceased patients and selling them on the black market for a profit, would we conclude that organ and tissue donation should be outlawed? No, of course not. We'd logically conclude that the doctor was at fault, not the institution of organ donation.

Do you really believe that nobody knew what was going on? And do you really believe that this is the only unregulated abortion practice where crimes such as infantcide occur?

There may be other such occurrences happening, but the answer to that isn't to outlaw abortion, but rather to seek out those who are not operating within the confines of the law and pursue legal action against them on the basis of their crime. You need to put your irrational emotions in check and see that there is already in place a judicial process for dealing with illegal medical procedures. Abortion is legal -- the answer to these relatively rare cases of medical malfeasance isn't to outlaw it.

In truth, any late term abortion is murder of a viable (able to live and survive outside the womb) infant.

Murder implies that the thing in question possesses personhood. Fetuses aren't "people" in the legal sense. Ergo, a fetus can't be murdered.

the fact that this sick, unethical murderer did the killing after birth does not change the fact that when the baby is killed in-utero at third trimester gestations, it is also murder of a viable infant.

It doesn't have to change it, since the one thing does not follow from the other. You're statement that third-trimester abortions constitute murder is sheer surmise (and legally incorrect). You can call this a "fact" all you want, but in order to do so you have to willfully delude yourself into believing that the law says something that it does not.

When a woman has made it to this late pregnancy gestation, there is NO MEDICAL REASON of mother's health to justify an abortion.

Here, you're just betraying your ignorance of obstetrics. There undeniably are cases in which the very act of delivery, whether by C-section or otherwise unaided by surgery, poses a serious fatal threat to the woman.

We criminally charge those who kill an unborn baby while committing a crime against the mother, so it is very contradictory and unethical that we allow the murder in a clinical setting.

This is actually circular reasoning, since it is because of anti-abortion rights legislation that such laws even exist (and only in a few states). The anti-abortion rights crowd began pushing these laws in state legislatures in the 1980s in order to try to create legal precedents by which the fetus could be, via litigation, granted personhood, which it is hoped could later establish a legal principle upon which Roe v. Wade could be overturned. The Bible is also interestingly instructive on this very point (although I suspect few Christians are aware of what it actually says). According to Exodus 21:22-25, a man strikes a woman to the point that she miscarries her fetus, he must pay a fine if no other harm comes to the woman. However, if he causes harm to the woman above and beyond the miscarriage, he must "give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." In other words, according to the Bible, hurting the woman is far worse than causing her to miscarry.

No woman should be forced to be a parent.

No woman should be forced to do anything against her will. What part of that don't you get?

Many people wait for years on adoption lists and some are never able to receive an infant for adoption.

So what? Many people wait for years on waiting lists for organ transplants. Should we go around indiscriminately forcing healthy individuals on the street to surrender their organs because there's a need for them?

I am most appalled that the government agencies responsible for regulating healthcare as a promise to the taxpayers who pay them...to keep people safe, allowed this mass murderer (serial killer) and his accomplices to continue his harm to women and infant murders for so long over so many years.

The above comment is pretty clearly a sad attempt to take a cheap political shot at the government (yawn), but you're right, law enforcement failed in putting an end to this earlier. But that still says nothing negative about the legal practice of abortion. The doctor in question was (we're assuming) committing a crime, but it wasn't because he was performing legal abortions.

rjh4509...

Well said...I agree.

However, I am not opposed to the "morning after pill" for rape victims or others who do not want to become pregnant and had a mistake in judgement. I also think in very early pregnancy, there are instances where medical reason exists, such as a very young girl becoming pregnant through unreported rape/incest. Although a fertilized ovum is technically a life, many fertilized ovum do not implant naturally, and thus do not become an established pregnancy. Thus, I think this would qualify as a birth control method, and not much different than an IUD which also prevents any possible fertilized ovum from implanting to form a pregnancy. I also believe that a true medical danger to the life of the mother is an acceptable reason to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus cannot yet survive outside the uterus. However viable gestation continues to become earlier and earlier with medical advances...with some 20 week infants surviving, thus anyone should be able to realize we cannot put a gestational age "requirement" on life.

Summer

My point was this was definitely not the story to try and defend pro-choice in any way shape or form. Those that are just prove the position that pro-lifers take on this subject, by trying to defend any abortion on a story this horrific just strengthens how they feel.

This guy, his wife, and his staff are nothing but tax payer funded serial killers. The fact that politics played a part in this only makes it worse.

State regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him, and made just five annual inspections, most satisfactory, since the clinic opened in 1979, authorities said. The inspections stopped completely in 1993 because of what prosecutors said was the pro-abortion rights attitude that set in after Democratic Gov. Robert Casey, an abortion foe, left office.

These officials were far more protective of themselves when they testified before the grand jury. Even (Health Department) lawyers, including the chief counsel, brought private attorneys with them — presumably at government expense,

Gosnell sometimes joked about the babies, saying one was so large he could "walk me to the bus stop," according to the report.

Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do."

In FACT they ARE conscious ...

Fetuses are neither conscious nor self-aware (in fact, self-awareness isn't a condition that develops in humans until several months after birth). The placenta in all mammals produces hormones that keep the fetus in a persistent state of sedation and unconsciousness. Late-term fetuses may possess the neurological capacity to feel pain (i.e., neurons and a brain), but as they are prevented from attaining consciousness in utero, no pain can be sensed (in the same way that a surgical patient under a general anasthetic cannot feel pain).

... and ARE entitled to rights when murdered during a crime against the mother, as I pointed out above.

Again, this is circular reasoning. You state that a crime has been committed by first surmising that abortion constitutes murder, all so that you can then go back and assert that abortion is a crime. It's utterly circular. The law is on one side of this issue, and you're on the other.

Clearly you are not knowledgeable on the issue so maybe refrain from commenting with false information.

Go back and read your posts, and then read mine, and then get back to me on who you think is lacking knowledge on the subject.

Travis, give it up, I am in the reverse of your situation(more so cause there are many other factors involved between myself, the mother, my child, and the state). Quite franky Terra is very much right, the entire subject of arguement here is events that occur prior to birth. I happen to agree with the law in that regard, as it is women who must carry the both the burden and responsibility of that which is growing inside their body, not yours. What happens after said pregnancy is irrelevant to the topic of abortion rights.

That having been said, I have two additional statements to make: #1 We men, although entitled to our opinions, have no place in deciding the reproductive rights of women, our involvement in the matter ends after conception(this is separate from responsibility mind you. We are not involved in carrying the child, this is not to say we are not responsible for aiding the financial burden for the one carrying the child, or for the child itself after birth), this is a matter to be solely decided by those it affects. #2 Although I agree with a woman's right to choose, this is an aberration, and, correct me if I am wrong, and echo of the past from before Roe V. Wade, does it not stand to reason that should Roe V. Wade be over turned that there would be more and most instances of this occuring with alarming, and to that point, horrifying frequency.

Robbob, I can understand that. At the same time, there is an important difference between what this guy allegedly did and legal abortions and the Pro-choice view. When people start equating what this guy did with legal abortions, which is what has happened many times on this thread, people who support legal abortions, naturally, want to make the distinction clear. That is true for virtually any topic of controversy.

As far as what this guy did (if he did indeed do these horrible things) - he absolutely deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Politics should have never played a role in inspections. Had they kept the inspections in place, then perhapsthey could've stopped this guy soone

Double post - sorry

Terra Incognita...

If, for example, a doctor was illegally harvesting organs and tissues from recently deceased patients and selling them on the black market for a profit, would we conclude that organ and tissue donation should be outlawed?

You are comparing apples and oranges...organ procurement exists to SAVE life... and a DECEASED (unable to sustain life) person's organs are harvested and transplanted into a LIVE person, to extend/save life. Abortion exists to END a life...a LIVING fetus becomes DEAD as a result of the procedure. Where do you find a comparison? Illegally harvesting organs HARMS the DONOR... in medicine we claim to believe "Above all else, do no harm".

There may be other such occurrences happening, but the answer to that isn't to outlaw abortion, but rather to seek out those who are not operating within the confines of the law and pursue legal action against them on the basis of their crime. You need to put your irrational emotions in check and see that there is already in place a judicial process for dealing with illegal medical procedures. Abortion is legal -- the answer to these relatively rare cases of medical malfeasance isn't to outlaw it.

The article clearly stated that the clinic was not hidden away in some unknown back alley location...authorities knew of it, and NEGLECTED to regulate or INVESTIGATE complaints...for thirty years this has been going on. And according to the article, they cannot be held criminally responsible. That's not emotion...thats facts, and your attempt to discredit with labels is immature at best. I am a 22 year career OB nurse who knows something about pregnancy, labor and delivery, and if you refuse to be educated, that is your unfortunate choice.

Here, you're just betraying your ignorance of obstetrics. There undeniably are cases in which the very act of delivery, whether by C-section or otherwise unaided by surgery, poses a serious fatal threat to the woman.

And how exactly did you think the dead baby gets out of the mother?...by magic? Please explain how it is easier to deliver a dead baby, as opposed to a live baby? And, If the infant is dismembered in-utero as opposed to the partial birth abortion where the intact baby is delivered, the mother has to be put under anesthesia and the cervix still has to be dilated and surgery performed with instruments passed up into the uterus...if a woman can undergo this, she can undergo a C-Section.

Beyond those responses, I will not waste time telling you all the ways you are in error in your other responses to me. You are clearly misled. I notice you did not respond with an answer to your misinformation that unborn babies are "not conscious". Your other arguments are equally flawed, but there are many comments here to educate you about life and why the unborn are separate, living "persons", if you want to be educated.

Unwanted pregnancies are 100% preventable, either through responsible sex (birth control) or abstinence.

This is the classic Catholic argument against both abortion and contraception use -- the "you don't have to have sex" argument. It fails on closer examination, however, because it presupposes that humans are not biologically predisposed to having sex, which they very clearly are. Humans are going to have sex, no matter the circumstances, and as a consequence, pregnancies are not 100% preventable.

However, my main reason for being pro-life comes straight from biology. The six criteria for life are:

1. Reaction to environment

2. Adaptation to environment

3. Ability of species to reproduce

4. Ability to grow

5. Ability to use energy

6. Made of cells

A human fetus meets all of these requirements.

This is a straw-man argument. The legal argument supporting abortion rights is not that fetuses aren't living -- they very clearly are. The argument is that the fetus is not entitled to legal or moral rights that exceed those of the woman (it's unclear that they're entitled to any rights, whatsoever, in fact). As a consequence, only the woman -- not the fetus -- can claim to have a legal and moral right in determining the fate of the pregnancy.

However, beyond that there is the argument that a woman can do what she wants with her own body. Unfortunately, a fertilized egg is not a part of her own body. A fertilized egg has a completely separate and unique genetic code from the mother, and possibly is even coded to a different gender. While it may contain elements of the mother's DNA, it is unique in and of itself from either the mother or the father.

That's complete nonsense. Does an organ donation recipient who has a transplanted heart not have legal possession of that heart simply because it does not have his or her exact genome? What about donated blood -- should that be confiscated back by the person who donated it? What about a veteran with a prosthetic leg -- is that prosthesis not his property?

From the moment an egg is fertilized, it begins to grow, react, adapt, use energy and multiply its cells. While it itself does not yet have the ability to reproduce, its DNA identifies it as a member of the species Homo sapiens which does, indeed, have the ability to reproduce...

And again, the legal argument supporting abortion rights is not predicated on the argument that a fetus isn't human. Fetuses are human, but that doesn't entitle them to any rights that trump the right of the woman to choose her own reproductive fate.

Beyond that, I have my own religious beliefs about the sanctity of life, however I have reconciled those beliefs with biological evidence that is more easily justified.

You're certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, but if they're anything like what most religious people believe (i.e., divine creation), I think you're being disingenuous with yourself if you think you've been able to successfully reconcile those beliefs with biological science. Religious superstition is simply irreconcilable with biology.

Bottom line: from the moment of conception, there is another life at stake, and as it is the responsibility of the mother to care for her body and ensure to the best of her ability that nothing undesirable or harmful happens to it (I believe this argument was being used profusely earlier in this thread), if a woman becomes pregnant, she is ultimately responsible, as it is a direct result of her own controllable and ultimately preventable actions.

It's curious -- you clearly state that a woman who chooses to have a child is the sole person responsible for it's safe and healthy development, yet for a woman who doesn't want to carry her pregnancy to term, you seem to think that it's your business to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body. One can't have responsibilities without rights -- the two go intrinsically hand-in-hand. Either a woman has a moral responsibility to her developing fetus as well as a right to abort it if she chooses, or she has no rights and responsibilities, at all. You can't have it both ways.

Being a conservative and with conclusive evidence, I would want the death penalty on a fast track. Our tax money to feed shelter and provide his entertainment for life dont seem right. Clear evidence and its old smokey snap crackle and pop.

Summer

You can see why this guy and his practice (clinic) make a great example for the pro-life side of the argument. What he did was sanctioned under Roe v Wade when he first started, he went against the laws then he turned in to a serial killer later on.

He is the classic abortion doctor that pro-lifers are most vocal about and only adds weight to the argument. The Pro-choicers trying to give evidence to support abortion are not helping their cause because pro-lifers can point to him as an example of what is wrong with all abortions, they are truly not making an points with this story.

Sadly he was not stopped sooner because pro-choice was being pushed on the regulators and they didn't want to stir up any problems. He was allowed to commit murder for 17 years untouched because of politics, which should have never happened.

terra incognito...

You continually use the current law/legal definition as explanation for why the unborn are not "persons" with "person rights", and subsequently jump to justify all forms of abortion. This is not an adequate or legitimate way to make your arguement. Remember, slavery use to be "legal" too.

And without getting into a religious discussion, I would like to mention that as to your Bible quote... old testament scriptures also allowed stoning an adulteress...so what exactly is your point? Isaiah states "before I was born, You (God) knew me". We can all pick and choose scripture...the one you quote is a far reach at trying to defend the killing of innocent life in the name of God.

Abortion is not the answer-PREVENTION IS!!! Less stress, less costs, Less controversy, less guilt and life goes on happily ever after.

Posting pictures of his victims wouldn't bother this guy. Any human being who can jokingly nick-name the murder of live babies is a true psychopath. He--and all other psychopaths--should be taken out of society permanently. The 1% of the population who are psychopathic do enough damage to negate the other 99%. It's a damned shame that we as a human race tolerate them, because this is exactly what they contribute to society...that, and making Corporate America rich by putting people who have no conscience in charge of doing whatever's necessary to make bank.

It is a woman's decision and is none of your business. A mother is someone who can support a child and perhaps these women knew that they could not. A perfectly understandable and LEGAL decision. You make statements as if it were up to you, as if you were a lawmaker, as if you had all the information that is needed to make a decision like this, and you do not. Leave the law making and important choices to those they concern and keep your nasty opinions to yourself!

Ryan, your Hitler example is pointless as far as the pro choice position is concerned. Pro choice means exactly what it says.......choice. If anyone forces a woman to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it's a criminal act as far as I'm concerned.

Bruce, You said, "This will be an interesting case to watch unfold. It will be especially interesting to see how the media and the left deals with it because it involves two terms they would rather not see in the same sentence: "Late term abortion" and "murder"."

I'm pro choice, and I see no problem with using either term. I don't believe that every late term abortion is murder, but if the article's description of this doctor's behavior is correct, there's no question that the doctor committed murder, not only of the 7 babies that he killed after they were born, but also of the women he killed through his malpractice.

You then said "I also suspect there will be hesitancy to see an "abortion doctor" (if he can be called that) charged with murder, although the charges don't seem unjustified in this case." That sounds like a moot point. If convicted, he'll lose his license to practice. If the evidence is as strong as this article says it is, I don't see how he could possibly be acquitted.

What anti choice people seem not to understand is that pro choice people like myself believe that the option should exist, within reasonable guidelines, for a woman to have a MEDICALLY SAFE abortion. Therefore, this doctor deserves the charges against him. As for reasonable guidelines, I think PA law is clear on this. Any abortion after 24 weeks is illegal, except to save the life or health of the mother.

Religious superstition is simply irreconcilable with biology.

And how would you presume to know what my religious beliefs are? While entitled to your opinion about religion, your reference to it as "superstition" serves only as an appeal to ridicule in the course of an attempted logical argument. As is your comparison between a transplanted heart and a fertilized egg. A heart is an organ and does not meet the requirements for life. Although its characteristics are determined by the genome of its original owner, it in and of itself does not have its own distinct genome that renders it capable of growing and becoming autonomous. Apples and oranges.

As for my religious beliefs, on the contrary, they are not irreconcilable with biology. I have a thorough understanding of biology, as I do of my own beliefs - they are not blind or inherited but questioned and reasoned out. Knowledge in and of itself is nothing more than justified true belief - justified based on evidence available, true based on the perception of the knower and belief because reason cannot determine any absolute Truth in the universe (this would be where faith comes in and if you were capable of reasoning on a deeper level, you would be surprised at how many things you take as solidly concrete are actually based on multitudes of assumptions and even leaps of faith). I have sufficiently justified my own religious beliefs to myself with my knowledge of science and found them to be perfectly compatible, and even complementary. I have verified and satisfied my perception of truth based on logic, and drawn my own conclusions. You are free to do the same as you see fit, but in the meantime, please do not commit an ad hominem or straw man in the name of solid, reasonable argument.

You are comparing apples and oranges...organ procurement exists to SAVE life... and a DECEASED (unable to sustain life) person's organs are harvested and transplanted into a LIVE person, to extend/save life. Abortion exists to END a life...a LIVING fetus becomes DEAD as a result of the procedure. Where do you find a comparison? Illegally harvesting organs HARMS the DONOR... in medicine we claim to believe "Above all else, do no harm".

Where you go wrong is in assuming that a clear, intrinsic moral judgment can be conferred upon either organ donation or abortion, but such judgments are purely subjective. You may believe that organ donation is a good thing (and I happen to, as well), but that doesn't mean that it intrinsically is. Point-in-fact, there are a number of religious groups, even within Christianity, who consider organ donation a sin. As well, some people obviously think abortion is morally defensible, while others think it to be morally indefensible. As such, the analogy is perfectly reasonable.

The article clearly stated that the clinic was not hidden away in some unknown back alley location...authorities knew of it, and NEGLECTED to regulate or INVESTIGATE complaints...for thirty years this has been going on.

I'm not entirely sure who or what you're arguing against -- I'm in agreement with you that, if these allegations are true, the doctor in question should be prosecuted for medical malfeasance for having broken state law and causing the infections and deaths of several women. But that still doesn't mean that abortion should be illegal. The guy was a lawbreaker, but not because he performed abortions. You seem to be arguing that because we have this one bad guy that the entire practice of abortion is necessarily as illegal as his medical malpractice. It's not.

I am an OB nurse who knows something about pregnancy, labor and delivery, and if you refuse to be educated, that is your unfortunate choice.

KJR, read through my posts. I suspect that it's probably pretty clear to anyone reading them that I know what I'm talking about. If "being educated" means agreeing with your anti-choice position, then we have very different ideas about what "being educated" means. I don't much care if you agree with me, but you have to be able to make a cogent argument in defense of your position, and so far, I think you've failed to do so.

And how exactly did you think the dead baby gets out of the mother?...by magic? Please explain how it is easier to deliver a dead baby, as opposed to a live baby?

The fact that you don't know the answer to this makes me very suspicious of your previous claim to be an OB nurse. Therapeutic abortions often occur long before the third trimester, and don't necessitate an actual delivery or C-section, or even surgery of any kind. Furthermore, even late-term therapeutic abortions can be performed by destroying the fetus' body while still in utero, thereby allowing extraction of the fetus without doing serious surgical injury to the woman. Why I'm having to explain this to an OB nurse is a mystery to me.

And, If the infant is dismembered in-utero as opposed to the partial birth procedure, the mother has to be put under anesthesia and the cervix still has to be dilated and surgery performed with instruments passed up into the uterus...if a woman can undergo this, she can undergo a C-Section.

That's sheer surmise. You have no evidence backing up that claim.

Beyond those responses, I will not waste time telling you all the ways you are in error in your other responses to me. You are clearly misled.

In other words, you have no response.

I notice you did not respond with an answer to your misinformation that unborn babies are "not conscious".

Yes, I did. Read #1.147, first paragraph.

Your other arguments are equally flawed, but there are many comments here to educate you about life and why the unborn are separate, living "persons", if you want to be educated.

Another dodge. Prove me wrong. I'm waiting.

My god, how horrible! I am pro-choice, even though abortion is not for me. But the late term abortions are horrendous. How anyone who calls himself a doctor could do something so heinous is unthinkable. To kill a child that is able to live outside the mothers body is such a horrible, horrible thing. If someone was gonna carry a child for 6 to 8 months, why not just have the baby and put it up for adoption. To have an abortion would be hard enough, but to so very cruelly murder a baby , I would never be able to close my eyes again without having well deserved nightmares.

As long as we're talking logical fallacies...

Another dodge. Prove me wrong. I'm waiting.

Burden of proof. Completely unsound reasoning.

Please, learn to argue intelligently before you attempt to deconstruct the arguments of others.

Robbob, sorry for the delayed response. But, no I don't see how a pro-life person can use this guy as an example of an abortion doctor - he wasn't an abortion doctor. He performed illegal abortions and murdered babies that had been born alive. Physicians that provide abortions do not do what this guy did. So, if a Pro-life person were to point to this guy as an example of what an abortion provider does, they are being dishonest.

You continually use the current law/legal definition as explanation for why the unborn are not "persons" with "person rights", and subsequently jump to justify all forms of abortion.

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely explaining why the law is as it is. The defense of abortion rights -- which is the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision -- is that fetuses have no claim to a moral or legal right that trumps that of a woman. It comes down to a matter of demonstrable harm: either we place more value on the moral rights of the woman to do with her own body as she chooses, or we place more moral value on the supposed right of a fetus to exist. It's about limiting harm. A woman who does no want to carry her pregnancy to term is clearly being harmed, in a legal and moral sense, by her pregnancy. One could, in turn, tentatively argue that a fetus is being harmed by the act of abortion. As a consequence, we have to decide whose moral rights are likely to be more harmed -- the woman's, or the fetus'? Because the woman is a conscious, self-aware, independently living being with a moral claim to her own self-interest, she is the one who is more likely to be harmed. As such, the fetus' considerations are secondary -- in fact, they're non-existent, since a fetus has no claim to being conscious, self-aware, independently living, or possessing of a self-interest.

And without getting into a religious discussion, I would like to mention that as to your Bible quote... old testament scriptures also allowed stoning an adulteress...so what exactly is your point?

My point is that, contrary to what a lot of Christians think the Bible says about these types of issues, it actually, in many cases, says something exactly the opposite. Many Christians, for example, believe that the Bible advocates against abortion, when in fact it says nothing explicitly about it, while also presenting scenarios that, by inference, could be used to religiously justify it's practice.

Speedy Palm Harbor: You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Maybe it's your strong dislike for the current president that gets in the way of clear thinking on this issue.

President Obama did not and does not favor killing children. He voted the way he did on the bill because it was already illegal to kill a child that is born live. Therefore, no further law was necessary. The bill in question was an attempt to establish anti abortion laws. As repugnant as a late abortion is, there are times when it is necessary for the life or health of the mother. That's a decision that should be left up to the woman and her doctor. But, since late term abortions ARE so abhorrent, when they are permitted, it's only for the life and safety of the mother. Any doctors who violate the law on that point should be prosecuted, IMO. But, they should not be prosecuted if they have acted in accordance with the law and the mother's wish if her life and/or healt are threatened by giving birth, even at a late stage.

For all the anti abortion people, I'd like to see less abortions, too, even though I'm pro choice. So, if you really want to see less abortions, put your money, time, and effort where your mouth is. Help to reduce the circumstances that lead women to choose abortion. Reach out to pregnant women who are poor. Help them take the best care of their children that they can, and helpt them obtain adequate food an nutrition for themselves and their children. Work agains domestic violence and rape. Become a foster parent so that unwanted children have a good place to go. Be willing to adopt minority children. Be willing to adopt children with special needs. Stop cutting off aid to people who need assistance in those areas for caring for their families. Report suspected sexual abuse and incest. Take time to watch special needs children for a while so the mother can get some relief from the full time care that they require.

If you're not willing to do any of the above, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution and should shut up about preaching to others what to do.

The man had babies and baby parts every where in jars for no medical reason what so ever. What else do you need he is a psychopath. His a butcher.

Please, learn to argue intelligently before you attempt to deconstruct the arguments of others.

I'm still waiting...

this guy, and his staff, are just plain deranged, i dont care what anyone has to say about who has what rights to what, just freaking monsters!

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/PresentmentFinalWomensMedical.pdf

this is the whole complaint right here. you want to complain about not having info on this? well this out to shut those complaining about that right up. please, dont comment ony to what i had to say uness you read the formal complaint, and list of charges, and what happend in this clinic.

this doctor, and his staff .... there is no punishment to fit their crimes... i thought the "house of horrors" was just usual media hype, wow was i ever wrong.

Terra...

If you go back and read, my comment that you had responded to was in discussion of third trimester abortions...but you know that. I said...

When a woman has made it to this LATE PREGNANCY GESTATION (third trimester stated above), there is NO MEDICAL REASON of mother's health to justify an abortion...a live baby could be delivered if labor induction or C-section was indicated for mother's health...and that happens in hospitals every day.

You had first responded,...

"Here, you're just betraying your ignorance of obstetrics. There undeniably are cases in which the very act of delivery, whether by C-section or otherwise unaided by surgery, poses a serious fatal threat to the woman."

I answered...

And how exactly did you think the dead baby gets out of the mother?...by magic? Please explain how it is easier to deliver a dead baby, as opposed to a live baby? And, If the infant is dismembered in-utero as opposed to the partial birth abortion where the intact baby is delivered, the mother has to be put under anesthesia and the cervix still has to be dilated and surgery performed with instruments passed up into the uterus...if a woman can undergo this, she can undergo a C-Section.

I am not sure why you try to twist and argue nonsense. Believe whatever you want...and continue to post misinformation if you must.

I'm still waiting...

For what?

Fallacious arguments don't exactly make for a strong position. However, they do seem to boost your ego.

And I am completely aware that I just committed an ad hominem, and I don't particularly care. However, I'm aware that I am being illogical. Whereas many, many people are not. And they think their logic is sound.

And with that...farewell until another day.

While entitled to your opinion about religion, your reference to it as "superstition" serves only as an appeal to ridicule in the course of an attempted logical argument.

Beliefs in the supernatural are, by definition, superstitions, since they're untenable beliefs that go against perceived knowledge while simultaneously lacking an evidentiary basis. Unless you're now trying to tell me that you're an Buddhist atheist who rejects belief in miracles, if you're professing religious belief, you're by inference professing superstitious belief.

As is your comparison between a transplanted heart and a fertilized egg. A heart is an organ and does not meet the requirements for life. Although its characteristics are determined by the genome of its original owner, it in and of itself does not have its own distinct genome that renders it capable of growing and becoming autonomous. Apples and oranges.

You're argument was that a woman has no claim to legal or moral control over her fetus since the fetus possesses a different genome than the woman. My response was to provide an example of a case in which a person can be in controlled, legal possession of something (i.e., a donated heart) that does not have the same genome as the person. Your problem with this has nothing to do with my response, but with your original argument. As well, your argument that a donated heart is intrinsically different from a fetus is unsubstantiated -- why is it different? Because you say it is? Cells from that donated heart could also be used to generate an autonomous being via cloning, technology permitting. Are we to now lament the loss of an ovum during a woman's menstrual cycle because it could have turned into an autonomous being? What about the 100 million spermatazoa lost during a teenage boy's nocturnal emission? Should we reinstate religious laws against masturbation to that end?

Knowledge in and of itself is nothing more than justified true belief - justified based on evidence available, true based on the perception of the knower and belief because reason cannot determine any absolute Truth in the universe (this would be where faith comes in and if you were capable of reasoning on a deeper level, you would be surprised at how many things you take as solidly concrete are actually based on multitudes of assumptions and even leaps of faith).

As a scientist, I have to disagree, and quite frankly, roll my eyes. This notion that the "faithful" are somehow in possession of "special knowledge" gained via their faithful intuition and atunement with the universe is absolute nonsense and superstition. I'll agree with you that knowledge is, at best, our current and potentially flawed perceptions about what constitutes reality, but there is no "sixth sense" with which, say, a Christian is able to divine the true secrets of the universe. That's nothing but new age nonsense.

Let him have the death penality....he just needs to face God.

I am not sure why you try to twist and argue nonsense. Believe whatever you want...and continue to post misinformation if you must.

What misinformation have I posted?

Paula-1353047...how many unwanted babies have you adopted? If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

The man and his entire staff are responsible. Lethal injection is too good for people like this. I believe everyone deserves a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty but ... He 's working on the women least likely to sue or complain?! The man has that kind of cash on hand and doesn't even clean his clinic?! Fetal body parts in plastic bags and jars all over the place?! Come on, where there's this much smoke, a forest fire going real close by. As for those pointing to incidents like this as the reason to make abortions illegal, the opposite is true. If abortions were illegal, we'd have more horror stories like this. (Btw, I am very anti-abortion but women have been doing it for thousands of years - doesn't make it right but abortion's not going away. Making it illegal only endangers the lives of poor women who can't afford clean doctors.)

Go read "Cider House Rules' by John Irving. It's all about the morality of abortions. I neither condone nor condemn those women seeking an abortion. I am old enough to remember back alley abortions and the 'clinic' in this article is exactly that. I remember women dying from botched abortions, girls afraid to go to the hospital and dying as a result. I do not believe that after the third trimester any abortions should be allowed unless the mother's health is in danger.

I don't know about the rest of the country but in Texas there is a provision that a woman may leave her child at a fire station, hospital or similar institution without fear of reprisal. This was done to prevent the babies from being abandoned in dumpsters, public restrooms and other places.

As stated I do not condemn a woman for seeking an abortion, there are too many qualifying factors like the conditions in her life, her age, whether she can afford yet another child, how she came to be pregnant, if she is leaving an abusive situation. Not all babies get adopted and many have medical conditions that can prove horrendously expensive and make them undesireable

I understand the highly charged emotions around this issue, I had to do some serious soul searching to come to my decision on the matter. I don't think the medical professional who performs abortions in a safe and secure manner should have to worry about being murdered since those people should be the ones performing an abortion. With this 'doctor' I see that things have regressed in term of safety. A desperate woman should not be criminalized nor forced into the situation of going to this murderous quack.

This 'doctor' is a murderer, pure and simple. I had sincerely hoped that with the passage of Roe v Wade these stories would be a thing of the past

Here's something else to think about: What if Hitler hadn't killed the Jews, but instead had forced all Jewish pregnant women to have early term abortions. If abortion is not killing of a child, why would you have a problem with Hitler doing that?

If ppl would just let those neurons become fully fired b4 posting w/ a cold brain....a) forced=no choice. So no, not OK, no matter to whom you attribute the above brainfart b) are the tedious references to Hitler that always seem to crop up when debating anything related to abortion really the best y'all can do? c) totally irrelevant to the topic. Please re-read article for clarification of subject under discussion.

Authorities went to investigate drug-related complaints at the clinic last year and stumbled on what [was] called a "house of horrors."

O yes. B/c drugs in a bad 'hood, we'll get right on that ASAP. Ppl in a bad 'hood complaining about a dr who shouldn't be permitted to practice, & likely doing it when English is not the 1st language, meh, that gets lost in translation, no need to bother. Isn't it odd how every time the media deems a place "a house of horrors", it's always b/c someone "stumbled" across it? Not surprised to see Health Dept employees lawyering up over a 17 yr "ooops" on their part. What was the excuse for the other 23 yrs of this dr's practice remaining open & passing inspections etc?

The "mothers" need to be charged as well. I use the terms mother and doctor very, very loosely

Again, take that precious minute to fire up the neurons b4 commenting, maybe work on those context clues given in the article that said: staff was instructed how to "fake" a sonogram & make the fetus look smaller; that many women were told they were no more than 24 wks pregnant & therefore able to undergo a legal 2nd trimester abortion; that women who underwent abortions there were unconscious. That last one ought to be a given for any surgical procedure, but since the more obvious reasons why many of the women weren't at fault flew past, I thought it might behoove me to cite it anyway.

Do you not know how later term abortion is done? Look it up. that is the optimal tool. Ideally the babe is born feet first. Before the head can come out and take a breath it is not considered alive. The doctor inserts scissors into the base of the baby's scull and kills it.

Not quite right, but TYVM for playing. You look it up & see if it will better sink into your "scull" once digested correctly. Certainly it's not a pleasant sequence of events for the weak of stomach, but obvs you just totally made up that scissors bit after glancing at the article so that you could shrug & say meh no diff btwn what this dr did & what's involved in a regular late-term abortion. Au contraire. There's quite a bit of difference. That's b/c....

Just 0.17% (note decimal pt placement b4 shrieking, please) of all abortion procedures are done in the 3rd trimester &, when done by a reputable dr, which obvs the one in this article is not, it is for one of the following two reasons: 1) the fetus will not be viable outside the womb, ie., will be born dead anyway or die shortly after birth, or 2) the mother will die from complications of pregnancy, & thus her fetus w/ her anyway. All 3 scenarios involve a dead fetus; one involves certain maternal death along w/ it, which shouldn't be up for debate; another involves unecessary suffering if the fetus is delivered alive, not just for the now non-viable infant that has been born, but for its mother who is forced to continue carrying this dead or dying fetus days, wks, mos more, then endure labor & childbirth knowing what the end result will be. Not everyone can do that & no one should be forced to do that. Animals aren't forced to go thru that & they don't even have the capacity to think & feel emotions as humans do. And given the low %, I wouldn't conclude that these are "unwanted pregnancies". What's done isn't pleasant but it puts an immediate end to suffering & pain for all parties concerned. It's inhumane to argue otherwise, & it's ignorant to make the attempt to put this medical procedure at the same level of a dr who willfully murdered living infants. In the beginning, likely b/c he didn't have a clue how to perform this procedure the right way, but ultimately, likely b/c he enjoyed it. Shame on you for trying to equate the two things.

Actually, the word "abort" means end before completion, and it refers to the pregnancy, not the child. In fact, if a baby dies in utero, an abortion can be performed to take it out of the mother. Not plain, not simple.

TYVM for engaging those neurons & displaying comprehension skills above & beyond "the pack". "Miscarriage" is also a layman's term. It's actually called, in medical terminology, a "spontaneous abortion". A miscarriage where fetal tissue still remains in the uterus is called an "incomplete spontaneous abortion" & it does indeed require medical intervention in the form of a D & E, which is generally the tool of a 1st-trimester abortion, to remove this now-foreign tissue or the mother will develop an infection & die. Those of you who think they know God wouldn't like the concept of abortion best plan on a CTJ w/ Him talk real soon, as He invented it. But sometimes even He "miscarries" the Creator's ball & permits a non-viable pregnancy to continue. This is why He allowed science to be invented, to rectify His 0.17% of errors in this particular area. Among other things, like saving lives that have already been outside the womb many years. If it's God's Will when you chow down on one too many plates of fettucine alfredo & fall over w/ a major artery clog that you should be allowed to undergo triple bypass & fix that problem & live beyond the natural span of yrs He allotted, then why isn't it God's Will to alleviate the suffering of a woman & the non-viable fetus He missed w/ another useful medical procedure?

Abortion clinics need to be regulated in order to provide clear information about what the pregnant woman will go trough and offer other posibilities like adoption before make their choice or/and end in hand of murdereres like this case.

Nice concept. ***POOF!**** Your wish has been granted. How's that for instant gratification? Sign here, please, initial here, very good. Now, did you have a gender preference in that fetus you're planning to adopt when it's born? B/c you get what God gives you, you know, & apparently He doesn't care that you already have 5 girls, b/c here comes #6 for ya! O, looks like this one may not be of your racial makeup, but hey, you offered, it's yours! Oooo....yikes....sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but your newly adopted multiracial bundle of joy here, yeah, she's got severe birth defects, pity her mother was unable to have an abortion since you had them outlawed. These things happen, it's God's Will, so here's a pamphlet on dealing w/ your special needs daughter &....HEY! Where do you think you're going? You wanted adoption as the sole option, get back here & do your part! Liars go to Hell, you know!

I love the smell of reality in the morning. Now what were you saying about taking away a woman's right to choice again?

The Fact is: NO one ENTERS MEDICAL SCHOOL with the hopes of becoming an abortion Doctor.

That's not exactly what the degree says. It's usually gynecology, obstetrics, or both. "Abortion dr" is not in the curriculum. But those obtaining the proper credentials can certainly offer abortions to their patients if they choose. See, it's all about choice. And maybe they chose that area of speciality b/c they did want to provide abortions to their patients. You have no way of knowing otherwise to make such a broadsweeping statement. It's not as if they get a gun put to their heads & are told to perform abortions or die. They do have a choice. Except in those cases where ppl put a gun to their heads & say you performed abortions so die. That choice is on the heads of those who only want their own choices to have meaning.

clearly being their rabid desire to kill unborn children under the guise of "right to choose". Well good for you, keep your murderous right, I find these people to be some of the most disgusting on earth

Can you tell us how you really feel?

Children are born, not unborn. FYI. I think you mean to say something about "rabid desire to kill fetuses" (fetii?). And why would you want "the most disgusting ppl on Earth" (I fixed that little capitalization issue, hope you don't mind) holding the lives of innocent children in their hands? Wouldn't it be better for them not to breed at all? OK, good, we're agreed, then. Abortion it is. I mean, it sure beats the alternative, right?

And if she wants to have the baby, even over the objection of the man, he pays.

Well, I hate to sound like I'm paraphrasing other posts, but, um, hello, personal responsibility? These things can be prevented. Birth control, right out there in the open at CVS for all to use. Wear a raincoat & don't get yourself into a position where you rightly have to pay for your own "mistake". It does take 2. Not all her fault. You invaded that egg b/c you were too horny or too drunk or too uncaring to care. You saw, you came, you conquered, make reparations. Alas, it seems many boys (I wouldn't exactly call anyone who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions & whines about it a man) just don't feel the need to learn that lesson no matter how many unwanted babies they leave behind.

Where is the "equal protection under the law" in that ????

There is none. Yeah, I was rather shocked, too. Until I realized men can't get pregnant. Men want protection? Try CVS, & BTW, that box of Magnums, honey, it's only fooling you & more likely to fall off & render itself useless.

Funny, our ever present Nanny state has no problem regulating everything else in the country.

Regulating gruesome late term murders abortions, not so much.

But try to build a shed in your backyard without a permit....

Once again, Ryan, I bow to your unintentionally comedic genius LOL Next time just get that permit, it'll save you the fine. And try reading the article under discussion & then come back w/ a comment that isn't all about you.

OK now that we've culled thru the irrelevancies that have turned this into a tangential train wreck, let's recap the important facts many of the above posters missed, & start afresh, shall we?:

Few if any of the sedated women knew their babies were born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were further along, authorities said.

Gosnell got his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and is board certified in family practice. He started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology, authorities said.

Summer

The problem is this guy started out as a legal abortion provider protected by Roe v Wade, he devolved into a psychopathic killer years later, I have to wonder if what he started out doing legally became so easy that he took it to where he was at when he was arrested.

This is why the connection between him and all abortions is so easy, he was just doing what was legal when he started, then he moved on to where he is today, a mass murderer.

this guy wasnt even a legal abortion doctor, he never finshed his whatever the heck, and was just doing it. raises the question to mind. being this the case, as written in the formal complaint, how was this monster even allowed to practice for as long as he did? seriously, this type of news is just as disturbing as the rest. read the indictment once, at least 1/4 of it, and not just see what this guy was doing, but what his, and his staff's qualifications were.

he manipulated his staff to believe the people giving abortions in his clinic were actual doctors. He manitpulated them into doing what no doctor with any type of skilled knowlege did, perform abortions, and medicate. this guy os one of the lowest forms of life to walk the earth, yes just my opinion, but please do if you beg to differ read the formal complaint.

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/PresentmentFinalWomensMedical.pdf

for me this isnt an issue of should abortion be legal or not, its how this guy was able to keep doing what he did for almost 29 yrs. those of you who want to side with this POS, need to read what the charges are.... ALL OF THEM, before making whatever rational sence you want to out of rights and so on. his own staff admitted to murder, and witness to murder, and murder evem in the eyes of pro choicers. read it, its right there. you will be left slack-jawed if you read all of this. even 1/4 of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

The actual MSN article....WHY they don't link to it on the comments pg I'm sure I don't know, but maybe this'll save a whole lot of head-scratching & confusion.

And I don't think anyone is "siding" w/ this guy, save for the odd pro-lifer gloating that they think it makes the pro-choicers look bad. Which is rather sick, considering. But in glancing at your post again I believe that was like preaching to the choir, "even" tho there's not a single pro-choice person in this thread that agrees w/ any of it as you seem to be assuming based on just the 1st few postings on an article no one but me actually read b/c MSN is weird like that.

FYI....no such thing as an "abortion dr"? The guy wasn't even an OB/GYN.

Terra Incognita

If you are 7-8 months along, you know perfectly well that your baby can live outside the womb.

So what? The point is that they aren't living outside the womb, and aren't conscious, and aren't entitled to any moral or legal rights. Only the woman has any moral and legal claim to rights, and as such, she's perfectly entitled to having an abortion if she chooses, at any point in the pregnancy, and for any reason whatsoever. It's her body.

Terra altho i personally find you to be either 12-14 yrs old, or a cold creul person who would have enjoyed working for this man, i still feel you have no clue, nor can you imagine someone other than yourself having so much as an ounce of feeling. i reccomend as you wish to spew how you or any woman has a legal right to whatever, read the endicment brought upon this man, and his staff, and read all if it, if you actually the mental faculties to do so. reading from exspert doctors who perform abortions, there is a reason, why you, and people like you can only get illegal late term abortions. this reason being, as stated by exsperts, with over 40 yrs in the field, states to make it short, after the 2nd trimester, the fetus is a living, entity, that when aborted, unless disected piece at a time inside the womb, will in most cases be able to draw its 1st breath, open its eyes, move arms and legs, and able to pull those arms or lags back when pulled upon, as well grip your finger... lets not forget, anle to cry, and whimper. personally i find people with your type of shallow thinking just that, shallow, and yes heartless. i can see someone like yourself by your words you would kick someones kid for their sucker if you had a urge for one. i feel sry for you in so many ways with your self centered way of thinking, and hope personally you dont have any children, with your hate filled statements.

still yes, do read what this man had done, how he ended the lives of countless babies who could, or would have survived, until he literally killed them. in the indicment it even describes not just how he did this, but that these babies were able to move, cry, whimper, and yes were breathing on their own, at apx 28 weeks by witness of his own staff.

1 more thing... if it was YOUR body, and you cared so much about it, why would you allow yourself to get pregnant? a night out at the bar, bad choice in boyfriend and so on outside of being raped or molested.

@scar-tissue

i go along with the link you gave, but it still in no fasion describes in the detail as does the indicment by the county i posted. not trying to gloat, but i think if some prochoice women were to read a little, might change 1 persons mind. also it gives a more detailed description of events, and so on. im not a big fan of reading such things myself, a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and so on, this isnt packed with a lot of that. he and his staff treated women who came there like cattle, and the fetus' even worse. personally i can not imagine, even someone looking to seek a carreer in the mefical field, hard up for cash, or any means could have worked for this guy, seen what they did, and not turned this guy in, or do anything to even stop him, or his staff of pretend doctors. even the teenage they arrested altho as said in the document was manipulated, one has to have some kind of common sence.

what makes me even as angry, or upset over this, is that the guy went for almost 20 yrs doing these procedures, in a squallid clinic, as long as he did without so much 1 official doing something. this guy has over 300 legitimat counts against him and his staff from violations that never should have happend if people had done their job, and shut this guy down. personally if anyone has a right to sue the crap out of the city or state for letting this guy be in buisness it would be the woman who he and his staff killed, family. everyone from the state to the city dropped the ball when it came to dealing with this monster, and i dont normally side with sueing the gov in a lot of cases, but this is definatly one of them. this guy was murder for hire, and people in the right places chose to look the other way.

Watch the lefties start defending him.

"Bruce-308647Restored

This will be an interesting case to watch unfold. It will be especially interesting to see how the media and the left deals with it because it involves two terms they would rather not see in the same sentence: "Late term abortion" and "murder". I also suspect there will be hesitancy to see an "abortion doctor" (if he can be called that) charged with murder, although the charges don't seem unjustified in this case."

I don't think the media and the pro-choice groups will have a problem with this case.

The pro-choice groups know the difference between abortion and murder, unlike the loony Right, which refuses to be educated.

All abortions have legal restrictions, and late-term abortions have the most legal restrictions.

If this doctor broke the laws, regarding late-term abortions, then he is probably guilty of murder.

No one, in the pro-choice community will be defending him.

The charges only came forth after a lengthy investigation.

Philadelphia regulators should also be on the prosecution stand.

17 years of killing babies... This is so awful.

@Lady Liberty, again. :0)

First of all, a child cannot understand their pain any better than an animal, heck, most adults cannot understand their pain. All I am saying is why do you feel it is right to put an animal out of it's misery, and not a defenseless child? Secondly, I was under the apparently false assumtion that all pro-lifers were religious bible-thumpers, which seems to not be the case, with you at least. When you lose a loved one, do you believe that they are better off, and at least they are not suffering anymore? If you have ever used those words to comfort yourself or someone else after suffering a loss, then you have blown your entire argument out of the water.

I don't want to try to convince you that I am right, and you will most certainly not convince me that you are. I have given you apt opportunity to change my mind, as I like to try to keep an open mind about things. However, you continue to focus on irrelevant details, straying from the topic at hand. Maybe you will have better luck with the other posters here. Have a nice day. :0)

@Megalodon - I LOVE your attacks on Terra's intelligence while misspelling your entire post. That gave me a good laugh, thank you. Why do you insist on staying angry with people who are agreeing that this man did a horrible thing? Nobody is saying he was right. Staying angry only hurts one person, and that's yourself.

@Bob - Why would the "lefties" defend him? The only people that I have seen saying "oh, he's just doing what they do" are the pro-life folks. The Pro-choice people have said their piece about him: he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

This man is evil personified!

Robbob, Again, sorry for the delay in response. I'm not disputing that at all. What I'm saying is for someone to attempt to say this man is an example of a typical legal abortion provider (which some have done) - is dishonest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with condemning this man for what he has done WHILE at the same time distinguishing between this man's actions and those of a legal abortion provider. Pro-Choice people are NOT defending this man or his actions.

At Terra:

I am going to go ahead and chock this debate up to you being socially inept. You continually take the human factor out of the conversation and do not seem to understand that this is really not a "law" debate as much as it is a moral one. I understand that my ex was within the current laws when she made her decision, but that does not mean that I have to agree with the law. You keep referring to me as a chauvinist which in my mind would lead me to believe that you have problems attracting the opposite sex. It is a fact that men who accuse other men of being chauvinist are usually lacking in self-esteem and often do so in order to draw favorable attention from the opposite sex. Your views are distorted by your over whelming sense that you are smarter and more progressive than every one else. Your inability to factor in the human element has put you in a frame of mind that every situation is black and white and that a gray area does not exist. This has not only made you narrow minded but also made your ability to contemplate others ideas nearly impossible. You are not as smart and progressive as you think you are. I think a comparison to Hitler may not be such a far stretch for you.

Terra Incognita wrote "A lot of the anti-choice anger can simply be chalked up to paranoia over the thought of women having the right to do as they wish with their own lives,"

No. Anti-abortionists believe in that fetus is a being worthy of the same rights as older children. Modern ultrasound scanning technology is killing the pro-abortionist argument that a fetus is a worthless organism until the mother decides to let it emerge from her vagina.

Vincent Denali: 1st it's pro-choice, not pro-abortionist. 2nd - the fetus is not a worthless organism, however, neither is the mother. 3rd - the mother never decided to let it emerge from her vagina, it simply happens due to a whole slew of biological, physiological, and biochemical functions.

How can so many people see abortion as alright? Abortion makes me question the righteousness of man.

Of course, the staff of this 'clinic' acted horribly; and regulators failed horribly.
On the general issue of abortion:

What America needs #1 is respectful discourse between all opinions.

I've never been pregnant under such difficult conditions that would precipitate considering an abortion. Some posters here have shared deeply personal experiences --thanks for your contributions.

Abortion & the well-being of babies & parents has been an issue of legal flux & social flux, even going back to American colonial days, in a changing context of evolving medical care. Besides honest respectful sharing of experiences, we can likely profit from considering hypothetical "thought-experiments" as some have posted, discussion of legal principles, consideration of the larger contexts of supporting life, liberty, & happiness from pre-birth to death, new insights from science (biology, neuroscience, genetics, animal consciousness), old insights from thousands of years of human society experiences (including religious interpretations). Through this medium of the internet, we have new broad access to a nearly bottomless supply of personal experiences. I ask others to share with us, for without hearing personal experiences, we are left with making judgements based solely on philosophy/religion & science and our individual narrow lives. IMO America is not yet ready to resolve the issue of abortion: society is fragmented into several pieces. We need to first spend some years getting to know the other voices, respecting their life choices as being well-intentioned & seriously weighed. If the pro-life voices want to really be heard, it seems wise that they would manifest --in ways more easily recognized by pro-choice voices-- their dedication to the quality of life from pre-conception to death.

Not having many personal experiences here, though tangentially a sibling was born with brain dysfunction & a parent died with extended dementia and the joys of my life --my children-- were not always a joy to raise, I'll instead offer some weird, perhaps overly exaggerated, thought experiments.

(1) If two human siamese twins live a decent number of years, who has what legal rights when it comes to "controlling my own body"? Can one twin demand separation surgery even if it were against the choice of the other twin?
(2) If a pregnant woman has been abused by her husband (perhaps, but not necessarily, even raped by her husband), and is considering separation to save herself & her toddlers from further abuse or murder, and if she has limited finances & lives in a time when public welfare services are being cut way back, should she be granted the heart-rending decision of whether to expand her family?
(3) If government officials or voters or health-insurance companies make severe cut backs in social services, and if deaths or mental illness or illiteracy or hypertension jump up 'unexpectedly', should those who decisions formed such policies re-consider whether they have made, albeit from an insulating distance, life-or-death decisions affecting thousands or millions of people?
If, during the depths of winter, a utility company cuts off heat for some homebound people whose accounts were past-due and they subsequently freeze to death, should anyone at the utility be judged morally at fault?
(4) If, in Darfur or Cambodia or Bosnia or America or wherever, one group closely monitors another group and forcibly aborts every pregnancy of the other group for a period of 60 years, would the first group be guilty of genocide even though they hadn't killed anyone according to a standard legal definition of murder?
(5) If technology develops where a human fetus can be transplanted from one woman's womb to another woman, and if one considering an abortion offers to give up her fetus for transplantation, should any healthy woman who refuses to accept such transplant (or significantly help support the mother & future child) be justified in supporting any legislation that makes abortion illegal?
(6) Why do dog owners, who regularly regard their pet as having feelings, cognition, self-awareness & concern for others, and perhaps also a soul, have the "choice" to put their elderly/sickly dog to "sleep"?

@WhatAWorld-2751957,

The difference between an animal and a human is that the child will be able to understand and overcome the pain at some point; the animal will not. I would also like to bring up the point that the only time I would condone euthenizing an animal is if it is dying, cannot be saved, and the death is causing it excruciating pain-- ie, the euthenasia is simply making the death less painful. Also, I would like to point out something that you stated correctly-- the child is in fact "defenseless," so doesn't it deserve the right to be defended until it can decide/fend for itself? I would also like to ask you to bring the story of someone you find to be inspirational to mind; think of as many as you can. All of those people have fought to overcome some sort of pain-- that's what makes them inspirational.

Secondly, I was under the apparently false assumtion that all pro-lifers were religious bible-thumpers, which seems to not be the case, with you at least.

If you want to make a statement about something, please try to do it without trying to insult people with derogatory terms-- this is part of why the abortion issue (and everything else in this country, for that matter) is such a huge emotional issue: because people don't respect eachother. For the record, I am in fact Catholic. However, I would like to make the point that not all pro-lifers are Christian, and not all Christians are pro-life. There are very few pro-abortion religions (I am including all religions in this statement, not just Christian), and people w/o a religion can be pro-life as well. Now, I am going to assume that by "bible-thumper," you are refering to holier-than-thou, if-you-don't-believe-what-I-do-you'll-go-to-hell Protestants. I absolutely do not fit this description in any way; I am admitedly no better than anyone else, and the only time I bring up my religious beliefs in a conversation is if they are solicited. I do not "shove my beliefs down anyone's throat" or give "fire and brimstone speaches." I acknowledge that other people have different beliefs, and I am ok with that. In fact, I try as much as possible in arguments such as this to leave my religion out and try to stick with basic facts so as to be arguing on the same basic principles-- which I do believe led to your assumption that I am not Christian.

When you lose a loved one, do you believe that they are better off, and at least they are not suffering anymore? If you have ever used those words to comfort yourself or someone else after suffering a loss, then you have blown your entire argument out of the water.

I have, in fact, explained to my younger siblings that after people die they go to heaven, where it is always happy. However, I disagree on your statement that it blows my argument out of the water. Imagine a teen at a gang-ridden, educationally lacking public school. This teen (let's say it's a boy), is a football player. He wants to make it to the NFL. However, with his family situation (they can't afford college, his father is an abusive alcoholic, etc) and his poor education, plus the fact that his school has a poor sports program and his team isn't very good, there is a slim chance of this ever happening. But one day... (fill in the blanks here)... and he eventually makes it to the NFL. His life now is great. But he wouldn't get rid of his past for anything. Why? Because he had good times (despite all the bad), and the past made him who he is. If he was born into the NFL and handed a football and a contract, it would not mean as much to him. Anyways, if you didn't get my point, this applies to anyone's life; yes, there are bad things in it, but there are good things too, and those things make it worth the while. The bad things are character builder.

you continue to focus on irrelevant details

I disagree; using other examples to put the situation in a different light is not irrelevant, it's examining the issue from all sides. I admit that the Hitler-situation was a bit farfetched, but as I said before, it was brought up by someone else, and I wanted to know what your opinion was so that I could better understand your reasoning.

I hope you have a nice day too (and I do mean that seriously).

@WhatAWorld-2751957,

I almost forgot, you never answered my last question either-- would you want someone else to make that decision for you?

@Terra Incognita,

she's perfectly entitled to having an abortion if she chooses, at any point in the pregnancy, and for any reason whatsoever. It's her body.

You are clearly someone who has put alot of time into the legal aspects of your argument, but you (and many other abortion supporters) tend to overlook a very vitle bit of information-- she may do whatever she likes to her own body, but the body of the child is completely seperate from her own. As I said in an earlier post, the child is scientifically defined as a seperate entity from the moment it is concieved as the woman and the child have different DNA. Therefore, she may not do whatever she likes to the childs body.

@Lady Liberty,

I apologize if you were offended by my "Bible-thumper" remarks. I did not mean for them to be derrogatory. In fact, I am a highly spiritual person. What I meant was that in my opinion, if I had to make the choice between knowingly bringing a child into a situation where they would be harmed, terrified, and starved (i.e. the holocaust), I might seriously contemplate aborting the pregnancy because, in my opinion, the sprirt would be free. Regarding the animal euthanization, just because a child is human does not mean they will get over their pain or understand it. I child can be born, live a few years in excruciating pain only to die anyway. Why wouldn't I want to spare my child those few years, if I were going to spare my dog that pain? Though I identify with a pro-choice opinion, I have never been faced with a situation where I had to contemplate such a huge decision, and I cannot firmly decide which path I would take if I were. I appreciate the fact that you and I are coming at this from different perspectives, and truly wish that on the abortion debate, there were a third option that might appease all parties. I do believe, without a doubt that the "doctor" mentioned in the article should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. Though I consider myself pro-choice, I do not agree with late-term and partial-birth abortions.

As far as your additional post about someone making that decision for me, I believe you are referencing the Hitler conversation (please correct me if I am wrong). And no I would not want Hitler to make that decision for me, but from what I remember Hitler gave me two choices (neither was good) but left the final decision to me.

I, too, meant honestly for you to have a good day. I understand that this is a highly controversial subject and do not expect to win everyone over to my side with my sparkling personality, haha. Besides, what if I am wrong? I try to keep my mind open enough to always know that there's a possibility I may be wrong. It's how I approach everything in life. It's how I live a life where I can accept and appreciate differing opinions on things I hold dear.

TinStars

@Megalodon - I LOVE your attacks on Terra's intelligence while misspelling your entire post. That gave me a good laugh, thank you. Why do you insist on staying angry with people who are agreeing that this man did a horrible thing? Nobody is saying he was right. Staying angry only hurts one person, and that's yourself.

@Bob - Why would the "lefties" defend him? The only people that I have seen saying "oh, he's just doing what they do" are the pro-life folks. The Pro-choice people have said their piece about him: he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

hmmmm, kudos foryou member of the spelling police, lol now, lets get serious shall we? I'll try to cover all your little nonsence best i can. as far as spelling goes, it has no basis when it comes to proving a point, as you so like to point out, it is a matter of what is said, and what i said you understand very well, being you seem to be at least in middle school, maybe part way thru HS. not sure what you actual repl y was to the comments in a whole, it was rather a jumble with no block quotes, so, a toast back tou you on being just as perfect as myself, :))

now, seeing how we are now from the topic of what this man doing being no matter how YOU VIEW IT, but as THE LAW views it, he commited acts of murder.

let me also set you strait on something. we see these little slaughter shops in almost every town with a population over 50,000 people. some go by the name planned parenthood, some like this one a family clinic. now 18 yrs ago, when the mother of my youngest daughter went to planned parenthood, she made us both an appointment to go in, and as we understood, just as the name would entice "Planned Parenthood", would almost lead one like we were to understand it to be a place where we could get the best advise for planning on ways to bring our child into the world, with the extra care, such as parental guidance, and so on, one would want when bringing a child into this world, strong healthy and so on. When she made the appointment, they insisted it was to be for her only, being she was 21, she as well as I still a bit nervous with bringing a child into the world, i kind of passed it off. When she had come home from her appointment bawling, i was a bit taken back when she told me her entire visit was focused on for her to abort the baby. when she would get up to leave, the door was blocked, and pamphlets stuffed into her hand, while the bimbo whom she had the appoinment with said for her to "read this, take a moment to read this". she was berated, and wasnt crying her eyes out, because someone told her something that was non christian, she was bawling because each time she said said she wasnt going to abort the baby, they took another step into makeing her feel like a pos, and unworth of bringing a child into this world. meantime, these types of places, especially this one that is labeled as a "Family Clinic", have not one f'ing thing to do, with the planning to create a healthy family. this type of dishonest, and deciet yes does anger me still, and had been so long agao, it didnt quite click untill the sign on the building with what appears to be 2 adults holding the hands of a child that was nagging in the back of my head, we remembered all of this. actually it was her mother who pointed out the planned parenthood, had basically the same image, 2 adults, and a child.

there are things in this world, i will admit, that are kind of messed up, and sometimes do not jive right, but this kind of takes the cake. here we have young mothers, and couples under the guise that these places are to be based on family. why is it they are not? The states 2 people are considered a family. however this type of place, in all means you can think of has nothing to do with that other then destroying it. this isnt just private misrepresentation, it falls on the gov backed level as well. .

on a final note... you, and those like you, who want to think like you, that this is the most wonderful thing there is lmao pro choice? well if you want to be like sheep, and be led right to the slaughterhouse, be my guest. however, i think more looking into this guise we are being led to believe these places have anything to with family, and being wrongly labed as such, need to also be delt with. you claim you have a choice, is that before, or after your clinic brainwashes someone into thinking this?

This case has little or nothing to do with the abortion industry. This "Doctor" is a serious psychopath. He is a serial killer whose actions were enabled by the Keystone State, his family, his greed, his staff and his patients, many of whom were intentional victims. The only thing he has done for the abortion issue is enlighten us that Pennsylvania is the most backward state in the Union. Their dereliction of duty is so negligent I can't even make UP a word to describe it properly.

To clarify, this "Doctor" is NOT a criminal for performing abortions, but because he knowingly performed ILLEGAL and unsafe abortions; for negligence in the strongest possible sense of the word (did you see those rusty tables?) and for a complete and callous disregard for his medical oath. I'd like to see some convictions passed on to the pregnant females (calling them mothers is an insult in most cases) of these VERY late-term abortions (and I agree, they are definitely murders at that point). I can understand in the cases mentioned where the doctor wanted to perform an abortion for the money and "tricked' patients in to believing they weren't so far along; however, I have no doubt that a person seeking an abortion has a very good idea of how far along they are. I have no faith in these alleged "I had NO idea I was even Pregnant!' cases which I believe are easily defined as denial, denial, denial. A 17 year old girl knows she missed her period, when she missed it the first time and at 7.5 months sure as heck is showing. She had health class like the rest of us, science and biology too by that point, and she knows that at some point, a fetus could live outside the womb. Again, I am sure in some cases there was misleading but I feel certain the only person misleading the patient WAS the patient.

People can argue for better birth control all day long as a way to stop abortions but these are cases where the woman was ALREADY pregnant. Pregnancy is not a lightbulb. You can't unscrew it.

@ Lady Liberty- A fetus IN a woman's body cannot survive without the mother up to a certain point, so to call it an entirely separate entity is an argument with zero merit. If a fetus grew self-sustained we'd all be hatching our children (compared to birthing my three, come to think of it, laying an egg sounds all right). Unless all those drug label warnings of "do not take while pregnant" are all just a bunch of nonsense?

There are too many double standards. If you murder a woman while 8 months pregnant, you are charged with two murders. BUT, if I am pregnant the fetus does not count as a person for use of the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. I don't believe you can have it both ways simply out of a sense of fair play. I don't think most pro-choice people would have an issue with a federal regulation stating that life for a fetus for the purpose of legal definition begins when it could typically live outside the womb without life support. Some may not make it at 32 weeks while another could at 28 so it's very subjective, but I think it would be fair to stick with an average. Pro-choice people don't want you to run out and have an abortion, they just want you to have the right to make the choice for yourself and have it be SAFE- because while most have short-term memory loss in this regard, women will choose abortion whether it is safe or not and the cost of unsafe abortions far outweigh safe procedures. I think its fair to say that most, like me, would never want that as a first choice but we are thankful it exists.

not to sound mean cruel or anything, i would go along with your view of pro choice people had 1 the comments from the pro choice been more as you said, and they are not, shall we start with the average comments "its my body i can as i wish". this isnt a 1 person comment, however if you like me to waste my time and yours proving it, go back in my history files as to what i have commented on in the past, and they all say the same thing. "my body, my choice", and not in such a nice way either. 2. take a walk into planned parenthood tell then you just found out you were pregnant, and are a single female, (if you are), and see how that we want you to have a feeling you have a choice plays out. maybe what happend in the past with my daughters mother was a one time incident, but i doubt it. 3 these places, have the audacity to display literature, signs, and advertise, as to how "for the family, and the mother" they are. as in this clinic, that from my understanding (i may be wrong)did only abortions. yet look at the sign he has on his buisness in the photo, i see an image of what would be 2 adults holding a toddler in the air between them. that isnt misleading in anyway is it? when you look at comments from Terra, and Thoughtsd fromCali, and so on, the message is clear, at to the pro choice view. they feel they still should have a pro choice, even tho theyf'd it up, and repeat as needed to scrape away whatever shame they might feel, being unable to make the right pro (professional) choice to beging with. that or they work for an abortion clinic, and are trying to keep the faith, either is possible by the way the comments have been stated.

@WhatAWorld-2751957

Apology accepted. :)

if I had to make the choice between knowingly bringing a child into a situation where they would be harmed, terrified, and starved (i.e. the holocaust), I might seriously contemplate aborting the pregnancy because, in my opinion, the sprirt would be free.

I understand your desire to spare the child pain-- no person with their brain intact would wish to put a child through such things. My point is that we should be fixing the problem so that the kids don't have to experience the pain in the first place, rather than killing them. This conept applies to the foster care system, school system, or anything that might affect a child's life in any way.

just because a child is human does not mean they will get over their pain or understand it.

Maybe not, but shouldn't they be given that chance? Wouldn't you want that chance?

I child can be born, live a few years in excruciating pain only to die anyway.

With the medical advances that we have, there are many ways to cure severely painful illnesses, and for those that cannot be cured, there are ways to prevent the pain so that they can enjoy life, even if it is only for a few years.

As far as your additional post about someone making that decision for me, I believe you are referencing the Hitler conversation (please correct me if I am wrong).

Actually I was referencing a different scenario-- I believe the scenario was that you were in some sort of excrutiating pain that would go away after a while. Someone else (presumably a stranger, but not Hitler) is given the decision of whether or not the pain is so great that you should be killed before it ends.

I, too, meant honestly for you to have a good day.

OK, I'm glad. I just wasn't sure, and I didn't wnat my statement to be misunderstood.

@PeanutJellyandButter,

A fetus IN a woman's body cannot survive without the mother up to a certain point, so to call it an entirely separate entity is an argument with zero merit.

No, but neither can a chicken fetus. Would you consider the chick fetus and the egg to be one entity? Personally, I would say that the both the chick and the baby are dependent on the nutrients in the egg or womb that allow it to continue to develop until they are able to do so outside of the controlled environment of the egg/womb. Also, a born child is dependent on a mother or other caretaker after it is born as well. An infant cannot get nutrients itself, clean itself, or keep itself warm. It is entirely dependent on the care of someone else; without the assistance of its caregiver, it would die. Would you say the caregiver and the infant are still one entity?

Unless all those drug label warnings of "do not take while pregnant" are all just a bunch of nonsense?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here-- the drug labels also say do not take while nursing. This is because anything that a woman consumes can be transferred to the baby via whatever nutrients they are receiving from her-- whether it is from breast milk or the placenta-- because the mother's body absorbs it. Aside form this, the warning is on their because the medication could be harmful to the child, not the mother. If the medication was harmful to adults development, they either wouldn't be selling it or there would be a label warning the side affects (fainting, heart attack, stroke, etc). As it is, the warning is only for women who are supplying the nutrients to an unborn child/infant who could be harmed by the mother's use.

There are too many double standards.

I absolutely agree.

women will choose abortion whether it is safe or not and the cost of unsafe abortions far outweigh safe procedures

Well then, in that case i think we should make robbery legal. People die in robberies, people are injured, we have to pay the police to file a report and make an arrest, there's insurance costs, plus the cost of housing the robber in a correctional facility, not to mention possible court fees... that's a lot of cost-- monetary, physical, and time. Whereas if we make robbery legal, than no one will die because they resisted the robbery, and the only person who would lose out would be the person who was robbed. I mean, people commit robbery even though it's illegal, so what's the point in making it against the law anyway, right?

@Terra Incognita,

You stated in an earlier post that a fetus is both alive and human, and that the heart of the issue here is whether the child's legal right's supercede the woman's (which you believe they dont, if I am correct). So, let me ask you, if you had to say one right was absolutely the most important of all rights guarunteed to an American citizen, what would you say it was? The Bill of Rights states, "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You may notice that the right to life is stated first, just as it is in the Declaration of Independence. This is not an accident. Without the right to life, what other rights would be neccesary? What need does a dead man have of property? Therefore, I would argue that the right to lofe is not only the most fundamental right, but also the base of all others. So how does this apply to the abortion issue? Let's compare what the woman and the fetus have at stake: the woman has 9 months of inconveniance, the fetus has it's entire life. So, what's more important-- conveniance or life? If the child was already born, the woman would be facing 18 yrs of inconveniance; we would not allow the woman to kill the child then, and she is facing a stretch of inconveniance far longer than if the child was unborn. If we deny the child the right to life, than shouldn't we also deny the woman? And if the woman doesn't have the right to life, then how can she have the right to make any medical decisions? Clearly, the child has a more important risk at stake, so how does the women's rights come first? How do we decide that some peoples wants are more important than others' needs? ... Just food for thought.

Spell check, people... learn how to use it.

A woman has the right to choose if she wants a baby. I agree this is horrible and late term abortion is bad but.You cannot force every single woman to become a mother,thats a violation of Women's Rights. Women want to be sucessful and do everything. If you dont like it why dont you write to your representatives and ask them to pass legislation that would make access to birth control cheaper and more available. That would go a long way in preventing future abortions.

Abortion dosent need to happen. Its a choice. Use birth control people, it isnt rocket science. Oh and by the way the Morning After Pill is not the same thing as the abortion pill. They are 2 different things

PeAcE LoVeR - I'm with you on this one. Nicely said.

Peace Lover, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "genocide." Seriously.

Genocide: from the dictionary of common sense 50 MILLION ABORTIONS in the usa since 1973!

Peace Lover and other anti-choicers:

Until YOU are willing to make sure all of those babies that you think are being murdered have a safe home, enough food and other essentials, then shut up. You seem to think you have the right to force women to bear children regardless of the circumstances, whether that conception was the result of rape, incest, or if the baby has a horrendous genetic disease, the mother's health is at stake, or if her circumstances mean that everybody in her household will suffer with another mouth to feed.

This man is horrid but further information indicates this guy PREYED on the extremely poor and immigrant communities. When abortion is illegal, most abortion providers will be as this man is, and only the wealthy will be able to afford safe medical care for abortions. Additionally, with emergency contraception AND the Take Charge program in Washington state where we provide free contraception to women, we're REDUCING the number of abortions by preventing pregnancy and implantation of a fertilized egg. So how about supporting THAT and REALLY doing something effective to reduce the number of abortions? Or doesn't that give you the opportunity to shove your morality down other people's throats?

This is a criminal case, not a debate on the morality or legality of abortion.

Looks like some people had their brains aborted.

Genocide is the systematic destuction of an entire race of people. Are you suggesting that my children are not the same race as me? And I believe the article mentions that these were ILLEGAL abortions, certainly not in the same category as early term legal abortions performed by real doctors in safe conditions.

Genocide: From the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: "any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. "

Wherescommonsense - If the mothers health is in jeopardy then the doctor usually makes the decision for you and will take the baby to save the mothers life. Thats a given, you should know that. If your child is born out of rape, incest, etc. that doesn't mean YOU have the right to decide to kill that baby. If you are dumb enough to tell the child as he or she gets older then let the child have his/her own choice if they want to live or die. It's not your choice but it is the childs choice who is born out of a cercumstance. Stop acting like its your body and only yours. Now if you suffer from cancer and you decide you don't want treatment anymore then yes you have the right to say no, it is your body and life. But if you are pregnant then there is another person involved in the decision. You have no right to make it on your own.

How about we find this person actually guilty of a crime first before we execute him? We do remember that we are supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law not mob violence..

Spouts "from the dictionary common sense" - and blindly follows a book written before science revealed answers to explain our origins and other things like why the sun rises and sets, where the moon came from, why the stars shine, etc.

Religion: from the book of commons sense, an outdated tool used to control and shape society using cleverly disguised totalitarian concepts and principles.

I am of the Christian faith, but I see it as a guide to living a better and just life. I don't read the bible in today's context - nor do I extract hidden meanings or believe the different parables as if they were written fact. I read them just as they were meant to be, parables - stories written and told to convey a message or teach a lesson. It is possible to be educated, and have faith - but it seems like in our society it is more likely to be neither at the same time.

yeah, it is my choice...that is, unless the hypocrites that call themselves pro-life while celebrating the murder of those ideologically opposed to them, who are pro-death penalty, pro-war, etc. get their way and criminalize women's health care.

I'm the one whose health is at greater risk via carrying a child to term rather than have an abortion, I'm the one who has to live with the decision to abort said fetus, and I'm the one who has to tear their heart out and give up a child they've nurtured for 9 months in the event of giving it up for adoption. A man's SOLE contributions are a lucky sperm and money. We're the ones who stay home with the child when it's sick most of the time, who sacrifice our jobs and careers to make sure the child is cared for. Women have a lower standard of living after a divorce, or as a single mother than the father who may or may not be paying support for their child.

So until men have the same sacrifices...you really have no stake in this issue.

Well that's the whole argument, isn't it, whut the? One side says "it's my body, hands off," and the other side says "body, shmody. You have no right to make a decision that affects the life of a potential person."

Of course, the trick is that either decision affects a life, and not just the lives of the mother and the fetus. It also affects the lives of the rest of the family, especially the lives of already-existing children. It's a complicated decision engendering a very complicated result, in many cases, and therefore the decision needs to be made by those who are/will be most affected by it; not some by-stander who sees the issue in black and white.

And that doesn't even take into consideration the whole question of attempts to exert control over women's actions. But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and off-topic.

Wherescommonsense - I am a woman.

Take care.

For all those that support women's rights. Of course we have plenty of rights, we have the right to have casual sex, we have the right to have responsible or irresponsible sex, we have the choice to be responsible or irresponsible. We also have the choice, when we do make a bad decision to take responsability for our mistake and have the choice to either keep the baby or give it up for adoption to a family who would love, protect, and provide for that baby as their own. I'm a women and do not want the right to kill my own baby--nobody should decide who dies and who lives. We live in a world where most everything is disposable, including babies, and nobody want's to take responsability for their actions.

Here's a quote from a letter Martin Luther King Jr. wrote while he was in jail in Alabama, "Never forget that what Hitler did in Germany was legal." Just because something is legal does not make it right or moral.

Wherescommonsense - well said! For a woman to have a pregnancy aborted involves a gut-wrenching decision. There is nobody who has the right to make such a decision for her, nobody, no matter what arguments people may come up with. And the article covers something else entirely, this case has nothing to do with the abortion discussion, but everything with a legal case.

BornAgainCatholic: I'm glad to hear that you will be taking care of the bastard child of my niece and her own father (having raped her at the age of 13). I will let her know that you are willing to take care of the baby even though she has no job (being 14 herself) and no source of income. What address should I have her send the baby?

That is what you are saying, right? That you have the egotism to believe you can know all the circumstances surrounding others exploits and you know better than they what should and should not be done in their lives even though you have no earthly idea who they are or how they found themselves in this situation? That's what I'm hearing - BornAgainCatholic knows how to best deal with your situation even thought she doesn't know what that situation is nor have the ability to understand how that situation came to be.

Well, thanks. It feels good knowing there are people out there that know everything I am going to do and the solution to every situation I get myself into even though they've never met me. What a relief.

Thank You! BornAgainCatholic

for that Martin Luther King Jr quote so apprpriate for the age we are living in! post#2.17

Henry, you're hate and anger is palpable.

What happened to your niece at the hands of her own father is horrible. But wouldn't you agree that the sins of the father shouldn't be taken against the baby--it's certainly not the baby's fault for being conceived in that matter--what you call a bastard is actualy an innocent baby--it sounds like you are blaming the baby for what happened.

I never said I know all the answers, but I do know it's not right to kill innocent babies and there IS help out there.

THANK you BornAgain. I've been saying that for years. Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right.

The Pro-Choice people will tell you that an unborn baby (I hate the term fetus) has no rights, and its not human until it's born, so it's legal to kill them.

Using that same logic, it was Legal for the Nazi's to Murder the Jews. They were not human under Nazi law and had no rights.

Same with Slavery in our own country. Slavery in this country was legal, does that make it right?

People need to take responsibility for their actions. I can understand and even support abortion in cases of rape/incest or when the health of the mother is in question. But otherwise, prevention is right down the street at CVS.

"yeah, it is my choice...that is, unless the hypocrites that call themselves pro-life while celebrating the murder of those ideologically opposed to them, who are pro-death penalty, pro-war, etc. get their way and criminalize women's health care."

Wherescommonsense - First- im pro-choice - i personally would never have an abortion- or should i say would do everything possible to talk my wife out of it if she wanted - but thats where my decision stops. Its not my place to tell others how to live their lives or what to do with their bodies.

But i dont think that it can be labeled hypocricy- as its apples and oranges. I believe the argument is abortion is murder because the fetus doesnt have a choice. Criminals etc for death penalty made the choice to do the crime. So one had the choice to do wrong and is 'paying the price' and the other didnt have a choice and is paying the price anyways.

At the end of the day, this is one of those - never to be resolved issues. There are those that feel its murder - end of story. They feel that once a woman is pregnant - its no longer just her body. And there are those (myself included) that feel its the womans body and her choice till the baby is born. People arent going to be swayed in this debate. People arent going to change their minds, nor are the more zealous on both sides going to be willing to look at it from the other side's point of view, they are dug in too deep in their belief one way or the other. The best we can hope for is for people to agree to disagree, but that isnt going to happen due to the zeal on both sides.

There IS?!? Where? I defy you to get a job for a 14yr old. Go ahead. I'll wait...

Can't do it, can you? I don't "blame the baby" you are misdirecting. That's the only argument you have, to misdirect this into an "everything for the baby" argument. Well, that's fine for you. You have the luxury of switching off the monitor and returning to your life without umbrage. My niece is stuck with a baby YOU want her to have. Stuck in a family that is reminded of it's failures every time it looks at that little baby. Stuck in a family dynamic that is tainted with the story of how that baby came into existence. That baby is stuck with the knowledge of it's own existence for the rest of it's life. My sister is stuck with the reminder of the man she let into her life every time she sees that baby.

But that's OK, because we have the blessings of yet one more baby to feed and clothe and take to the doctor and support and teach and sacrifice for. Yay us. Why didn't we think of this before? We could have been using up so many more resources on new babies rather than adequately provide for our own children. The years we wasted caring for and providing for our own children.

And the father? Where is he in all this? I don't know, he left. No note. No speech. Just hasn't come home in over two months. I'm sure he's somewhere feeling remorseful right now. I'm sure he really regrets having done what he damn well pleased and not having to suffer one bit for it.

But hey, at least we have a baby no one wants and the costs and stigma that go along with it. That's a relief. Thanks for pointing that out, I had almost missed the fact that, at least we have another baby.

It's useless talking to people like you. You don't have the capacity to understand the situations of others. You don't have the capacity for simple human empathy. So, just sit there and feel superior, knowing that this situation will never happen to you so you can be as self-righteous as you want. I hope you're right.

You know, I am pretty sick and tired of the liberal left reframing and renaming to serve their own purposes - this crowd shows less than no respect while screaming at us to respect them.

You want to call us anti-choice? Fine. We'll call you pro-murder.

You scream about civil discourse, and then you rant and call names and disrespect at the drop of a hat - exactly how do you get the right to demand anything while committing the act you are condemning?

Funny thing is, I understand the need for a woman to control what happens once she becomes pregnant. I get the need, the right, to keep control of your own body.

I also understand the value of a human life, having been adopted in 1959, when my "parents" would have benefited by aborting me, as my mom was a loose woman and my dad was simply playing around and was not in a relationship with my mom. I never met or spoke to either, but I am so very thankful that they had the courage to put me up for adoption.

Making all of these things "causes" seems to dehumanize the tragedy that is 50 million lost children. Maybe they all should have been aborted. Maybe we killed the next Einstein, the next Ray Charles, the next Steve Jobs, or the next Mother Theresa.

I do know this - if there is a God in heaven, and I believe that there is, He is very sad that we've let our world come to this.

WOW! I am so saddened to hear your story, Henry, as far as your neice. But they are your thoughts and feelings and so I do not want to discredit your feelings in anyway. I would just like to shed a little spark of what I see. I do not look at your family or the newest little member of your family as a "failure". I guess I see all life as having its imperfections...mine, yours and every other honest person out there. But through our imperfections I think that we can find our greatest strengths and accomplishments. My daughter was 18, a C grade college student, who found herself in a maternal situation. She could have legally made a choice that would have killed her unborn as well as the abortion may have killed her emotionally. Instead she not only chose to give life but that little life gave her an inner strength to improve herself. Kind of the old "making lemonaide out of lemons" thought. She continued her education at full time status and then went on to finish grad school (with a 4.0). She now holds a Masters in Psycology and a minor in French. Everytime we look at our little granddaughter we see the gift of strength and incredible beauty that she helped her mother find within herself. I know that this is not the typical story but it certainly can be. We are no heroic story just your average family. I was divorced and raising her without too much support from my ex but I believed in myself annd my children. Regardless of the unexpected occurances in life, I was bound to find joy and to help my family find joy. Each and every person has the ability to further themselves. The road is not neccessarily harder for the unwed mother, it is just a different road. All roads have obsticles. You just need to see the positive through what looks to be a negative. I strongly believe that all life should be protected from the moment of conception until natural death. I am not for war and therefore I am not okay with the thousands of lives lost in it. I am not okay with the death penalty and I do not agree with legalizing any action that brings death upon another human. I work tirelessly to help women see that they are so very important and that they can achieve anything they put their minds to regardless of their situation. I am not here to judge you or your niece. I am, however, proud that she chose life. I think that her little daughter, if given love and support, will someday make you proud. I wish all the best for you and your family!

Peace Lover ;1.5 million woman a year disagree with you ,and I'm certain as many or more men do as well.

Wherescommonsense: Why does your pro-choice argument start only afer your pregnant?

Did you not choose whom you date, did you not choose when and where to have sex, did you not make the free choice not to use birth control or have him use birth control?

Yet you become pregnant and now suddenly you want the choice to destroy a human life because its an inconvenience. You cite all your reasons but they all boil down to the simple fact its easier to destroy an unborn child then it is to accept responsibility for your actions.

People like you are the driving force behind the growing movement to restrict the use of abortion in the US. Your argument that its your body works up to the point that through your own actions you made a decision to share that body with another human being. A humna life is too precious to throw away because you were too horny or not mature enough to make an adult decision.

50 million women disagree since the 1970's, or thats the number they throw out there....

That doesn't matter, the reason why abortion is legal is because the reason for making it not illegal is based purely on religious convictions (even though they'll try and convince you otherwise). If you don't want one, don't have it - it is your choice. Just because its legal doesn't mean you'll be forced to have an abortion. Thats whats great about America, its all about freedom of choice - freedom from religious persecution or from laws dictated by religion. Once you start controlling one aspect of my life with your religion, next thing you know we'll all be practicing a Christian version of "al sharia"...you just don't open those doors.

Henry, the last thing I feel is superior to anyone--the only thing I feel right now is enormous sadness for the situation you and your family, especially your 14 year old niece is in. If nobody in your family wants this baby, than why not give it up for adoption to someone that DOES?! I wasn't talking about getting a 14 year old a job, sheesh. I was talking about contacting a local agency or Catholic Church (they have ministries to help with problem pregnancies, including but not limited to counceling, financial help, adoption, etc.). There IS help out there for your niece and that baby.

Ternan: No, sometimes you don't get to choose who rapes you. Sometimes you don't get to choose who has incest with you.

Sucks but there's reality to deal with as well as your attempt at a perfect little world where you can pawn the blame off on others.

Most babies put up for adoption end up being cycled into foster homes...never being adopted. The problem is in most cases Jimmy and Jane Happygolucky do not want to adopt a child of color or ethnicity, nor do they want a 7 year old, a 12 year old, or a 16 year old...which is where most of the adoptions are needed. Adoption is not this fairytale process that some advocates try to convince others it is. The odds are heavily stacked against the child, and while there are adoptions happening all the time (and great happy examples) - its no where near the number it needs to be for it to actually be a sustainable solution.

@ Terra Incognito,

You only bring up Hitler, I suspect, to cast the whole scenario in a dark, nefarious light, which is nothing but an intentional distraction away from the real issue.

I am not trying to distract from the issue at all. The comparison was brough up in an earlier post, and you refuted the comparison with a "choice v force response." I simply wished to know what your opinion would be to whether it was ok if the genocide of the Jewish people was by their choice-- a question which you still haven't answered.

Fetuses aren't people. They're human, true, but they're not people.

Fine, killing "humans" is not the solution.

This doesn't follow from the discussion here. No one is arguing that abortion should be legal so that we can prevent fetuses-become-children from experiencing hurtful things. We're arguing that abortion should be legal because it would be immoral and unconstitutional for a woman to be deprived of the right of doing with her own body what she chooses.

You insinuated in one of your earlier posts that it would be preferable to abort the child than for it to live and experience the pains of terminal illness, foster care, or being unwanted.

In regards to be able to do what she wants to her own body, you are absolutely correct. Women have the right to do whatever they like to their own bodies. However, the fetus/baby is not a part of her body. This can be scientifically verified-- take a sample of the DNA of both the women and unborn child; they are distinctly different, even from the moment the egg and sperm are joined.

Do you have a news reference to prove this claim?

As a matter of fact, I do. Here's the first one I came across when I google searched it. I dont know what the court result of this particualr case was, but I am sure there are more if you have the time to search for them.

for whatever reason the link won't post-- i searched "forced to complete the abortion after she changed her mind"

Lady Liberty-2332362: Please don't get a job as a geneticist. That is the worst (not to mention completely made-up) definition of "part of a body" I've ever heard. You do realize there are genetic chimera that exist, right? Best guess is they were twins in utero but one was absorbed by the other. The organs have one set of DNA and the skin, blood, and tissue have a different set of DNA. Would you say a persons skin was not a part of them? It has distinctly different DNA so, according to your made-up crap rules, this persons skin is not part of their body. Horsepoop!

Try to get a moderate clue about what you are talking about before just making up criteria for you to interject in a bid to win by obfuscation.

The question of whether a prenatal mass was part of the woman's body was established in Roe Vs Wade as the "moment of viability". This question has been asked and answered. Please don't just make-up rules.

BornAgainCatholic: You say you are not superior yet you insist that your way is better. Your way is the morally correct way to act. That outlook right there is why there will never be frank and open discussion of this topic.

As long as there are people that think pro-choice likes "killing babies" there is no way to have a constructive discussion.

You offer some options, none of which is proven to be any better than not having had the baby in the first place. We could let her be adopted... by some random family. We could give her up to the system... and hope she doesn't turn to drugs and prostitution (like so many in the foster care system). Is that really the choice you're offering? Rather than prevent the existence of a baby no one wants, let's have the baby and then abandon it and hope it does well.

We should have the baby because all life is sacred but not sacred enough for you to be inconvenienced. At least if we had an abortion there wouldn't be a question of what to do with this life we are responsible for. Your morality may view the outlook differently but ours allows us to view the non-viable fetus as a non-viable fetus. And that inability to see the difference is what lay at the heart of our inability to discuss this. You will never see us as people that have rights in situations that you have not already thought up perfectly suitable answers to. That's where you get your superiority.

Reposting this since the "community" collapsed the board...

Gosnell charged $325 for first-trimester abortions and $1,600 to $3,000 for abortions up to 30 weeks. Abortions are legal up to 24 weeks gestation in Pennsylvania, although most doctors won't perform them after 20 weeks, prosecutors said.

Some women came from across the mid-Atlantic for the illegal late-term abortions, authorities said. White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, Williams said.

"People knew near and far that if you needed a late-term abortion you could go see Dr. Gosnell," Williams said.

Few if any of the sedated women knew their babies were born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were further along, authorities said.

Gosnell got his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and is board certified in family practice. He started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology, authorities said.

"He does not know how to do an abortion. He's not board certified," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said. "Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/19/us/AP-US-Abortion-Clinic-Investigation.html?hp

Henry: In my earleir blogs I stated I found abortion unacceptable except in cases of rape, incest and if the life of the mother is in jeapordy. I agree people do not choose their rapist and rarely choose incest.

Sounds as if the Medical Certification Board was not exercising any degree of assurance that the environment was sterile and proper medical (not political) procedures were being followed. As to the "political" situation; I am sick and tired of the Roman Catholic Church, it's political operative blanket organizations, the right wing Evangelicals and all the other theocratic radicals proselytizing and trying to direct my moral compass. Make no mistake, this is about absolute control, not just birth control. The Catholic Church is a despicable institution with centuries of subjugation, murder, and tyranny to prove it. I want some protection from the constant propaganda and rubbish these groups generate. Some of this propaganda is being financed by US Government grants under the Bush Faith Based (extended by Obama) Initiative. These despotic organizations need to have their tax evempt status revoked.

@ Henry: What a sad story, about a father who rapes his daughter and gets her pregnant. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, and certainly not in hers. However, I would really not want to be in the shoes of that poor child, who didn't choose either. Granted, many responsible people who seek an abortion do so before the child would (seemingly) know that they never had much of a chance at life. But, it is not legal for your niece to kill her father, who committed the crime, and yet it is legal for her to kill the innocent child. All emotion duly considered, abortion takes away a right to life that our constitution determined belongs to every individual. Not everyone who supports life versus choice does so with feelings of moral superiority. Just with morals, period. Morality is not always convenient, or kind. But someone is thinking of the child, and not just about the niece.

@ Henry et al: "Asked and answered" rarely stays that way. The fact is, there are methods available these days for very early term abortions that are not cruel to the embryo. Later-term abortions (and I'm not talking the extremes that were discussed in this story which are just downright sick) should no longer be necessary. I guarantee you, with the people who are able to save their first and second trimester babies with the use of medical innovation, that there will be a change in definition of "viability". In any case, the argument that 1) the child would be poor or homeless, 2) ruin the life of the parent, or 3) wouldn't "make it" outside of the mother's body are going to be irrelevant. It is not legal to kill the thousands of children who are poor and homeless and not cared for their parents, even after they're born. And a child is able to live outside the mother's body earlier and earlier. The notion that it's not a human life until 37-40 weeks, when the baby's body exits the mother's uterus, is ancient and in need of updating. It is illegal to stomp on the egg of an endangered species. Granted, children are not endangered, but I would think they would be more protected somehow by our society.

Someone mentioned that this clinic preyed on poor people, and that these people could not afford quality care (which would have been an early abortion I take it, which would not involve viciously murdering a delivered infant). I am confused by this. I am told that quality abortions cost much less than the thousands of dollars this excuse for a doctor was charging for late-term abortions. Why could they afford him, and not quality care?

As I posted in the now collapsed comments, the question is if Hitler had not gone the route of killing the jews, but had instead had forced all pregnant jewish women to have early term abortions, would you have a problem with that?

For those that say it isn't life, and that there is no harm in abortion, you would have to say you would have no problem with it. If abortion isn't wrong, then forcing someone to do something that "isn't wrong" would also not be wrong.

But perhaps abortion is inherently wrong. And that it takes an uncommon or extraordinary circumstance (such as rape or the mother's health) to even be able to come close to justifying it.

Of the close to 1.5 million abortions a year in the US, only a tiny fraction fall into the category of anything other than the elimination of inconvenience.

It's certainly something to think about before having sex without contraception.

Once again, I ask: since many want abortion outlawed, what should the punishment be for a woman who gets an abortion?

@Toasty - I don't think the intent of the law would be to punish a woman who gets an abortion, but to make it illegal to provide one. However, if our laws determine that it is murder, I assume she would be charged the same as if she had murdered her (born) infant. After all, newborn infants are just as "inconvenient", hard to care for, expensive, stressful..all meant with serious concern for parents who would find it nearly impossible to raise and care for a child. And yet, we don't support their rights to kill their newborns.

I just wondered what the mother's punishment should be. Fine? Jail time? Death penalty?

@Toasty - No, not the same sentence she gave her child.

So, jail time?

Probably not jail time, without multiple offenses. Why are you baiting? Do you have a point to make? Methinks you're hoping for an opportunity for a gotcha ambush. Make your point and stop playing games, I'm starting to think you'd make a perfect politician.

I have lots of horses in this race. First of all, it was mentioned that if abortion is illegal, that "most abortion providers will be as this man is." Well, abortion is not illegal. How is that relevant to who he is now?

Second, I have been pregnant due to incest, so don't feed me your self-righteous arguments about that unless you have been where I have. Why is a decision to abort part of your own body so gut-wrenching? Isn't that what "pro-choice" is about? The right to do what you want with your OWN BODY? No one wants to deny anyone's right to that.

Third, if I champion the rights of oppressed workers, would all of you scream at me that I should be expected to support all of them myself? If I champion the rights of single mothers, would all of you scream at me that I should support all of them? If I champion the rights of orphans, would you scream that I should take all of them into my home? What causes have you championed? Cancer? Why don't you pay for all of the treatment yourself? Mistreated animals? Why don't you take them all in? Get it?

Why are so many against having women see an US of the blob of tissues they are about to abort? (I personally don't agree with anyone having to pay extra fees, so that's not what I mean.) Aren't you for informed consent? I'm speaking as a medical person. The doctor usually shows you what he or she is about to remove from your body-even if it is not going to be removed. We're talking about a surgical proceedure with risks-like a perforated uterus as mentioned in the article-after all, the doc sticks in a tube and scrapes the uterine wall. The risk is there even with the best doctor. If it's just a blob of tissues, part of your own body, what difference does it make if you see it?

If you think people who are prolife do not care about the women who give birth, you are misinformed either by choice or simple lack of knowlege. I worked with those very women, and we offered ALL services free of charge. Free maternity clothes, Baby items including new strollers and cribs to be earned with parenting classes or videos (free babysitting provided), even bus fare to family in another city if needed. We followed up all our clients unless they didn't want us to. I had one call me at home after her baby was born. I even had one client who wan't pregnant-she had been a former client who had fallen on hard times. We offered free ultrasounds for due date and to confirm pregnancy only and only if the client desired-free, with no fees or advice. In fact we did not advise our clients at all, though we did discuss options. They were always free to do whatever they wished without our hindering them. I attended the baby shower packed with the loving family of one client who initially feared being kicked out of her home, even though most of it was in Creole. Last I was told abortions were not inexpensive and cash was generally required up front. (I am not implying by any means that all providers are like this man.)

Don't be willfully ignorant. Granted, there are cretans who care only for an agenda; and, unfortunately, that includes some who call themselves pro-life. I do not stand with those people in any way. Nor do I stand with any who would murder to further their agenda. May they be punished severely by the law as they deserve.

May I ask for forgiveness for many whose rude and judgmental words have upset the debate further? As I said, I have been pregnant by incest. I have also known many who have gone through abortions because they felt they had no other choice. I am not here to judge them or anyone else. My words above are meant to stimulate debate, not to judge. If I judge everyone here, then what judgment will fall on me, I wonder?

Friends used to tell me sometimes that I was judging them even though I was not saying a word! How could I be judging someone if I didn't say a word? I finally figured it out. They were doing things their parents didn't like, and I wasn't. Though I didn't say a word to them-and, in fact, I tried to act "cool" as much as possible without actually doing the things-it was their own consciences that were judging them, not me. If the shoe does not fit, cast it away! Or throw it at me if you like. (No doubt I will be buried in a hail of shoes soon enough.)

Why am I baiting? Because the people calling to outlaw abortion clearly never thought this position through. That's an irresponsible way for an adult to live, and it's a downright dangerous way to make laws.

It looks like nobody has ever bothered to that question themselves. Laws have consequences.

Henry, you think you know me, but you don't know me at all (as I'm sure I haven't a clue about who you are). For most of my life I was pro-choice. Was sure it was the mother's decision whether she carried a baby to term or not. I thought the pro-lifers were lunatics, and I really didn't want to hear anything about their 'cause'. I'd just roll my eyes or divert them from the notices in the church bulletin.

It's really just recently that I've opened my mind and heart to receiving the truth about what abortion really IS. For the first time, I started thinking about those poor babies, who, by no fault of their own, were being killed, mainly because they were inconvenient.

I have two friends that have had abortions (that I know of) and both of them have deep and painful scars (emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual). Just because a women has an abortion, doesn't mean life will go back to the way it was before they became pregnant--nothing can erase that. Nor can it erase what happened to your niece. It will be just one more thing she will look back on with shame and guilt.

Even after I started to change my thought process about pro-life/pro-choice, I still held the idea that people who were raped should definitely have the right to have an abortion....until I met a woman who was a product of rape. Her mother hated her, she ended up living at a convent being taken care of by nuns...she had psychological issues, so she wasn't an easy child or teen to handle and ended up living on the streets, was addicted to drugs, and contimplated suicide--her life was a living hell. But throughout it all, even in her darkest days, God was there with her and held her in the palm of His hand--He helped her get her life back together and blessed her in amazing ways (I can't do her story justice). With everything she went through, she wouldn't hesitate to tell you she is so glad her mother never aborted her and that she feels truly blessed to have had a chance to LIVE.

When I heard her testimony, one thing she said kept coming back to mind. She expressed her frustration at the times when people would state abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest. Every time she'd hear that, she couldn't help but feel like the world thought she was worthless.

my mom was a loose woman and my dad was simply playing around and was not in a relationship with my mom. I never met or spoke to either, but I am so very thankful that they had the courage to put me up for adoption.

Your mom & your dad are the ppl who raised you & took care of you. And how on Earth would you know that your egg donor was a loose floozy & your sperm donor was just in it to get some if you never met or spoke to them? It just seems such a bizarre statement in its entirety.

Maybe we killed the next Einstein, the next Ray Charles, the next Steve Jobs, or the next Mother Theresa.

Well, if you want to take that tack, we could ping-pong it all day long. Hopefully we killed "the next" sociopathic serial killer who was going to grow up to enjoy taking the lives of innocent victims en masse. Or the next psychotic mass murderer who was going to get him a gun & a spree & take out anyone in his way. Or the next do-gooder who was going to feel justified in assassinating a qualified & decent dr for providing abortions to his patients. B/c there's too much of that @!$%# going around as it is & 99% of the time, it's a male. Your serve.

I do know this - if there is a God in heaven, and I believe that there is, He is very sad that we've let our world come to this.

See #1.179 for how God invented abortion.

I am confused by this. I am told that quality abortions cost much less than the thousands of dollars this excuse for a doctor was charging for late-term abortions. Why could they afford him, and not quality care?

Plain to see you've never had anything but English as your native language, lived in an inner city slum 'hood, lacked transportation, lacked education, been truly poor. Just ponder that a moment. It's not a question of why, it's a question of I don't know I have any other options.

But throughout it all, even in her darkest days, God was there with her and held her in the palm of His hand--He helped her get her life back together and blessed her in amazing ways

God must be the most bloodthirsty of them all, b/c it seems He always demands a terrible sacrifice in exchange for a bit of blessing. Two generations brought down by an act of violence into hatred, hopelessness, & despair, & what, then He wakes up from His nap & sprinkles a little angel dust down? All so you could one day go online & score a pt in some OT abortion exchange? Where was He when this lunatic who called himself a dr was on a 40-yr killing spree?

Most of you are not paying attn here. This isn't what this topic is about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Ah now I see.....MSNs at it again. Here is the actual article. Get informed, albeit belatedly.

@MelBel: While I generally appreciate your post #1.60 (& thanks for your #1.116 re provisions of the Health Care Reform Bill), I must disagree with your claim that scientifically a fetus is not alive "because it does not respire (breathe)": (a) Fish, etc., are alive; (b) I think (?) it's proper to say that the fetus breathes the amniotic fluid; (c) plants, bacteria, and individual cells are thought of as alive; (d) someone in hospital on a respirator is not breathing on her/his own.

Others have posted about "viability"-- this seems to be a rather open-ended idea: newborns aren't viable without assistance, as neither are many hospital patients, or severely handicapped individuals.

Some have said that a fetus is not conscious or self-aware & doesn't feel pain [and -the claim goes- is therefore not a human being]: (a) how scientific are such claims? [have doctors done MRIs & CAT scans of fetus brains? how much do we really understand brain neurology?]; (b) if an adult becomes unconscious, or is receiving pain killers, does s/he temporarily stop being a human being? [in fact, in times past some have thought that the spirit of a person leaves her/him when s/he's asleep]; (c) is there an absolute change in consciousness, self-awareness, & pain sensation that occurs upon childbirth?; (d) how do we interpret the lives of children & adults with severe brain dysfunction, whether it be severely low IQ or Alzheimers etc.? [aren't they still human beings?]

@Terra Incognita,

Fetuses aren't "people" in the legal sense

That's thin ice you're treading there-- you are aware that the government also ruled that black people are not people, and therefore do not have political rights not all that long ago, aren't you? Do you think that they are people? The government has made it legal to withhold the rights of many people at many different times (the Chinese Excxlusion Act is coming to mind right now). "The govt says its ok" probably isn't your best argument.

@Henry-2047580,

I am so glad you brought up my DNA argument. Let me clarify:

1. Living things are composed of cells-- fetuses are composed of cells. Let me bring this to a deeper level. (Cells have DNA, so Ill assume we agree that a fetus and any living thing both have DNA) While there may be variation of DNA w/in the body of the woman and the body of the fetus, any DNA taken from any part of the body of the fetus or the woman can be identified as belonging specifically to one or the other (unless, as you said, one has absorbed the DNA of another fetus in utero).

2. Living things obtain and use energy-- fetuses obtain and use energy (via the mother-- hence the saying: "eating for two")

3. Living things grow and develop-- fetuses grow and develop (might i add that their growth and development is seperate from the woman's)

4. Living things reproduce-- fetuses will be able to reproduce when their reproductive systems mature (unless they have a genetic disorder that prevents them from reproducing)

5. living things respond to their environment-- fetuses respond to their environment (they sleep, kick, are startled by loud noises, etc)

The fetus performs all these life functions seperately from the mother-- obviously, the fetus gets the nutrients from the woman, but breaks it down and uses it itself (w/o the help of the woman)-- demonstrating that it is a seperate being, ie, not a part of her body.

Ugh. No, the growth of the fetus is NOT independent of the woman. When it can live without her, it is then independent of her. Prochoice people do not say a fetus is not a living thing, they say that up to a point it is not a VIABLE living thing. Extraordinary measures aside an independent life starts with independent breathing. Further, fetal reactions are involuntary as the nervous system is not fully developed. Fetuses can not reproduce.

and @ Henry, RIGHT ON. "Oh, the life of the child (not yet a child btw) who didn't have a choice" exclaims the BornAgainCatholic who must certainly be tithing to his organization that hides pedophiles. Nice. Good thing it's all homosexual then! But wait, that is also wrong according to Christians, yes? No no, can't be because Jesus said all are welcome... Oh I am SO confused!

What people think are right and wrong is completely changeable and subjective. Roe v. Wade was not just enacted to give women a choice, it was because women were having UNSAFE abortions (and have been according to archaeologists who found an entire pit of fetus bones at a whorehouse in ancient Greece and no one then said prostitution was wrong) Newsflash, right or wrong doesn't much apply. Abortion has been a solution for women throughout the ages- it's going to happen. The point is if it does, it should be SAFE. No, wait, I bet these Christian folk here believe that if a woman chooses abortion, she definitely deserves what befalls her, right? A Deserved Death? No, wait... that wouldn't be very Christian of them... gosh, there I go again.

I wish all these "I'm morally right and you're just wrong" hypocrites would lobby for better support of adoption. Instead of wasting time bashing women for what they'd do anyway, legal or illegal, how about taking that macho man time and making it productive by supporting your local home for pregnant unwed mothers, or lobbying for consistent legislation so that all states and agencies involved in fostering and adopting children are consistent, funded, and working? Do you have any idea how difficult it is for an average family to adopt an American baby without dropping tens of thousands of dollars- only for it to possibly end up with no child at all? Doesn't make adoption a very viable option for too many people. Also explains all the people who run off to Asia to snag a child. That also allows people who didn't pass muster to BE parents in the US a way to be a parent anyway. Some people are just not fit (and I'd rather they not have children however that happens). I digress. It's either seen as too pricey or too cumbersome a process. Fixing it is one way to downturn abortion statistics. Stop teaching abstinence and start teaching reality. Supporting mothers who choose adoption is another. People who extoll that virtue rarely do anything to support it.

Roe v. Wade was not just enacted to give women a choice, it was because women were having UNSAFE abortions

Well, based on this article, it's obviously not working since women are STILL having unsafe abortions.

This is SLAUGHTER and all of america should be ashamed! ''The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade.'' Henry

Read more: httpWade#ixzz1BVONAVpf

What does war have to do with abortion?

I'm not anti-abortion, but I am so anti-THIS. What this "doctor" (HELLO?!?!? "DO NO HARM.") did was not medicine or abortion, what he did was outright murder living, breathing human beings.

I hope he gets the maximum punishment for his horrific actions.

IZANOIZ: Perhaps your blog would have some crediability if your numbers had any relationship to reality. The fetus was not dead in the womb - the doctor killed the babies after they were outside the womb.

Next point: US Military deaths in Iraq to date are: 4,287

Iraqi Deaths: 99,383 - 108,501 not millions as you have alleged.

I know its hard to actually do some research before voicing an opinion especially on a topic you obviously have little if any information on but it would add some credence to your blogs if you simply did a little work.

I think, am not sure, but think that he is trying to make a point that I've noticed: Those who support abortion, do not support a war on terror, nor capital punishment. You can kill your unborn child, but not kill someone via war, and not a murderer on death row. Those who do not support killing unborn children, do support killing via war, and do support killing criminals sentenced by our justice system to die.

I agree, it's somewhat odd. However, I would side myself with protecting the babies versus the murderers. And when it comes to war, thank the men and women who sacrificed their lives for freedom, and watch - like a hawk - those in government who have the power to take them to war.

Regarding his or her comment that people who don't support women's rights (to choose abortion, specifically, as he should have stated) would be "happy" to see women die rather than have an abortion.. well, enough said. Alert me when you actually find someone who is pro-life who supports letting a mother die rather than terminate a pregnancy that is going to kill her.

IZANOIZ: I see your typing so the lies and half truths are flowing. The universal healthcare you accredit to Saddam seemed to only cover his Sunni followers and left everyone else off the list.

You do recall his use of chemical weapons against 5,000 Kurdish men, women and children - they were Iraqi citizens but apparently were not muslim enough to qualify for the unversal healthcare plan?

Should we mention the 250,000 @!$%#e muslims that he slaughtered and left in mass graves spread across Iraq - was that part of his free universal healthcare plan also? Did have a free burial plan apparently.

Should we mention the war he initiated with Iran leading to the death of 1,000,000 men - hmmm that universal healthcare plan of his certainly seeemed to have some exclusionary admendments - Well it was a free burial I guess.

Did you mention his invasion of Kuwait? Lets see he burned, looted Kuwaite city, raped thousands of fellow muslim women and kidnapped and murdered an estimated 10,000 Kuwaiti citizens - was that his benevolent extension of universal healthcare to the citizens of Kuwaite??

Did we mention that he reintroduced chemical and biological weapons to both his own pewople and the Iranians resulting in an estimated 2,000,000 additional causalties?

Yea he certainly was quite the benevolent psychotic, murderous, rapist and mass murderer of the middle east. My opinion - I think the Iraqi people would have preferred paying for healthcare rather than go through the regime of the madman and his corrupt dysfunctional henchmen and family. The price of his Free universal Healthcare is simply too high. I'll pay for my own.

Are you holding your breath waiting for your 9 muslim virgins???? Wow an oxymoron - LMAO

Perhaps your blog would have some crediability

OMG It's. Not. A. Blog. Stop. That.

If you want to see an example of a blog, go to, o I dunno, Blogger, maybe?

These are posts in a thread on a forum called Newsvine whose Code of Honor y'all keep happily violating & that at least 75% probably didn't notice you signed up to join b/c you were too eager to jump into the fray on one of your fav topix.

At least get the terminology right b4 you leap in! Oxymoron, indeed.

@Terra Incognita,

Fetuses aren't "people" in the legal sense

That's thin ice you're treading there-- you are aware that the government also ruled that black people are not people, and therefore do not have political rights not all that long ago, aren't you? Do you think that they are people? The government has made it legal to withhold the rights of many people at many different times (the Chinese Excxlusion Act is coming to mind right now). "The govt says its ok" probably isn't your best argument.

@Henry-2047580,

I am so glad you brought up my DNA argument. Let me clarify:

1. Living things are composed of cells-- fetuses are composed of cells. Let me bring this to a deeper level. (Cells have DNA, so Ill assume we agree that a fetus and any living thing both have DNA) While there may be variation of DNA w/in the body of the woman and the body of the fetus, any DNA taken from any part of the body of the fetus or the woman can be identified as belonging specifically to one or the other (unless, as you said, one has absorbed the DNA of another fetus in utero).

2. Living things obtain and use energy-- fetuses obtain and use energy (via the mother-- hence the saying: "eating for two")

3. Living things grow and develop-- fetuses grow and develop (might i add that their growth and development is seperate from the woman's)

4. Living things reproduce-- fetuses will be able to reproduce when their reproductive systems mature (unless they have a genetic disorder that prevents them from reproducing)

5. living things respond to their environment-- fetuses respond to their environment (they sleep, kick, are startled by loud noises, etc)

The fetus performs all these life functions seperately from the mother-- obviously, the fetus gets the nutrients from the woman, but breaks it down and uses it itself (w/o the help of the woman)-- demonstrating that it is a seperate being, ie, not a part of her body.

Lady Liberty: The fact remains that when looking at abortion - you have to balance the rights of two individuals: the mother and the fetus. At what point does the fetus garner rights? Some might say at conception, others, like myself, say when the fetus is considered viable (typically 22 - 24 weeks), others say at birth. There are valid arguments for each of these positions - I would not deny that. However, in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), until the fetus is viable - meaning that is is developed enough that it can maintain the physiologic requirements of life own it's own (brain activity, breathing, heart rate, etc.), it's rights are superceeded by the rights of the mother. Once viability is reached, though, that fetus could have a chance of survival outside the womb - so it's has rights that are on par with the mother's rights. So, after viability, the only reasons for abortion are in cases of medical necessity that are discovered late in the pregnancy.

IMO, it's not really a question about whether the fetus is a separate individual or not - rather, it's a question of when does the fetus have rights. IMO, the fetus doesn't have rights until viability. Anyone can have a different idea about this. Currently, abortion laws are written that essentially reflect my position. If you don't agree with abortion - then don't have one. It's that simple. You, as a citizen of the US, are entitled to attempt to change those laws. However, I as a citizen of the US, am also entitled to continue to fight to prevent these laws from being changed.

SUMMER!!!! I have only glanced at your past posts...I didn't realize you felt this way and were the only reasonable pro-choicer I have seen here.

THANK YOU!! I have heard/seen nothing but "you don't have the right to think that way - it's just a clump of cells", and I have always said the same thing as you - we all have the right to believe what we believe, and the right to fight (in a non violent way of course) for what we believe.

I would vote you up 100 times if I could.

@ SUMMER:

until the fetus is viable - meaning that is is developed enough that it can maintain the physiologic requirements of life own it's own (brain activity, breathing, heart rate, etc.), it's rights are superceeded by the rights of the mother. Once viability is reached, though, that fetus could have a chance of survival outside the womb - so it's has rights that are on par with the mother's rights.

I understand that reasoning, but everyday there are babies that survive when they are born at ages that were previously thought to be far too early to survive. How long is it before a fetus can grow outside of a woman's womb entirely? Technically, one could argue that a fetus is viable outside of the womb at conception, seeing as children are concieved outside of the womb regularly (IFV). Aside form this, even if a child survives pregnancy and is born, it is still entirely dependent on caretakers to provide for it; it cannot survive on its own. We don’t allow women to kill children they don’t want after they are born. So what is the difference? The child is still the same being—the only difference is that it is developed enough to breathe and perform other functions on its own. But even then we have the issue that children are born who cannot breathe on their own because their lungs are underdeveloped or who need emergency heart surgery to survive, and these kids live, even though they technically aren’t viable because they are dependent on medical technology to keep them alive. I would also like to note that a fetus's brain waves are dectable at 6weeks.

As far as the legal aspect, what does each party have at stake? The fetus has an entire life—possibly 90 years—the woman has 9 months of inconvenience. So life or inconvenience? No person has the right to deprive someone else of life, liberty, or property for their personal convenience. We have no right to say that a child is of less value than any other human being because of it's physical qualities. All people, whether physically or mentally handcapped, whether black or white, whether young or old, whether man or women, whether physically developed or not have equal rights.

PS: Sorry I took so long to respond-- I had exams and a ton of homework. I'll try to be a little more timely if you respond.

Awesome response Lady Liberty!! Bottom line is that each and every one of those babies is a human being--who are we to decide who should live or die and at what age or disfunction would make it acceptable.

Dr. Joseph Mengele would be so proud of Americas abortion Drs, Planned parenthood should change their name to {Murder inc}

Oh, really, Peace Lover? They perform experiments on twins at abortion clinics? Have an obsessive interest in dwarfism? Maybe you need to re-read that history book.

And maybe you should consider how your own advocacy for laws that would severely limit women's control over their own bodies smacks of laws passed in the Third Reich and their obsession with breeding - literally - the perfect Aryan soldier. Like you, they saw fertile women as brood mares and workers, not much more than that.

Planned Parenthood does MUCH more than provide abortions. They provide health exams, STD screening, and contraception. NOBODY rejoices in abortions, and Planned Parenthood does EVERYTHING they possibly can to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

Peace, you're an idiot that can't put forth a sensible or articulate argument. Why don't you just stop wasting font and go do something useful, like work in a crisis nursery for abused children?

rtro, I agree with you 100%.

For a professed Peace Lover, you talk about killing others quite a bit. Also interesting is the contrast between your ability to demand that babies be born (regardless of the circumstance) but adults are put to death at your whim.

You are an interesting psyche, I'll give you that.

rto: so we are to assume by your blog that all those abortions being conducted every year in the US are fine because those aborted are only going to be murders when they grow up anyway? Intersting perspective - all nice to know you have such keen insight into what those aborted were or could accomplish in life.

Anyone who is a {PeAcE LoVeR} is of coarse against the murder being perpetrated against the most innocent among us if you had any kind of humanity you would also speak out in defense of unborn babies! Why don't you join me?

Planned Parenthood would love to help every woman find the right contraceptive method that would help her prevent pregnancy until she is ready to make the choice to be a mother. The staff at Planned Parenthood would rejoice if there came a time in which no abortions were requested or needed.

When I was in college, I had to walk past protesters to get into our Planned Parenthood clinic. They were waving signs and denouncing Planned Parenthood for performing abortions. I think the protesters would have liked to see me and the other women become too intimidated to walk into the clinic. But I was there to get birth control. Pro-life people should support Planned Parenthood's mission to provide affordable birth control to anyone who needs it.

Because I don't advocate murder in any circumstance. And because you are talking about extremes rather than the likely events of day to day life. I recognize that I may not be the best person to decide what EVERYONE IN THE WORLD should do, so I keep it to myself unless asked.

Will I raise my children to respect life and not waste it? Yes.

Will I teach my children to be responsible and protect themselves from having to make this kind of decision? Yes.

Will I teach my children that I know what their future holds and I have the ability to best decide their lives from here rather than empower them to decide what there lives will mean and how they will live them? NO!

And that last point is where you and I differ most. I don't have the egotism necessary to decide I know what's best for other people in circumstances I can't even begin to understand.

Cal-Chi, please do some research on Planned Parenthood. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

BornAgainCatholic: I know it's easier to be vague and irresponsible but I can't fathom your intention. Could you please tell me what we are supposed to be researching? That Planned Parenthood doesn't provide low to no-cost birth control? That Planned Parenthood provides low to no-cost consultations with women regarding their approach to birth control and sex?

That Planned Parenthood is secretly trying to raise the number of abortions it has to subsidize? To what end? Why would Planned Parenthood want to increase the number of unpaid for abortions? I don't understand the economics behind this devious scheme. Maybe you can enlighten me.

PeAcE LoVeR, I will not join you in your "quest" as although I have not and would not have or even consider an abortion for myself, not everyone believes in the same way that I do and I have no right to make that choice for them. I want to tell anyone else to do with their body about as much as I want to hear someone else what to do with my own.

I also once knew a gal I worked with who was raped, as a virgin no less, and ended up pregnant from the experience, and for her it was either suicide or abortion, and thankfully she had a lot of us around to help her make that decision and keep herself around. She was tortured by the experience as a whole and could barely get through it, and I would not want to be the one to cause her and others like her further trauma and stress by basically forcing them to carry on with something they may not be able to handle and was brutally forced upon them.

I have also been a patient at Planned Parenthood, as were many female college students I went to school with, because it was easier to take care of my exams and prescriptions through them rather than trying to get home from school to go to my family physician at that time.

Lastly, judge lest ye be judged. Don't go there.

I think the vast majority of those opposed to pro-choice do support birth control. I and I suspect many others simply do not consider abortion as an acceptable means of birth control except in cases of rape, incest etc. We have sooo many choices when it comes to birth control for both sexes that abortion should be a last desperate alternative not the first.

My question would be: Why do you think we do accept abortion as a means of birth control?

What makes you think we don't want to use birth control pills? What makes you think we like killing babies? I don't understand where the idea came from that just because I accept that it is a choice I (or others) may be forced to make I enjoy making it and look forward to killing babies.

It's this categorical denial of empathy that makes this discussion fruitless. So long as you deny the fact that, as horrible and disgusting as this decision is, you do not have the right to decide what I do with my body... there can never be any real discussion. As long as you insist on being superior and morally outraged you don't have the capacity to engage in frank and open discussion.

Henry,

The strongest argument I can offer agaisnt your blog and its fantasy of heart rendering painful, devastating decision to abort rather then go full term is the sheer numbers of women choosing abortion as an option each year -(1.5million) and over 50 million in the last 20 years.

The truth is that abortion has become simply one more means of birth control for those to stupid to figure out how to use a condom, pill or any other means of birth control. Destroying a human life because one forgot or was careless or so horny they could not take the time hardly justifies murder.

@Cal_Chi

I might not rush to point to Planned Parenthood as a hero if I was you, considering their true mission (which, believe it or not, is not to save America from abortion via birthcontrol). See the below quote:

"We don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population." ~Margaret Sanger, Founder of PP

@rhj

Lastly, judge lest ye be judged. Don't go there.

You are right. Don't go there. You, like so many who do not rightly understand the words of Jesus, indeed the entire Bible, misquote that line and take it out of context. But don't worry, I don't judge you for it, because of a completely different section of Scripture. God is the One Who will judge all of mankind. However, lest anyone take your misquote seriously, I feel compelled to point out the obvious error. If you would like further clarification, please message me. I promise not to be mean and judgemental.

IZANOIZ: The secret is to read the entire contract to avoid any surprises later. If your the head of your family then you failed your family since you obviously got caught short. They put the information in print to inform not to trick - you simply need to be smart enough to do your part and read it and if you do not understand something than ask questions. Bottom line the insurance industry does do their job in accordance with the contracts in place - you need to be smart enough to understand what your paying for.

@Levi777, I have read the Bible many times over and understand the words quite well, and I don't need some yahoo on a posting site thinking he needs to explain anything to me or put "the fear of God" in me either.

I will not be messaging you as I don't care if you say you'll not be "mean and judgmental" since you've already proven you do not possess the capacity as you've made it more than obvious that you've already judged me as illiterate and ignorant.

I continue to stand by my statement/quote of "judge lest ye be judged" because if someone tells me they believe in God, then they should know it's only His place to judge, and no one on this planet is allowed that right, at least not in the eternal sense. Yes, we have judges and legal officials who we've elected to support laws established within our government, but we can't always pick and choose what we follow simply based on religion - this is where the true importance of the whole "separation between church and State" thing comes in.

Your obvious error is that you tried to tangle with a person who's not in the mood for your quaint and trivial interpretations of a book that has been used in all sorts of wrong ways over the centuries. If I ever feel that I require the advice, teachings, or sage words of a yahoo, I'll gladly message you then, but eternity will be an awfully long time for you to wait.

Just to share a bit of info - I did a little research on Planned Parenthood. Yes, the founder was racist. Elist, too; she wanted the "slum dwellers" and "insane" to stop breeding. However, her legacy, while tainted by her own racism, has helped millions of people of all walks of life.

I believe the best article I found on this issue, though, was on

Planned Parenthood has not supported forced sterilization or restricted immigration and has gently rejected the most extreme of Sanger's views.

She was a subhuman and no better than Hitler.

I don't understand it when people who are supposed to be prolife say they wish someone had been aborted. How does that make sense? Murder would be okay if it prevented more murder later on?

Re #4.23, I consider myself prolife; but I do not roll like that! I could never justify murdering an abortion provider or (God forbid!) bombing a clinic or harrassing someone getting an abortion. When I was much younger I once held a pretty tame sign on a street corner nowhere near an abortion clinic, but now I wouldn't do that-I have much more understanding of women getting abortions now that many have told me their stories. I will say pretty provocative things to stimulate discussion, but I know more than most of you realize what a woman goes through with an abortion and afterwards; and condemnation and judgment is not what I would push. Furthermore, I don't believe the argument is truly about choice-choice is the distraction to avoid the real argument.

The real argument, as several have addressed here, is what that cluster of cells really is. Yet how can we as women, after aborting that cluster of cells or watching a girlfriend or a daughter, view it objectively? How? Can men, after paying for or encouraging an abortion for a wife or girlfriend or even a daughter, view that cluster of cells objectively? (Or maybe they begged against it.) How would that be possible? Even if what was done was felt to be the only thing possible at the time-which I believe it most often is-how can any of it be viewed objectively?

Henry, and anybody else that things Planned Parenthood is the answer to all these unwanted babies.... please watch the documentary, "Blood Money." It's very eye opening. Also, there is a new book out by a former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic called, "unPLANNED" by Abby Johnson.

May your hearts and minds be open to hearing the truth.

I totally agree with you

All that matters is the hit count. More hits on the page, more revenue for msnbc. So it's worth it to plaster what little information they have as soon as they get it, even if it's wrong or misleading.

Exactly.

Agreed. There was barely any information in that article. Thanks, jwhite, for the link to an article that actually elaborated on the story.

Agreed!

Do you really think that conservatives don't get abortions? Do you think that only liberals support a woman's right to choose? Where do you get your facts? Your argument has no basis what so ever. Next!

again, damn messenger!

On the contrary, the article states that the prosecution ALLEGES that an abortion doctor killed 8 babies after they were born. What crazies would this bring out?

here's something for you to chew on. if liberals are considered hypocrites by you so called arrogant, pompous, mentally constipated conservatives what adjective do you think best fits your holier than thou, uptight, closeminded, self absorbed, selfish attitude? the ball's back in your court......& to the other poster, yes of course conservatives get abortions. they just lie about it like they do everything else.

It seems to me that about 85% of the news articles that come out these days, from all the MSM sources, is lacking good journalistic skill. Most stories either leave the obvious questions unasked, or are filled with bad information all together. What happend to the integrety we once knew?

patchapoo you are an idiot...first nobody "believes in" or even condones this type of treatment, you are a sick pessimistic individual if you think anyone does. second, being pro-CHOICE is not pro-ABORTION, I personally wouldn't get one but I am not high-and-mighty enough to tell someone else what to do with their own body. third, ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty?" nobody is burying their heads in the sand because nothing is PROVEN yet these are all allegations.

Being pro choice is like sitting on the fence. Make a decision - either you are for abortion or you are against it. If you personally feel you would never get an abortion then you are against abortion thereby making you pro life.

The abortion industry is big money and that is the only reason it is still legal in this country. It is morally wrong. A child in the womb has a soul at comception just like any other person - murder is murder wether in the womb or not.

Which crazies are you referring to? Is it crazies like the uni bomber who was found with Al gore's book in his hide out or the Fort hood shooter from last year who killed those 11 people in the name of Allah or maybe the Oklahoma city bomber who was a self claimed communist? Please explain?

laney you do realize that CHOICE means there are options to choose from? We are not on the fence, we are not pro-abortion, we are not pro-life. We are pro-options to choose from. Simple. That's what makes America great, we have freedom of choice. You seem to be pro-force your beliefs on others, not very American.

Laney, I believe that free will means that we all have to live our lives through a series of choices. I believe that I CANNOT make choices for another individual, and that all people deserve access to safe affordable medical care.

Unlike YOU and others like you, I don't feel I have the right to cram my beliefs down other people's throat. I know how I would advise my children but in the end, I can't make their life choices for them. They're the only ones that have to live with their decisions.

So here's an idea...how about making sure you're perfect before you try to live other peoples' lives for them?

wherescommonsense---You are correct.

Patchapoo, what are you even trying to say? You're awfully disjointed in your thoughts, and your crass language makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously. I'm pretty confident that most people on either side of this debate would be ashamed that you choose that tone and language to represent them.

I don't know how your "can't be a little bit pregnant" comment even ties in, as nobody said anything about that. And just because your definition of pro choice is warped and sick doesn't mean people who are pro choice adhere to your definition.

The "crazies" are the people who overly obsess with the whole Left vs Right and Liberalism vs Conservatism campaign. The crazies normally would have came here to "debate" about abortion if this comment was not posted. They would have used nasty insulting messages that make people afraid to express their own opinion without a hoard of mentally ill people yelling at them over the internet. And at the end of the day, nothing constructive would have happened. Just both sides bitterly hating each other more and more as time goes on.

It offers that the grand jury returned an indictment. I don't know whether you have been on a grand jury or not but the one time I served for about four months we needed quite a bit of evidence to return an indictment.

Your nickname says it all. You've got a beef with MSN.....who cares?

If you don't like MSN, get off your ass and do your own reseach. Click on the CBS link, Google his Malpractice Suits that have even resulted in death, follow up with the AP newswire which is mentioned.

You're right about one thing. The article did bring out a crazy.

It's a real statement on where we are at as a Country, that a woman can kill her unborn child as easily as getting a cyst removed... and WITHOUT THE FATHER'S CONSENT!

Abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control.

Uh 1 chances are the father took off anyway. I know there are exceptions, the majority outweighs them.

2- If you'd take the time to study and educate yourself abortion treats women just as horribly as you think women are treated those fetus'. Do some research dude.

Laney, it's not even close to being as black and white as you want to make it.

I am fully pro-life (I wouldn't choose one for myself) but I am also fully pro-choice (not everybody is me). Not my body, not my decision.

If we could all decide what procedures others were allowed or not allowed to have, I'd have had my ex neutered, his wife's vocal chords removed so maybe she'd stop screeching at my daughter all the time, and I'd have your fingers paralyzed so you were not able to post anymore of your misguided, judgmental, infringing attitudes for the rest of us to read.

I am pro-abortion. There. Does that make these right-wing extremists happy? I'm also pro-voting. Both are legal in this country, thank you very much.

Regarding the lack of "news" in the report, you are right, but that would seem to be because msnbc.com sanitized the story. If you check other news sources, including some local Philadelphia news pages, you will see that there is plenty to report. For me, one thing that is important is that one of the murders relates to a minority "patient" (victim?) who was subjected to the most unsanitary conditions. Second, the guy (I was going to say "doctor" but that doesn't seem quite right) had his market among minorities. Third, the evidence found on-site was body parts from abortions dating back decades. And fourthly, the abortions were conducted by means of procuring the live birth of viable babies (I think we can call them that) and then, after their birth, their murder by means of cutting their spinal cords using scissors (no doubt dirty).

MSNBC, for some reason, saw fit to exclude this imformation. Thus, their good faith readership has been left uninformed (maybe deceived) about the true nature of this situation. my suggestion is that you explore some other news providers and find out if there is, in fact, some news here.

Then maybe we can wonder why msnbc.com did not report it (by the way, don't bother to check cnn.com...it's not there, and abcnews.com only has it under the Philadelphia local site...for some reason their leade piece is some stupidity by an Alabama governor, but this multiple ,urder doesn't make it..hmmmmm).

Regards

Die Hard Lib: You were one of those shocked and appalled bloggers last week pillaging Republicans, the Tea Party, Palin , FOX News, Beck and anyone else that disagrees with you. You accused everyone across the aisle for the shootings that took place in Tucson, AR.

You had no evidence then, you do not have evidence today to support your contentions the Republicans or their supporters were in any way connected to the shooting. The democratic Sheriff (incompletent, political hack that he is) even admitted yesterday on CNN to Wolf Blitzer that he was wrong and had nothing to support his initial allegations.

Interestingly the only things that were found by the FBI and the Sheriff's department according to the Sheriff yesterday in the interview have been a copy of the Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto" and "The Socialist Republic" (Thomans Mann). This is after the initial scan of the shooters computer, web and the house. Now if I was as paranoid and rabid as you and your liberal cohorts I would immediately jump to the conclusion that the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman was conducted at the behest of liberals and the radical left wing democratic party or at least that their hate language, threats and attempts to intimidate and target those in opposition led to this shooting incident.

I bring this up because you were all so appalled and outraged at the shootings last week where 6 people were killed and 13 were wounded but you do not bat an eye when we discuss the slaughter of over 1.5 million human lives each year and over 50 million human lives to date through abortions.

You smear Republicans with your insinuations, accusations, rants, raves and lies and yet stand their with the blood of millions on your hands and then tell us we are wrong? If you truly want to find out what is wrong with our Country - simply stand in front of a mirror.

WHAT?? Seven babies are murdered and all you care about is "horrible" the Headline is???

You're as sick and demented as HE/SHE is!!!

actually, this is why people are killed, shot.....

Of course the headline and the conditions found do not fit the "right to choose" agenda. This is the ultimate effect of dulling society to the horror of murdering innocent children for the convenience of adults who want to continue their irresponsible lifestyles focused on what "feels good." We certtainly do not want to publicize exactly what happens in these late term murders.

Unfortunately this reminds me of the "punish promiscuous poor people" anti-choice diatribe that was so prominent in the 60's. Christ said 'judge not lest you yourself be judged' and he also said 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone.' Yes, I am a Christian and I support a woman's right to choose. I'm going to be lambasted by other Christians for saying this and have been many times in the past. I don't think that abortion should be birth control nor do I think using birth control is a sin unlike many Christians of my acquaintance.

I am a realist, I don't pass judgement and it is not my place to pass sentence on others. I am not God, my relationship with humanity has shown me that there are imperfect people. I concern myself with those children whom no one loves or wants and there are millions all over the planet. I worry more about them than I do about abortion, that is business between a woman and her God.

"This article offers nothing, and should have been withheld until more information was available. Horrible headline that invites crazies."

If I'm not mistaken, you read the article...

My girl, " judge not lest ye be judged" ??? Are you kidding? Have you read the scripture? Let me help you; if you were one who committed an abortion and then judged another for committing one- that applies. If you wanted to be forgiven of say stealing, and you 'judge' another for stealing, that, according to the scripture would be your downfall. Which they are saying, worse than when you started. You are allowed to judge what to wear for the day right? How about what food to order in a restaurant? What about what people to hang out with , to marry?? Should I go on? Of course you judge, everyday you idiot. How could you determine right from wrong if you couldn't make that crucial decision of CHOOSING. So while you are allowed to choose the abortion, the choice you make, the sins are on your head, and will be visited when you die of the innocent blood shed. WHich is quite the tall order in Heaven- the one about shedding innocent blood and all.

Do you really think that conservatives don't get abortions?

Don't feed the trolls unless you've had your tetanus booster. Just use the ! to report their inflammatory, no value posts & eventually they'll be escorted from the premises.

I see all you pro choicers are in hyper drive about this one.

Really. Then why are you, who by self-implication is not a "pro choicer", gloating about a 40-yr killing spree of who knows how many living infants just b/c you think it makes the "pro choicers" look like the stupid ones?

All I can infer from that is:

~it's OK by you to condemn those who support both US law as per the Supreme Court & US womens' right to choose abortion of non-viable fetuses as evil

~but what could well amt to maybe hundreds or thousands of cold-blooded murders of newborn babies is even more OK by you if you can gleefully spin it to give the "pro choicers" a black eye somehow.

There's something inherently repellant about such behavior.

It might behoove you to actually read the article instead of lunge for the post button chortling over a headline. Maybe then you'd understand what you just did. Then again, maybe not.

@life is all about choices, go read my response to Levi777 and all of the same goes for you.

Go back to thumping that old book that's brought countless numbers of people to their deaths at the hands of those who have misintrepreted it and felt they had the right to wield it as an ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction. Anytime anyone tells me I don't understand the Bible, outside of the pastor whom I've known since I was a teenager, I automatically label them a judgmental fool as I can pretty much always be certain that they're just another thumper who thinks they have the right to impose whatever vitriolic hate based lessons they've misguidedly learned from their "loving God's" teachings on everyone around them they see as a "sinner".

I encounter too many "Christians" who are disgustingly judgmental yet quite often are the ones I know who are beating their wives and/or children, are raging closeted alcohlics, will tell the most offensive jokes and say derogatory things about people they perceive as "less value" than them, and I find it utterly despicable that these same people will openly, on the surface, point out anyone else's sin at will.

I hope you and Levi777 live a cozy little life over there in Delusionville with all the rest of the quaint, clueless, judgmental yahoos who reside there.

I knew that I would get this vitriol when I posted. I am not changing my attitude, I have seen a lot of things and compassion is not one of the hallmarks of the anti-abortion crowd. I will deal with my soul please take care of your own

@mygirl- I have to say it is incredibly refreshing that you are both Christian and have afew things most "Christians" lack- common sense, compassion and an ability to behave LIKE a follower of Christ. You are a rare bird. It is MORE Christian (and I DO mean Christ-like) than passing judgment, forcing opinions down the throats of others and being judgmental. Don't listen to the haters because that's what they are.

I am not at all religious but have read the Bible more out of curiosity than anything, but I do recall much of Matthew and it does most definitely say that according to Jesus the second most important thing you can do is 'Love your neighbor as yourself'. I'm pretty sure it didn't have other qualifiers such as "unless she gets an abortion" or "unless he's gay". Oh, it also said tax collectors and prostitutes would get to heaven first, so if someone is an ACTUAL Christian I bet it would naturally follow that the women who received abortions may fall in to that basket too- most prostitutes back in the day either had abortions or killed their newborns in the interest of business, and I am sure this was not lost on Jesus who was known to hang with the 'lesser' crowd. The least among us are supposed to be the most deserving, right?

"you are"?

;-)~

What are you talking about? Who are "these people" - it's a NYT article?

I think the article was prematurely released. Typical.

This is ridiculous. What "people" are you talking about? A deranged PERSON killed Dr. Tiller. A deranged PERSON shot Congresswoman Giffords. A deranged PERSON shot and killed Dr. MLK Jr. The list goes on and on while both side of the political divide sit and watch these events unfold in absolute horror.

I'm growing weary of the tired old lines lumping people together. Views and comments like this are why our country has lost sight of civil discourse and simply hearing each other's opinions.

I believe the guy who killed Tiller was an extreme right wing "got my bible and my gun" nutjob. ........