Abortion Doctor in Philadelphia Charged with Killing Newborns

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In the grand jury document, prosecutors called Dr. Gosnell’s clinic “a baby charnel house,” riddled with fetal remains and reeking of cat urine, with furniture and blankets stained with blood. Medical equipment was broken and supplies were reused.

“The real business of the ‘Women’s Medical Society’ was not health, it was profit,” the document stated. It detailed a practice of selling prescription painkillers during the day, and at night, performing abortions for cash for women who could not get them elsewhere because they were too pregnant.

When labor was induced and a baby was born, Dr. Gosnell would kill it by cutting into its neck and severing its spinal cord in a process he referred to as “snipping.” In one case involving a 17-year-old who was 30 weeks pregnant, prosecutors said that Dr. Gosnell induced labor, severed the baby’s spine and put the body in a shoe box. “The doctor joked that the baby was so big, ‘he could walk me to the bus stop,’ ” the document said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/20doctor.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Nothing more needs to be said I think, murder in the first degree should be the charge. But damn I do find this especially disgusting. I mean, some serial killers are unsettling, to say the least, but killing newborns as a business model is on a whole other level.

[#FF0000]

Welp. It's going to be a fun rest of forever on the abortion debate front.

[#FF0000]

The photographs are v. unsettling to me by the way. Stacks of boxes of "medical waste"? Guh

[ComradeMan]

This is shocking- but I don't see how it's a left issue, the man is accused of a crime that falls outside of abortion rights/issues in a sense. I'm not a doctor but I don't see how an abortion can be justified and safely carried out at such late stages and believe furthermore that most doctors would agree. Perhaps Il Medico could give some insight.

[synthesis]

Jars containing the severed feet of babies lined a shelf


“a baby charnel house,” riddled with fetal remains and reeking of cat urine, with furniture and blankets stained with blood


Dr. Gosnell would kill it by cutting into its neck and severing its spinal cord in a process he referred to as “snipping.”


prosecutors said that Dr. Gosnell induced labor, severed the baby’s spine and put the body in a shoe box

I dunno, bro... I can't call it.

[9]

Great. There's no doubt this will be used in the coming weeks as an excuse to slam more legislation through congress attacking what remains of women's reproductive rights in the US...



“The real business of the ‘Women’s Medical Society’ was not health, it was profit,”
You don't say! :rolleyes:


Nothing more needs to be said I think, murder in the first degree should be the charge. But damn I do find this especially disgusting. I mean, some serial killers are unsettling, to say the least, but killing newborns as a business model is on a whole other level.
Do you not consider why women are desperate enough to resort to getting this done, or do you just not care?

[9]

Also, from the article:

Dr. Gosnell, a family practitioner who was not certified in obstetrics, performed late-term abortions, after 24 weeks, which are illegal, and employed staff members who were not trained medical professionals, including a teenage girl, prosecutors said. Nine of his employees were also charged.This is the sort of thing that happens when abortion, at any point in pregnancy, is illegal.

Of course, its only a footnote in the article, and the OP doesn't even bother to mention it, that a woman was killed as well.

[synthesis]

Also, from the article:
This is the sort of thing that happens when abortion, at any point in pregnancy, is illegal.

Of course, its only a footnote in the article, and the OP doesn't even bother to mention it, that a woman was killed as well.

I have a suspicion that the death of the woman instigated the case and the rest of the article is essentially convicting him for being an abortionist.

[9]

I have a suspicion that the death of the woman instigated the case
Who knows, the fetuses carry the same legal weight as the woman.

EDIT:

by the way, I'm glad to see that all the self-declared "revolutionaries" who replied before me were so quick to go right along with the tone of the article rather than seeing this for what it is. Not that I'd have expected anything more.

[Widerstand]

Of course, its only a footnote in the article, and the OP doesn't even bother to mention it, that a woman was killed as well.

Yeah, that's seriously disturbing.

Also what this article fails to mention (and what people here fail to consider) is the possibly large amount of people whose lives were saved from going down the drain by this guy. And of course the lives that could be saved if this hadn't have to be performed in a stinky backroom by untrained people (i.e. if it was legal).

[Bud Struggle]

It's murder.

[9]

It's murder.
So out of morbid curiosity, if you think that its murder, what do you think the women who had these abortions should be charged with? The ones who survived, that is.

[Bud Struggle]

So out of morbid curiosity, if you think that its murder, what do you think the women who had these abortions should be charged with? The ones who survived, that is.

These aren't abortions. They are live births and homicides.

I think it's been clearly defined that what happens in a woman's body is her business--what happens OUTSIDE of a woman's body is the business of society. Once the child--and once the fetus is born it is not a fetus any longer--it is a human being will full rights as a human. There's no waiting period for being a human being once you are born. So they took part in killing someone.

That being said, I would charge them with voluntary homicide or maybe accessory and the doctor with murder.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I didn't mention the nepalese woman dying because it didn't disturb me as much as newborns getting their spinal cords 'snipped,' sorry to say.


Do you not consider why women are desperate enough to resort to getting this done, or do you just not care?

Sure I care that women are having their infant children killed. They're murdering children and should be charged.

You playing the whole empathy card here is ok I suppose, but please stop trying to claim some kind of leftist moral high ground here. These children are alive, outside the womb, and having their neck broken. There is no difference between killing them at that age versus waiting until their 5, is there?

I'm all for abprtion rights, but if you think I'm going to sympathize with the woman when she has her child done away with, post birth, think again.

[Nolan]

This is what happens when you put restrictions on women's abortion rights. Someone ends up getting hurt and the anti-abortion stupidity compounds.

[Nolan]

I didn't mention the nepalese woman dying because it didn't disturb me as much as newborns getting their spinal cords 'snipped,' sorry to say.

Yeah fuck people! Fetuses are more important.

[La Comédie Noire]

I was eating raviolis when I read that. I had to put down the raviolis. :mellow:

The doctor should be charged with murder no doubt, but what should be done to prevent things like this from happening again? This is definitely not what pro choice people have in mind when they talk about abortion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah fuck people! Fetuses are more important.

Did you even understand the article? Birth was induced. The child was born...ALIVE...and THEN killed. That is NOT abortion. That is murder...and willfully undergoing those procedures is in fact accessory to murder.

This is exactly the same as carrying a child to full term, birth it and then snapping its neck.

Its disgusting that you even defend this as some form of womans right.

[9]

Its disgusting that you even defend this as some form of womans right.
You are disgusting.

[NGNM85]

Do you not consider why women are desperate enough to resort to getting this done, or do you just not care?

This is what happens when you put restrictions on women's abortion rights. Someone ends up getting hurt and the anti-abortion stupidity compounds.

This is total nonsense. These women, unless some new facts come to light, had total access to abortion for months. In fact, over 75% of abortions are performed within the first 10-11 weeks. There is no excuse, without a medical necessity, to wait this long.

[PhoenixAsh]

by the way, I'm glad to see that all the self-declared "revolutionaries" who replied before me were so quick to go right along with the tone of the article rather than seeing this for what it is. Not that I'd have expected anything more.

Its revolutionary to advocate the killing of human beings? I didn't know that.

When a fetus/child/whatever you want to call it is fully developed, can register and react to sensory input, has higher brain functions and has a >90% survival rate outside the womb (after month 6) is being aborted then yes...this is a human being and as such autonomous.

Revolurionaries who argue that a woman should do with the body of an autonomous person what they want are actually arguing private property of human beings and dehumanize people to things....they argue that a viable human being is in fact an economic comodity that can be exterminated as economic reality dictates.

There is only one reason not to oppose this and those are the medical dangers involved by giving birth. And those medical dangers do NOT lessen with late term abortion. In fact they are mostly identical.

If you do not want the child in those conditions as I specified above...fine...have it removed and given up for adoption. But willfully ending its existence without any medical necessity is killing an autonomous induvidual.


Now as to the reasons why they were desperate enough...who knows?
This means that education (all compassing including: how to detect preganncy, lifting of social stigma of pregnancy in young girls, how to avoid pregnance), availability and economic measures to provide for the absence of economic pressure not to have the child...should,. as I argued before, be everywhere.

And yes...that means I do agree with you that there is a completely unequal society when it comes to women....and that there is a large amount what we need to fight for. That does not mean however that in a society where we have all that...ie...socialist/communist...the autonomy of one can negate the autonomy of the other.

[Nolan]

Did you even understand the article? Birth was induced. The child was born...ALIVE...and THEN killed. That is NOT abortion. That is murder...and willfully undergoing those procedures is in fact accessory to murder.

Of course as a Marxist I don't care how it was done or if he ate the fetal remains afterward. It's irrelevant. We should see this in a materialist light and not go along with the tabloid-style knee jerk condemnation. This was caused by late term abortions not being legal. What I am concerned with is the unnecessary death of the Nepalese woman and the ramifications for what is legal because of people who think like you.


This is exactly the same as carrying a child to full term, birth it and then snapping its neck.

You're an idiot.


Its disgusting that you even defend this as some form of womans right.

It's disgusting that you refuse to see the issue at hand.

[PhoenixAsh]

You are disgusting.

So you agree with killing children after birth?
check...thank you for admitting that.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is total nonsense. These women, unless some new facts come to light, had total access to abortion for months. In fact, over 75% of abortions are performed within the first 10-11 weeks. There is no excuse, without a medical necessity, to wait this long.

I agree...mostly...but only if the women were aware and unobstructed in their exercise to make that decision at that point.

I do not have a problem with them wanting to terminate the pregnancy...if they do not have the baby killed in the proces. Abortion from the moment that the fetus becomes a person is in my opinion killing amn autonomous human being.

However...you are completely right in the extending of this argument.

The method used here was inducing birth.

That means the baby was born and brought into this world alive. ample opportunities were there to see to it that it survived without the mother having been in any way shape or form inconvenienced.

But instead it was killed....and that is murder no matter how you look at it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Of course as a Marxist I don't care how it was done or if he ate the fetal remains afterward. It's irrelevant. We should see this in a materialist light and not go along with the tabloid-style knee jerk condemnation. This was caused by late term abortions not being legal. What I am concerned with is the unnecessary death of the Nepalese woman and the ramifications for what is legal because of people who think like you.



You're an idiot.



It's disgusting that you refuse to see the issue at hand.

I see the issue at hand perfectly fine. You confuse women rights with the right to kill an autonomous person after the sixt month. when the method that could be used is...as was here...inducing birth and then provide for the child which is alive and sustainable without the mother being further inconvienienced at all.

as such you see it as a commodity and private property...and that is not ML at all.

Now...instead of saying....fine...terminate the abortion and try to keep the child alive...you advocate it being killed.

How can you even argue that you see things clearly from a point within the class struggle and advocacy of womens and human rights?

[Palingenisis]

This is total nonsense. These women, unless some new facts come to light, had total access to abortion for months. In fact, over 75% of abortions are performed within the first 10-11 weeks. There is no excuse, without a medical necessity, to wait this long.

While I believe that there should be time restrictions (what I dont know, Im not a scientist) people's circumstances can change radically and very quickly in this world. I extremely doubt that these women and girls were undertaking to have a late abortions for the kicks. Under a capitalist system things like this are just bound to happen and there is no getting away from that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is what happens when you put restrictions on women's abortion rights. Someone ends up getting hurt and the anti-abortion stupidity compounds.

Correct. If early-term abortions were provided for free, there'd be no excuses for shit like this happening. But having that sort of thing on the taxpayer dollar is exactly the sort of thing American conservatives live to oppose.

[RGacky3]

this has NOTHING TO DO with the abortion debate, the guy is killing babies ... not a fetus (the argument is whether or not a fetus is a human, I'm pretty sure everyone agrees a baby is a human).

And people why try and excuse this are fucking sick, this has NOTHING to do with abortion, if a woman has a child and cannot raise it, you can drop it off at different places, even if you could'nt, thats not an excuse for murder.

[PhoenixAsh]

Correct. If early-term abortions were provided for free, there'd be no excuses for shit like this happening. But having that sort of thing on the taxpayer dollar is exactly the sort of thing American conservatives live to oppose.

well..technically all medical procedures should be free.

Not to mention the fact that none of them pro-livers seem even willing to consider late term pregancy termination trough birth induction and providing for the child and mother after birth.

[Obs]

This is total nonsense. These women, unless some new facts come to light, had total access to abortion for months. In fact, over 75% of abortions are performed within the first 10-11 weeks. There is no excuse, without a medical necessity, to wait this long.

It's funny because you have no fucking idea what kind of life these women had, or of the circumstances that led them to take this decision.

[RGacky3]

It's funny because you have no fucking idea what kind of life these women had, or of the circumstances that led them to take this decision.

Nor do I understand the circumstances that lead to people raping children, but raping children is discusting, so is killing a baby.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think it would be prudent to see what the women involved have to say about this, although I can't think of any good reasons for waiting that long.

[gorillafuck]

This isn't abortion so defending this is in no way defending reproductive rights. Killing a newborn after birth is given obviously isn't abortion.

The reasons people go to this guy is what should be under question.

[Palingenisis]

Nor do I understand the circumstances that lead to people raping children, but raping children is discusting, so is killing a baby.

You are doing a very a middle class thing of judging things in the abstract without examining the circumstances and context. For someone to come to the point of child raping there must have been a long moral degeneration to get to that point. A woman killing a baby usually happens out of incredible deseperation.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/the-kerry-babies-tragedy-back-to-haunt-us-22-years-on-90933.html

[RGacky3]

You are doing a very a middle class thing of judging things in the abstract without examining the circumstances and context.

What the hell does that have to do with class???


For someone to come to the point of child raping there must have been a long moral degeneration to get to that point.

probably what happend is they were abused as a child, does that justify it?


A woman killing a baby usually happens out of incredible deseperation.

No shit, does'nt justify it.

the circumstances and context obviously come in, but there is NO circumstance or context that would justify this, if you can come up with one be my guest.

[TC]

I'm sorry, but while I am militantly pro-choice (and pro-abortion on demand, for any reason, any time until birth when that is the preferred choice) I do not agree with some of the implicit analysis from pro-choicers in this thread (though much of it from 9 has been excellent).

The legitimate aim of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy to spare an unwilling woman from the hazards, mutilation, discomfort, pain, and humiliation of non-consensual pregnancy, labor and childbirth (a phenomenon which subjectively radically different from desired pregnancy and childbirth just as rape is radically different from sex with someone you love: consent matters).

A well trained clinician can do this by dismembering a fetus while in the womb thereby avoiding the trauma of labor and childbirth (unless induced labor is preferred as it sometimes is for women who wanted a child but had to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities).

Actually inducing normal labor and childbirth at a relatively late stage (though not full term) totally defeats the chief aim of very late term abortion: avoiding labor and childbirth.

An abortion is legitimate at any point during a pregnancy on self-defense and bodily autonomy grounds - since they are needed to prevent grave injury typical of pregnancy and forced intimacy, self defense is implicated, since they involve use of one's body for the sake of another, bodily autonomy is implicated. However neither of these grounds exists once a fetus has been physically removed whether through normal birth or flawed abortion mishap. There can therefore be no right to kill a neonate that no longer poses a bodily threat or infringes on one's autonomy.

Having said that, this story is and will be without a doubt spun to equate the termination of a 30 week (or older) fetus in a womb with infanticide of a neonate out of a womb - a comparison that depends on asigning moral importance only to the fetus/neonate and while denying the humanity and relevance of the woman. Abortion is a case where location, in a womb or outside of one, truly matters, since it determines the presence or absence of a threat.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it would be prudent to see what the women involved have to say about this, although I can't think of any good reasons for waiting that long.

Being withheld from making your choice by either or combination of:
social pressure,
physical threat
psychological threats.
not being able to afford it sooner
denied prior attempts elsewhere.

I can think of a whole range of reasons.

However...the point is also the method involved....and the question why the child could not be kept alive.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I'm not blaiming the women here, I'm blaiming the doctor.

[TC]

I think it would be prudent to see what the women involved have to say about this, although I can't think of any good reasons for waiting that long.

My strong guess is that they probably assumed they were paying to get an abortion not an induced pregnancy followed by infanticide. They were probably taken advantage of.

And this is of course another example of why abortion must be made available throughout the full length of a pregnancy and not at an arbitrary cut off point (which can be legally evaded by sufficiently wealthy and savvy people anyways, either by flying to Canada or claiming mental health exception with a sympathetic doctor).

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm sorry, but while I am militantly pro-choice (and pro-abortion on demand, for any reason, any time until birth when that is the preferred choice) I do not agree with some of the implicit analysis from pro-choicers in this thread (though much of it from 9 has been excellent).

The legitimate aim of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy to spare an unwilling woman from the hazards, mutilation, discomfort, pain, and humiliation of non-consensual pregnancy, labor and childbirth (a phenomenon which subjectively radically different from desired pregnancy and childbirth just as rape is radically different from sex with someone you love: consent matters).

A well trained clinician can do this by dismembering a fetus while in the womb thereby avoiding the trauma of labor and childbirth (unless induced labor is preferred as it sometimes is for women who wanted a child but had to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities).

Actually inducing normal labor and childbirth at a relatively late stage (though not full term) totally defeats the chief aim of very late term abortion: avoiding labor and childbirth.

An abortion is legitimate at any point during a pregnancy on self-defense and bodily autonomy grounds - since they are needed to prevent grave injury typical of pregnancy and forced intimacy, self defense is implicated, since they involve use of one's body for the sake of another, bodily autonomy is implicated. However neither of these grounds exists once a fetus has been physically removed whether through normal birth or flawed abortion mishap. There can therefore be no right to kill a neonate that no longer poses a bodily threat or infringes on one's autonomy.

We do not agree on the measurement of autonomy but this is an excellent post.

edit:
Unfortunately late term abortions are almost always birth inductions. Because insturmental abortions are just too much of a trauma inducing operations and carry a considerable risk of permanent damage. Medical evaluation is up until today that complications due to Instrumental abortions are three times as likely to cause direct and permanent harm to a mother as birth induction amongst other because of the increased risk of infections. To put it clinically...its harder to cut up a fetus when it gets larger, takes longer and errors therefore occur more often and it is harder to extract all parts of the fetus further increasing the chance to leave parts behind. This procedure is however not chosen when natural birth can constitute a threat to the mother. This is a medical argument.

As such an argument pro full term abortion ...or perhaps to avoid confusion: termination in which the fetus/child (whatever) is killed...on the argument that this is safer than natural birth for the woman involved are not really a valid argument. (which is not to say that sometimes it is indeed safer as seeing the alternative medical implications it can have)

That leaves the question of autonomy. And that is where we do not see eye to eye....as you know. So I am not going to argue that point again. However I did find a possible middle ground here.

Also a medical argument is that a child after month 6 (so in moth 7 and further) has >90% survival rate outside the womb. Terminating a pregnancy if no medical threats are involved and seeing that birth induction is the safest and indeed most chosen way for late term abortion...I do not see why this shouldn't or couldn't be used when a woman wants to end the pregnancy and involvement with the child. Seeing as to it is medically very well possible and very likely that the child will survive. So far as there is an obligation for society to provide for the child.

Now...what I am suggesting is that terminating a pregancy should always be legal and free and on demand. But that the methods chosen should be restricted (when no medical need is involved) after the 6th month. This leaves the woman autonomous in every way (still has the abortion option when medically needed) and also not infringes on the autonomy of the child.

Furthermore I think that the right to terminate abortion is not something that should exist on its own...for it only gives the woman a choise between either having or not having the child and does not consider its social and economic implications and/or consequences within todays society. There is still the matter of economic dependency. It should therefore be accompanied by extensive laws to enable the right of women to chose to have babies independently from economic family units or ties.

edit2: Labor inducing can either be done by first sedating and killing the fetus and then induce birth or it could be done like it was here.

edit3: this above medical info was given by a female (!!) doctor specialised in child birth.

[NGNM85]

Who knows, the fetuses carry the same legal weight as the woman.

In the case of some fetuses, that makes sense. It depends on the fetus. I know you're allergic to facts, but in this case it's very important. The fetal stage is the period of gestation from the 11th week to birth. There is a substantial difference between a fetus at the 12th week and a fetus in the 35th week.


A well trained clinician can do this by dismembering a fetus while in the womb thereby avoiding the trauma of labor and childbirth (unless induced labor is preferred as it sometimes is for women who wanted a child but had to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities).

This in no way addresses the fundamental issue at hand.


Actually inducing normal labor and childbirth at a relatively late stage (though not full term) totally defeats the chief aim of very late term abortion: avoiding labor and childbirth.

There’s no reason why this cannot be done within six months. Again, over 75% of women seeking abortions manage to do this.


An abortion is legitimate at any point during a pregnancy on self-defense and bodily autonomy grounds - since they are needed to prevent grave injury typical of pregnancy and forced intimacy, self defense is implicated, since they involve use of one's body for the sake of another, bodily autonomy is implicated. However neither of these grounds exists once a fetus has been physically removed whether through normal birth or flawed abortion mishap. There can therefore be no right to kill a neonate that no longer poses a bodily threat or infringes on one's autonomy.

I agree with that argument up to a point (Again, I don’t think anybody here endorses a blanket ban on abortion.) but I think you’re stretching it past it’s limits. My problem is that I find it difficult to accept that pregnancy would suddenly become an intolerable imposition six or seven months down the line. Second, as mentioned, these fetuses had a roughly 90% chance of survival outside of the womb, anyway. Therefore, regardless of whether a D&X procedure is performed, or if the fetus is dismembered in the womb, a perfectly healthy baby is killed, unnecessarily.


Having said that, this story is and will be without a doubt spun to equate the termination of a 30 week (or older) fetus in a womb with infanticide of a neonate out of a womb…

It isn’t a spin, biologically speaking, there’s no significant difference.


- a comparison that depends on asigning moral importance only to the fetus/neonate and while denying the humanity and relevance of the woman.

No, it doesn’t.


Abortion is a case where location, in a womb or outside of one, truly matters, since it determines the presence or absence of a threat.

I have some trouble with this; that your ethical calculus rests entirely on physical location.

[TC]

We do not agree on the measurement of autonomy but this is an excellent post.

edit:
Unfortunately late term abortions are almost always birth inductions. Because insturmental abortions are just too much of a trauma inducing operations and carry a considerable risk of permanent damage. Medical evaluation is up until today that complications due to Instrumental abortions are three times as likely to cause direct and permanent harm to a mother as birth induction amongst other because of the increased risk of infections. To put it clinically...its harder to cut up a fetus when it gets larger, takes longer and errors therefore occur more often and it is harder to extract all parts of the fetus further increasing the chance to leave parts behind. This procedure is however not chosen when natural birth can constitute a threat to the mother. This is a medical argument.

Perhaps practices vary by region but in the United States many sources suggest that late term abortions are done by dilation and evacuation as standard.

In any case risks of harm to the pregnant woman (not "mother", you're only a mother if you give birth) is pretty negligible and always less than childbirth. That abortions are "dangerous" is a rightwing myth.



As such an argument pro full term abortion ...or perhaps to avoid confusion: termination in which the fetus/child (whatever) is killed...on the argument that this is safer than natural birth for the woman involved are not really a valid argument. (which is not to say that sometimes it is indeed safer as seeing the alternative medical implications it can have)



Of course it is. Childbirth has a mortality rate ten times greater than surgical abortion in the united states: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html

Moreover, the issue isn't merely one of risk of mortality, but the trauma from labor or a c-section and whether you like it or not, the reality is that its always going to be easier to get a fetus out if you don't need to ensure that it comes out alive and healthy, in one piece, with an intact cranium (and its still not as I understand it, totally clear when IDX abortions are legal and when they're banned "partial birth" abortions in the U.S. - it seems that it probably remains an option if the fetus isn't partially extracted first).





That leaves the question of autonomy.

Its also a question of forced bodily intimacy that you don't seem to appreciate. You could rape someone without physically damaging them but the violation of their body through forced intimacy is the principle psychic injury. Similarly a fetus represents an even more deeply intwined intimacy - it is nice for someone who wants one and horrifying to someone who doesn't.



And that is where we do not see eye to eye....as you know. So I am not going to argue that point again. However I did find a possible middle ground here.

The idea of any middle ground has always been a myth.


Also a medical argument is that a child after month 6 (so in moth 7 and further) has >90% survival rate outside the womb. Terminating a pregnancy if no medical threats are involved and seeing that birth induction is the safest and indeed most chosen way for late term abortion

A quick google search will suggest that that's just not accurate, at least not in the U.S.



...I do not see why this shouldn't or couldn't be used when a woman wants to end the pregnancy and involvement with the child.
See above.


Seeing as to it is medically very well possible and very likely that the child will survive.

Well, and be disabled and in the neonatal intensive care unit at millions of dollars cost. It is a pure fantasy to think that anyone could or that it would be socially allowable to voluntarily give birth to a substantially preterm neonate.



Now...what I am suggesting is that terminating a pregancy should always be legal and free and on demand. But that the methods chosen should be restricted (when no medical need is involved) after the 6th month. This leaves the woman autonomous in every way (still has the abortion option when medically needed)

No, it doesn't, it means that after 6th months you propose that she has to sacrifice her body and dignity of making choices about what happens to her body, for the sake of a non-thinking fetus.


and also not infringes on the autonomy of the child.

Fetuses have no autonomy, they are totally dependent on another organism. They also lack all experience and therefore any subjective reality and most up to date research suggests that they're actually 'asleep' until exposed to air at birth.


Furthermore I think that the right to terminate abortion is not something that should exist on its own...for it only gives the woman a choise between either having or not having the child and does not consider its social and economic implications and/or consequences within todays society. There is still the matter of economic dependency. It should therefore be accompanied by extensive laws to enable the right of women to chose to have babies independently from economic family units or ties.

Can you elaborate on "does not consider its social and economic implications and/or consequences within todays society." and when you think the right to abort should not exist? Because its hard to know if you mean simply that there should be additional rights or if you think that current rights should be contingent on those additional rights.

For what its worth, there is always a right to have a child with no economic or family ties, its called giving the child up for adoption, and its clearly not a solution to someone who doesn't want to go through the process of having a child at all.


edit3: this above medical info was given by a female (!!) doctor specialised in child birth.

A source we can't interrogate that seems to contradict most online like web md http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion (states D&E is standard in the U.S.), http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-topic-overview (states induction is "seldom used", lists D&E for late term abortion).

[ComradeMan]

It seems few female members and no doctors are actually discussing this issue.
;)

[Obzervi]

Calling them "babies" is reactionary and emotionalism. They are not babies, they are fetuses. A woman has a right to do with her body what she wishes.

[Obzervi]

You playing the whole empathy card here is ok I suppose, but please stop trying to claim some kind of leftist moral high ground here. These children are alive, outside the womb, and having their neck broken. There is no difference between killing them at that age versus waiting until their 5, is there?


A child at 5 has life experiences and is developed to the point it can be called a human being. A fetus can't even think yet and feels no pain.

[Obzervi]

Did you even understand the article? Birth was induced. The child was born...ALIVE...and THEN killed. That is NOT abortion. That is murder...and willfully undergoing those procedures is in fact accessory to murder.

This is exactly the same as carrying a child to full term, birth it and then snapping its neck.

Its disgusting that you even defend this as some form of womans right.

It can't survive without the mother anyway, it is a parasite. All in all though this idiot should have his license removed for malpractice. There are more humane ways to kill it without the need for scissors. The fetus should be killed in a humane way before it is pulled out anyway.

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps practices vary by region but in the United States many sources suggest that late term abortions are done by dilation and evacuation as standard.

In any case risks of harm to the pregnant woman (not "mother", you're only a mother if you give birth) is pretty negligible and always less than childbirth. That abortions are "dangerous" is a rightwing myth.

That may very well be possible. Practices can vary.

However...the risks are clinically established.

In late term up to the eight and a half month of pregnancy 2.3 to 3.5% of all abortions suffer some consequences in clean established medical conditions ranging from and varying in severity:
- puntucation & rupture
- continued bleeding
- infertility
- continued time to time pain sensations
- menstrual problems
- sensitivity to infections
- infection (usually sepsis)

Now I am not sure if I am using the right terminology...but your site mentiones the side effects as well. They mention them for all legal abortions. I am arguing that the sideeffect chances of ocmplications increase in the third semester.

--> side note: inserting a rod in the uterus is considered a minor medical procedure in the Nethrelands. Most women bleed upto 8 months and experience a lot of painflashes in that timeframe. Yet 1 in 100.000 women suffers from it. My girlfriend (before she was my girlfriend) was one of the lucky few who had to be hospitalized in the IC for two days in a near coma. This is simply entering a tube of about 0.5 inch in thickness into the uterus. Far from anything like an abortion.




Of course it is. Childbirth has a mortality rate ten times greater than surgical abortion in the united states: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html
Which you need something to do about. In Holland some 0.000125% of women die during childbirth. most of these women die after childbirth due to complications with preexisting heartconditions (63% of te cases) which would pretty much increase their risk during abortions as well.

from your article about abortion in all legal cases of abortion:



Death occurs in 0.0006% of all legal surgical abortions I think this pretty much proves that either your medical healthcare sucks or there is some very valid argument that I am making.
I haven't thoroughly read the site...but at first glance and search notice that they mainly speak about the safety of abortions in the first and second trimester. I do not contest those.

Before 13 weeks there seems to be a risk of serious hospitalizing required complications of 0,5%

The number 10 times greater is based on a book written in 1986. see footnote 5...but then again...the calculated risk of abortion is based on a book from 1999.




Moreover, the issue isn't merely one of risk of mortality, but the trauma from labor or a c-section and whether you like it or not, the reality is that its always going to be easier to get a fetus out if you don't need to ensure that it comes out alive and healthy, in one piece, with an intact cranium (and its still not as I understand it, totally clear when IDX abortions are legal and when they're banned "partial birth" abortions in the U.S. - it seems that it probably remains an option if the fetus isn't partially extracted first).Yes...but given the survival rates mentioned I think trauma is trumped by life.

I can not answer your question in "( ) " I am sorry. I don't know either.




Its also a question of forced bodily intimacy that you don't seem to appreciate. You could rape someone without physically damaging them but the violation of their body through forced intimacy is the principle psychic injury. Similarly a fetus represents an even more deeply intwined intimacy - it is nice for someone who wants one and horrifying to someone who doesn't. [quote]

This first part I agree with. The second part I have a real big problem with. After 7 months this is no longer the case in my opinion. When we assume no force or threat has been applied to the woman seeking the abortion solution during that time I feel that taking that long to decide if pregnancy is forced bodily intimacy is somewhat of the girls own responsibility in which she also has to take into consideration the fact that at somepoint it turns into a person.


[quote]The idea of any middle ground has always been a myth.Really? I find them everyday...and often very useful.




A quick google search will suggest that that's just not accurate, at least not in the U.S.


See above.
I avaraged the number in Holland its about 94%




Well, and be disabled and in the neonatal intensive care unit at millions of dollars cost. It is a pure fantasy to think that anyone could or that it would be socially allowable to voluntarily give birth to a substantially preterm neonate.




No, it doesn't, it means that after 6th months you propose that she has to sacrifice her body and dignity of making choices about what happens to her body, for the sake of a non-thinking fetus.
There is a lot of scientific debate about the fetus being able to think. As it has been established that the fetus can react to sensory input....for example: if poked the fetus wil react by shielding or retracting. That is cognitive behaviour. Baby's will also respond aggrevated (start kicking) if the mother exposes it to loud intrusive noise. All interaction results in increased higher brain function. It has also been shown that fetusses with open eyes can follow moving objects. Again these are clear signs of cognitive behaviour and not simple reflexes.



Fetuses have no autonomy, they are totally dependent on another organism. They also lack all experience and therefore any subjective reality and most up to date research suggests that they're actually 'asleep' until exposed to air at birth. Asleep isn't the same as non-cognitive now is it? And as I stated they are not totally dependend on another organism (but I will come to that again a bit later) since they can survive outside the womb in >90% of the cases. I do not argue it would significantly be better if they remained into the womb.

Developmental biology shows that there is no real significant diffence between a fetus at the 7th month of pregnancy and a just born baby. Its slightly better developed but only in the margins of about 3-4%

Now...there is also no real change in cognative behaviour from the moment of birth. Brain functions increase a little...but that could be accounted for more diverse stimuly being able to reach the child. The question is if birth distinguishes between sentience and non sentience then why isn't birth induced abortion with live birth the same?



Can you elaborate on "does not consider its social and economic implications and/or consequences within todays society." and when you think the right to abort should not exist? Because its hard to know if you mean simply that there should be additional rights or if you think that current rights should be contingent on those additional rights. I mean that there should be additional rights. when a woman decides to have a baby she is still economically dependent. In Holland we have a law that states that the father is obligated to provide financially even if there is a seperation. But te women is then solely dependable on the childsupport and teh problem with raising a child. This places severe restrictions on her ability to work since childcare is f* expensive :cursing: it also isolates her socially since there is very little ability to go out or have a social life.

Then there is also the real possibility that the father simply does not pay. (this is punishable but its often a lengthy procedure).

What I argue that freedom and autonomy are not only reached by abortion but that economic and social complications of having a child are equally restricting to equal rights.




For what its worth, there is always a right to have a child with no economic or family ties, its called giving the child up for adoption, and its clearly not a solution to someone who doesn't want to go through the process of having a child at all.

A source we can't interrogate that seems to contradict most online like web md http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion (states D&E is standard in the U.S.), http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-topic-overview (states induction is "seldom used", lists D&E for late term abortion).I have to read these...and I have little time for that now. I am sorry but I have to prepare for a trip tomorrow.

I agree with the first part of your post. But I have to do some more research into the Dutch standard into the way as I heard it from the friend I mentioned earlier. IF the standard is induction then that is what IMO should be done. If not...there is still the issue with the 7 month waiting period that I have a problem with.

edit: I do not think w oman should have to chose to have a baby and give it up for adoption if she can not provide for it herself. I have a real problem with that.

[PhoenixAsh]

A child at 5 has life experiences and is developed to the point it can be called a human being. A fetus can't even think yet and feels no pain.

O yes...a fetus feels pain. This has been established. After month 6 a fetus can register and react to sensory input. If you poke it it reacts to that annoyance by shielding or moving away. Now...if it experiences pain the same way...who can tell.

[PhoenixAsh]

It can't survive without the mother anyway, it is a parasite. All in all though this idiot should have his license removed for malpractice. There are more humane ways to kill it without the need for scissors. The fetus should be killed in a humane way before it is pulled out anyway.


most one, two, three, four and five years old can not survive without a parent or caregiver.

[PhoenixAsh]

Calling them "babies" is reactionary and emotionalism. They are not babies, they are fetuses. A woman has a right to do with her body what she wishes.

calling them parasites and designating them as things, objects and commodities is inhumane and anti-marxist. And indicating people who do not agree with you on scientific arguments are somehow reactionary is IMO bordering on... $%% (<-- insert random insult here)

you know what...I find your remarks so utter low and base...I am not even going to take the trouble in telling you why.

[NGNM85]

Calling them "babies" is reactionary and emotionalism. They are not babies, they are fetuses. A woman has a right to do with her body what she wishes.

You are merely advertizing how little you understand about the gestational process. First of all, the designation ‘fetus’ is not static, but refers to the entire process of gestation from around the 12th week of pregnancy until delivery. Second, the distinction between a ‘fetus’ at, say, the 30th week, and a ‘baby’ delivered in the 40th is virtually entirely semantic.


A child at 5 has life experiences and is developed to the point it can be called a human being. A fetus can't even think yet and feels no pain.

So, a mother should be able to terminate (Read; ‘kill.’) a child up until five years of age? I mean, you could take that position. Peter Singer, for example, has advocated terminating babies after birth. (Although, I think he would balk at killing a five-year-old.)However, I, personally, find this position morally and philosophically indefensible.



It can't survive without the mother anyway,

As mentioned, most children, even up to the age of ten, need substantial support and care. Second, the ‘fetuses’ in question had around a 90% chance of survival outside of the women’s bodies.



it is a parasite.

That is just rhetorical bullshit.


All in all though this idiot should have his license removed for malpractice. There are more humane ways to kill it without the need for scissors. The fetus should be killed in a humane way before it is pulled out anyway.

Or,… you know,… it could just be delivered and put up for adoption.

[Obzervi]

calling them parasites and designating them as things, objects and commodities is inhumane and anti-marxist. And indicating people who do not agree with you on scientific arguments are somehow reactionary is IMO bordering on... $%% (<-- insert random insult here)


Whats inhumane is your refusal to acknowledge a woman's right to her own body.






Or,… you know,… it could just be delivered and put up for adoption.

Supply of babies in need of a home will always outgrow demand. Abortion solves this problem while still allowing free and open sex within a society.

[9]

Originally Posted by 9 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1994717#post1994717)
Who knows, the fetuses carry the same legal weight as the woman.In the case of some fetuses, that makes sense. It depends on the fetus. I know you're allergic to facts, but in this case it's very important. The fetal stage is the period of gestation from the 11th week to birth. There is a substantial difference between a fetus at the 12th week and a fetus in the 35th week.

Do you not get it that I don't care? I genuinely do not give a shit. Call it a fetus, call it a child - this issue is totally beside the point. The point is that punishing these women does nothing to stop things like this from happening or to address the material circumstances that compel women to risk death in order to go through with things like this; all you and liberals like you are concerned with is sitting atop your moral high horse, making stupid semantic pronouncements, and condemning women in these desperate circumstances to rot in prison, as if going through what they have isn't punishment enough.

I'm not interested in debating with you; you obviously just don't get it at all.

[#FF0000]

i am pretty sure that people in here aren't defending what the doctor did as abortion, so I'm not sure what hindsight and NGM are arguing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Whats inhumane is your refusal to acknowledge a woman's right to her own body.

Yes...more rethorics...bla, bla, bla... :laugh: Give some actiual arguments with some form of content instead of advocating murder:



Originally Posted by Obzervi http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1995461#post1995461)
All in all though this idiot should have his license removed for malpractice. There are more humane ways to kill it without the need for scissors. The fetus should be killed in a humane way before it is pulled out anyway.




Supply of babies in need of a home will always outgrow demand. Abortion solves this problem while still allowing free and open sex within a society.

No...there really won't be seeing as to how demand for adoption far outweights third trimester abortions.

Perhaps free and open sex is then the problem...perhaps you should throw responsible in the mix... when, you know, its pretty much common knowledge you can get pregnant from sex.

...USE a freaking profilactict!! That would considerably bring down the amount of needed abortions in te first place.

However...that assumes you have a society that is somehwat not so :cursing: anal about sex as the US and sex-ed.

[Obzervi]

i am pretty sure that people in here aren't defending what the doctor did as abortion, so I'm not sure what hindsight and NGM are arguing.

Exactly, we are simply attempting to stop people from using this one instance as an excuse to ban all abortion.

[NGNM85]

Do you not get it that I don't care? I genuinely do not give a shit.

That’s obvious. Unfortunately, facts matter.


Call it a fetus, call it a child - this issue is totally beside the point.

It’s actually the heart of the matter, it’s the most important thing, and everything else follows from how we answer that question.


The point is that punishing these women…

I actually haven’t personally suggested any kind of punitive measure against these women. I’m not sure that’s necessary or constructive. I am, however, most certainly in favor of punishing this ‘doctor’ to the extent of the law.


…does nothing to stop things like this from happening…

Thankfully, cases like this are fairly rare. It’s rare because most women who want abortions can get them, I think it should be more available, it isn’t that expensive, but, if I had my way, we’d have a national healthcare program like every other industrialized country, and it would be totally free of charge.


…or to address the material circumstances that compel women to risk death in order to go through with things like this;

That’s completely unsubstantiated. The article only mentions one patient, specifically, there is no other information about all of the rest his patients. Again, over 75% of women in this country seeking abortions not only manage to have this procedure performed, they manage to have it performed within the first 10-11 weeks. I’m skeptical that these women had no other option, provided they had wanted to terminate the pregnancy for some time. It’s possible, but I’m not convinced, again, we can’t be sure either way. However, we can be sure that these fetuses/babies had around a 90% chance of survival on their own.


…all you and liberals like you

That might concern me if I thought, for a second, you even knew what the word meant.


…are concerned with is sitting atop your moral high horse, making stupid semantic pronouncements,

You’ve got it backwards, that’s what you’re doing.


…and condemning women in these desperate circumstances to rot in prison, as if going through what they have isn't punishment enough.

See above.


I'm not interested in debating with you; you obviously just don't get it at all.

You’ve never been interested in debate. Debate involves exchanging ideas, listening, and constructing cogent arguments, which usually involve citing facts.

[#FF0000]

NGM you should go back to Obs post on the second page.

Also can someone please answer my question as to what this debate is even about?

[PhoenixAsh]

NGM you should go back to Obs post on the second page.

Also can someone please answer my question as to what this debate is even about?

Yes...OP was attacked for not mentioning the woman who died and focussing on the fact that the babies were killed after birth. Some implied this was in fact abortion.

THen some others attacked those people. Someone said this wasn't the mothers fault. Others thought it may have been if they knew about the procedure. Then we started about when a person becomes a person...and infringing autonomies.

And then everybody called everybody reactionary...flamed for a little while. Managed this time to exchange some worthwhile information and arguments.

Then someone said he/she didn't care about arguments and said you either get it or you don't...which actually everybody thinks about everybody else about that last part.

And then someone managed to say that killing the born babies could have been done more humanely...and called everybody reactionary that didn't agree.

The point on which everybody agrees is that abortions should be legal and free and on demand in the first two trimesters. The point we disagree about is if it should be restricted (not banned) in third trimester when there is no involvement of force or threat or pressing medical need. Some also mentioned abortion should also be accompanied by social laws about child raising to make a woman free of economic dependency and still be a woman instead of just a mother 24/7...to which most agree but some economic cost issues were raised.

So basically,...we are having a pretty standard abortion debate.

And are currently on the issue if there is any biological difference between a born baby and a 7 month old baby. And when an individual becomes and individual....and in respect to methods of abortion is some satisfactory ground can be found within current science standards to adress infringing autonomies.

[NGNM85]

NGM you should go back to Obs post on the second page.

I didn’t respond because I decided he was just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and wasn’t taking the discussion very seriously. However, for what it’s worth, I already have answered his charge. As I said before; No, I don’t know the circumstances of these women, and neither does he. What I do know, is that they had around six months where they could have terminated their pregnancies for 300-900$ max. (One would imagine this doctor charged a similar amount, if not more.) That’s assuming they couldn’t get help from a number of organizations that help with this kind of thing, and their insurance didn’t provide any coverage, or they didn’t have insurance.


i am pretty sure that people in here aren't defending what the doctor did as abortion, so I'm not sure what hindsight and NGM are arguing.


Also can someone please answer my question as to what this debate is even about?

Actually, some of them are. 9, Widerstand, and TC are, explicitly, Nolan, at least, implicitly. This case in Philadelphia is really background. Like I said recently on the other abortion thread; Presumably, we’re all atheists, so nobody is endorsing or proposing a blanket ban on abortion. (As the only cogent arguments for doing so are religious in nature.) So, the heart of the argument is; what would a moral, rational scientific abortion policy look like? Specifically, the bone of contention is whether or not there should be any restriction on third-trimester abortions where there is no medical necessity.

[Palingenisis]

I support at least in theory time limits on abortion however I also live in the real world or try too. Late abortions will exist as long as this world exists in its present state. Where I live abortion is illegal but you can go to England once you have the money which condenms working class women and girls to relatively late abortions which I feel is unjust. People talk about pro-chioce but for a lot of working class women or girls its not a choice, its a necesscity. We need to remember that.

[Robert]

I support at least in theory time limits on abortion

If you do, and I do too, you get into a line-drawing problem, correct?

[9]

So, the heart of the argument is; what would a moral, rational scientific abortion policy look like? Specifically, the bone of contention is whether or not there should be any restriction on third-trimester abortions where there is no medical necessity.
Crafting abortion policy is the job of Democratic Party hacks, not of communists or anarchists.

Even Lenin, in spite of his obnoxious moralism on sexual issues, ultimately defends the communist position on abortion, which is:


Originally Posted by Lenin
...demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses.

[Blackscare]

So out of morbid curiosity, if you think that its murder, what do you think the women who had these abortions should be charged with? The ones who survived, that is.

The women apparently were kept sedated after the baby was removed/delivered and the babies were killed afterwards. I read that in an AP article, they said that the women mostly likely had no idea that they had even given birth to a live infant.




Listen, I know and everyone here knows besides a few OIers that these things (well, illegal abortions in terrible conditions) happen because of unfair laws. Keeping rows of severed baby feet in little jars on a shelf, however, do not.

[NGNM85]

Crafting abortion policy is the job of Democratic Party hacks, not of communists or anarchists.

I'm not a communist, so I won't comment on that. Anarchists are, generally, opposed to the way laws are made, and they are opposed to certain, specific laws, but they are not philosophically opposed to the concept of law. There's no reason to assume that homicide or pedophilia would be any more permissible in a Libertarian Socialist society. There would very likely be speed limits, and building safety codes, etc. The question is, as I said before; what is the moral, rational, and scientific way to handle abortion? I have offered my two cents, although, I'm perfectly willing to debate it.


Even Lenin, in spite of his obnoxious moralism on sexual issues, ultimately defends the communist position on abortion, which is:

First of all, I wouldn't take any cues from Lenin, ever. Second, I'm still not a communist. Third, this is just more shallow pronouncements. You cannot honestly expect anyone to accept these declarations at face value. If you want people to accept or embrace your ideas you have to be able to to explain them, and defend them.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Alright, a couple things,

This occured in Philadelphia. The whole "these women were pushed to do this because of their environment" or "you don't think about why women were doing this" in regard to killing infants and making it seem like they live in a society were abortions must be performed underground and out of sight is ridiculous. This didn't occur in Kansas, let alone some religious despot country, but in a place where the one restriction on abortion is that 24 hours prior a physician must inform the patient of what the procedure entails (ie you call the clinic and they fill you in). If that is not satisfactory, it's about a $30 train ride to NJ or Baltimore. After months and months of pregnancy it makes one question the sanity of anyone who would wait until the infant was born to do away with it, but that's just me.

These women had labor, then gave birth to a child. Instead of giving the infant away for adoption (you can find out about this amazing, and suprisingly not new, process here (http://pregnancy.adoption.com/pregnant/exploring-adoption.html)) they decided to have the infants neck snapped. I do not see how dropping the infant off somewhere (anywhere there's people, really) is not the go-to option when dealing with a living infant, but that's just me.

As Blackscare points out, the women were often sedated and may not have been privvy to what this doc was doing. That is a valid point and should be considered when, or if, judging these women comes about. However, it shouldnt take 8 months to get around to that abortion. Should be rather high on the to do list.


I do have a question, though. Let's suppose, as some have suggested, that this practice of ending the life of a fetus outside the womb is ok, then why do it immediately? Can't we at least wait for these fetuses to mature ever so slightly so their organs can be used by young human children of roughly the same age? Because they are destined to have their neck snapped anyway, does it not make sense to at least wait until they can provide enough fertilizer to justify the labor that was induced? Perhaps we should agree that until roughly 4 years old, the fetus cannot survive on it's own and should be used to supply organs to the young human beings before it becomes, on default, a human being because it has the potential to survive on it's own and stop being a parasite.


PS Didn't mean that I don't care about Nepalese refugees dying, just that men and women die all the time. Let's face it, had this story been about a women dying in childbirth none of us would give a flying fuck except to use her as a poster child to bash our healthcare system. However, babies getting their necks snapped is what got everyones attention and the main focus of this story in my humble opinion.

[Blackscare]

These women had labor, then gave birth to a child. Instead of giving the infant away for adoption (you can find out about this amazing, and suprisingly not new, process here) they decided to have the infants neck snapped.

No, like I said, that is not the case:


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.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/signup/Article_2011-01-19-Abortion%20Clinic%20Investigation/id-312520a4a8e04fb080ffee8ddf43c803


But hey, way to not fully read about a topic you posted yourself and jump onto the typical right-wing blame-the-victim line of argument. Maybe next time when you try to pin hideous shit on dead women you can read a little more.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I edited my post, you made a very valid point.

However, the victim here is the newborn child who's life was ended.

[Blackscare]

I edited my post, you made a very valid point.

However, the victim here is the newborn child who's life was ended.

And the many women with perforated uteruses (uteri?), the dead women, the women lied to regarding the nature and legality of their abortions, etc. Having a procedure that you disagree with doesn't mean you can just write off all the suffering these people went through.


Stop with this moralizing "the victim" bullshit, there are multiple victims here. The beheaded babies are victims, many women are victims. Saying the "real" victim was the baby is just a roundabout way of saying the women involved deserved what they got.

[Milk Sheikh]

Even Lenin, in spite of his obnoxious moralism

Could you please provide some examples of this 'obnoxious moralism' of his? Thanks in advance.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah you're right I was wrong to blame the women in this case, no matter how delusional they may have been. I do not think they should be charged with anything but rather should be used as a lesson for what people will agree to when they are desperate. It is unfortunate that these women did not do proper research into what was going on with their body, which in 21st century Philly isn't an issue, and led them towards breaking the law and having their newborn children killed. That being said, they are not completely without fault and should, at least in perception, be held responsible in some light. Ignorance can only be used to cover ones ass up to a certain point, after that it is clear that they were merely hearing what they wanted to and didn't raise an issue.

[PhoenixAsh]

The women apparently were kept sedated after the baby was removed/delivered and the babies were killed afterwards. I read that in an AP article, they said that the women mostly likely had no idea that they had even given birth to a live infant.

Listen, I know and everyone here knows besides a few OIers that these things (well, illegal abortions in terrible conditions) happen because of unfair laws. Keeping rows of severed baby feet in little jars on a shelf, however, do not.

Thanx for the information. :thumbup1:

If these women were lied to into believing they were pregnant shorter than they were and/or about the procedure and the live births than its very clearly obviously for anybody that they are in no way to blame or responsible and are indeed victims.

[ComradeMan]

Calling them "babies" is reactionary and emotionalism. They are not babies, they are fetuses. A woman has a right to do with her body what she wishes.

Sorry but this is a subject charged with feelings and emotions- however...

a) the point in the OP does not refer to a foetus.

b) prematurely born "foetuses" survive- and are babies...

The record for the smallest premature baby to survive was held for some time by Madeline Mann, who was born at 26 weeks weighing 9.9 oz (280 g) and 9.5 inches (24.13 cm) long.[93] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-92) This record was broken in September 2004 by Rumaisa Rahman, who was born in the same hospital[94] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-93) at 25 weeks gestation. At birth, she was eight inches (20 cm) long and weighed 244 grams (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gram) (8.6 ounces (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ounce)). Her twin sister was also a small baby, weighing 563 grams (1 pound 4 ounces) at birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable.[22] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-developinghuman-21) According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Weeks_of_gestation) survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[23] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-22) It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive.[22] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-developinghuman-21)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus#Week_16_to_25

I suggest some people commenting here go back to biology class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"How late in pregnancy abortions should be permitted and carried out is a matter of great controversy among almost everyone – except the women who need them." - Marge Berer, editor of Reproductive Health Matters

[Obs]

I didn’t respond because I decided he was just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and wasn’t taking the discussion very seriously.
Fuck me, Sherlock.

[Mindtoaster]

While I am completely pro-choice and also opposed to legally punishing the women that went through with this... Why bother getting an illegal abortion at all if you're going to go through the trauma of child birth anyway?

[NGNM85]

Fuck me, Sherlock.

Thank you for proving my point.