Abortion as Murder.

[BenNatuf]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

 

[Tank]

I noticed everyone who supports abortion, has already been born.

 

[TossObama]

Of course abortion is murder. However psychopaths seem to think pregnancy is simply a wad of cells like a tree that can be cut down without notice or concern.

Have you ever noticed who is working in abortion clinics? CATHOLICS. Talk about another con job where the right hand is hidden from the left hand. Don't believe one word, not one word that comes from the Vatican, a Bishop or any Parish that claims the church is opposed to abortion. Look behind the scenes and do some historical research. What the Vatican claims in public is NOT what is going on behind the scenes. EWTN, the Catholic tv network even interviewed the Catholic nurses who have deliberately chosen to work in abortion clinics. They claimed they are keeping an eye on everything.

I cannot even imagine the caliber of wimp who would promote or design the murder of babies. Those psychopaths want and need a victim who can't fight back.

If those criminals were, say, walking down a public street and you were walking with your Granny, and they tried to give you a spill that Granny is just a wad of cells and it's ok to get rid of her, would you let it happen or would you fight? They aren't going to approach you with some nutty crazy garbage like that because they know full well they would be beaten to a pulp right there in front of everyone.

We have places for criminals who commit murder. Cages. They don't belong roaming in the public and certainly don't belong in medicine. Period.

Women have become so propagandized, so downright crazy and so full of hormones to make them artificial females that many of them ignore the fact they are engaging in murder in exchange for their supposed "freedoms". Where did that rubbish come from? Every single claim made by the abortionists and so-called "feminists" is stuff you'd hear from perverts and death row inmates.

So tell me, where in this country has any of those hideous ideas made a positive change in any way? Looks to me like it's done the opposite.

What we have is a country awash in screwing monkeys who seek "fulfillment" in abortion clinics as if those clinics were like gas stations. Ya pull in, pay the clerk, get your fumes and off you go all "fulfilled".

Finally, I can remember when those crazies were standing on street corners telling everyone they had to limit the size of their families because we were supposedly over populated. Smart people recognized that was one fat lie, but ignorant people really grabbed onto that false claim and now country after country doesn't even have enough of it's own citizenry to support the country. So what then? Well, in waltzed -- massive immigration. Shifting populations of people who lived in goat skin tents pitched on the desert sands, right on down to South and Central Americans came flooding over borders. Boy, now that was a real fix to a dilemma, huh.

And the key point in time was -- abortion.

 

[BenNatuf]

hey dipshit

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.

at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

 

[Kat]

For those who claim abortion is a medical procedure and is not killing an innocent human being I have a question.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

would these children have been any less viable had this piece of human trash cut them up in utero as opposed to after birth? If Roe is the standard, and the standard it sets is "viability", how is a fetus, any fetus, unviable after about 4 1/2 months of pregnancy? All of them are viable given proper medical care, so what is the difference between murdering them in utero or out?

Philly Abortion Doctor Facing 8 Counts Of Murder CBS Philly – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Philadelphia

 

[Anguille]

hey dipshit

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.

at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

It's "canard" Not "kinard".

 

[TossObama]

hey dipshit

Gosnell is facing charges of murder in the third degree for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. Mrs. Mongar died on November 20, 2009, when she was overdosed with anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell. He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who were killed after being born viable and alive during the sixth, seventh, or eighth month of pregnancy. Gosnell is also facing numerous other charges.

at least presents the whole facts...

Hey gooball, listen up.

Murder is murder. An unborn child happens to be "viable" -- a word YOU do not comprehend. The unborn is not a wad of cells like something that rubbed off your body onto your mattress. The unborn child is a growing human being, a person.

Twist it anyway you choose, pervert words and meanings and attach them inappropriately to any ignoramus who will listen to you and believe your guff. But you will never escape the fact abortion is murder, the deliberate and planned killing of another human being.

You want to distinguish murder only as defined in your posting? Really? Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.

 

[BenNatuf]

hey dipshit



at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

It's "canard" Not "kinard".

I should give a shit? Sorry pal, I don't really give a shit about grammar nazi's.

BTW, it's "not", not, "Not".

 

[Anguille]

Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.

This board could sure use more edumacated people like you.


Where did you attend school? Clown U.?

 

[Anguille]

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

It's "canard" Not "kinard".

I should give a shit? Sorry pal, I don't really give a shit about grammar nazi's.

BTW, it's "not", not, "Not".

Nonetheless, you seem a little miffed.

BTW That would be spelling nazi, Not grammer nazi.

 

[BenNatuf]

hey dipshit



at least presents the whole facts...

you should yes, the story also sates he's killed possibly 100's of live born babies some as young as 4 1/2 month. So maybe instead of raising false kinards you might actually answer the question and enlighten us all as to what exactly is the difference is between chopping up a viable fetus in utero or out? The fetus is no less viable and using Roe being viable cannot be aborted. Given current medical science all fetus' in any normal pregnancy are viable after about 4 1/2 months, so even using Roe's criteria all are persons deserving of protection from the state.

The key word is Live BORN babies. When a baby/fetus/it is born from the mother it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.
the difference is one is still inside the mother, and the other is not. I know this is really sad to see people like you struggle with such a simple concept.

The simple fact unless tax payer money is being used to cover said costs, its none of your business. its up to the Mother, father and doctor in private to decide.

If you and others can't understand this simple concept, well then there is no hope for you.

You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.

 

[BenNatuf]

hey dipshit



at least presents the whole facts...

Hey gooball, listen up.

Murder is murder. An unborn child happens to be "viable" -- a word YOU do not comprehend. The unborn is not a wad of cells like something that rubbed off your body onto your mattress. The unborn child is a growing human being, a person.

Twist it anyway you choose, pervert words and meanings and attach them inappropriately to any ignoramus who will listen to you and believe your guff. But you will never escape the fact abortion is murder, the deliberate and planned killing of another human being.

You want to distinguish murder only as defined in your posting? Really? Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.

hey fucktard the fetus is nothing more than a parasite.
You are a wad of cells you moron, and given your name and post here, you are worth about as much as jizz rag.

i dont care if you want to call it killing. In the eyes of the law its not, and in my eyes its none of your stupid fucks business.

I am not seeing your education here....Must be missing like an aborted fetus.

In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's "canard" Not "kinard".

I should give a shit? Sorry pal, I don't really give a shit about grammar nazi's.

BTW, it's "not", not, "Not".

Nonetheless, you seem a little miffed.

BTW That would be spelling nazi, Not grammer nazi.

What's a fucking "grammer"?

 

[BenNatuf]

The key word is Live BORN babies. When a baby/fetus/it is born from the mother it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.
the difference is one is still inside the mother, and the other is not. I know this is really sad to see people like you struggle with such a simple concept.

The simple fact unless tax payer money is being used to cover said costs, its none of your business. its up to the Mother, father and doctor in private to decide.

If you and others can't understand this simple concept, well then there is no hope for you.

You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.

are you a fucking retard?
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.

nevermind strike that, you are a fucking retard.

Please continue to enlighten us with your made up bullshit. perhaps if you actually read Roe you might get a clue... though it would seem you may lack the comprehension skills for even that. The test in Roe for whether or not the state has an interest in preserving the life is not birth, its viability, in or out of the womb. That would be why 3rd trimester abortions are pretty much ILLEGAL dumbass.

 

[BenNatuf]

hey fucktard the fetus is nothing more than a parasite.
You are a wad of cells you moron, and given your name and post here, you are worth about as much as jizz rag.

i dont care if you want to call it killing. In the eyes of the law its not, and in my eyes its none of your stupid fucks business.

I am not seeing your education here....Must be missing like an aborted fetus.

In the eyes of the law the theory is untested in court given current medical science. And sadly, not likely to be tested any time soon. But do keep spewing from your mouth whatever shit backs up from your ass.

then change the law, till then shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.

That seems fair.

No, it hasn't. And if "shut the fuck up and mind your own business" is the extent of your debating skill... well, it's pretty laughable. The baby is not "their body" it is a seperate and distinct human being by any deffinition. That however is not the issue, the issue here is the legality of killing a viable fetus. When you finally wrap your mind around that (could be a while... I know), let us know.

 

[BenNatuf]

are you a fucking retard?
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.

nevermind strike that, you are a fucking retard.

Please continue to enlighten us with your made up bullshit. perhaps if you actually read Roe you might get a clue... though it would seem you may lack the comprehension skills for even that. The test in Roe for whether or not the state has an interest in preserving the life is not birth, its viability, in or out of the womb. That would be why 3rd trimester abortions are pretty much ILLEGAL dumbass.

if that was the case then why not 1st and 2nd be illegal as well?
Most people consider it ok to make it illegal if the fetus can survive outside the womb. Hence why 3rd trimesters are illegal.I find nothing wrong with that. with the advancing of technology abortions will become less and less. The odds that a woman cant figure out if she wants an abortion by the 3rd is perhaps what? 0.01% if that of cases? Most likely there is a problem where the mother may die or incest or rape.

again, mind your own business.

The SCOTUS set up the trimester system in an age when it was thought unlikely that a fetus would ever be viable before the third trimester. Medical science has proven them wrong. Given that the test of whether the state has an interest in preserving the life of an unborn is viability, should the law be changed to reflect the new reality? BTW, the SCOTUS in Roe determined the state DOES have an interest in preserving viable fetus', so as a citizen of the state, it is my business.

 

[TossObama]

Get smart before you try that. Some of us have had a formal education.

This board could sure use more edumacated people like you.


Where did you attend school? Clown U.?

The University I attended certainly wasn't Murder University.

 

[TossObama]

Please continue to enlighten us with your made up bullshit. perhaps if you actually read Roe you might get a clue... though it would seem you may lack the comprehension skills for even that. The test in Roe for whether or not the state has an interest in preserving the life is not birth, its viability, in or out of the womb. That would be why 3rd trimester abortions are pretty much ILLEGAL dumbass.

if that was the case then why not 1st and 2nd be illegal as well?
Most people consider it ok to make it illegal if the fetus can survive outside the womb. Hence why 3rd trimesters are illegal.I find nothing wrong with that. with the advancing of technology abortions will become less and less. The odds that a woman cant figure out if she wants an abortion by the 3rd is perhaps what? 0.01% if that of cases? Most likely there is a problem where the mother may die or incest or rape.

again, mind your own business.

The SCOTUS set up the trimester system in an age when it was thought unlikely that a fetus would ever be viable before the third trimester. Medical science has proven them wrong. Given that the test of whether the state has an interest in preserving the life of an unborn is viability, should the law be changed to reflect the new reality? BTW, the SCOTUS in Roe determined the state DOES have an interest in preserving viable fetus', so as a citizen of the state, it is my business.

If the pre-born was not viable, it would be dead, it would not grow.

Looks to me like a bunch of idiots decided to twist and turn the meaning of the word "viable" and political hacks on the Court fell for it. Any country bumkin knows what "viable" really is. Anyone who has ever planted a grapefruit tree from a dry seemingly dead seed knows what "viable" is.

"Viable" is living. Got that? All those skin cells in your mattress aren't "viable". They aren't living.

Abortion boils down to murder based on, for whatever reason, an unwanted pregnancy. It is NOT about "viability" and never has been about "viability". That's just a catch phrase idiots designed. In fact, if you actually look at the commentary used by abortionists and supporters of abortion you will see it's full of twisted commentary and it was deliberately designed to be such.

What WE need is a massive clean-up in the Courts.

 

[BenNatuf]

then change the law, till then shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
Im sure the theory has been tested, but i dont care enough to go looking.....its not that important to me, nothing is going to change anyways.
Ill strike a deal with you, You can call tell women what to do with their bodies, so long as those women in return get to hit you in the face with a baseball bat each time you decide if they should have the kid or not.

That seems fair.

No, it hasn't. And if "shut the fuck up and mind your own business" is the extent of your debating skill... well, it's pretty laughable. The baby is not "their body" it is a seperate and distinct human being by any deffinition. That however is not the issue, the issue here is the legality of killing a viable fetus. When you finally wrap your mind around that (could be a while... I know), let us know.

where is the fetus located dipshit...?
What do you have to go through in order to see the fetus?
Who needs who? The mother doesnt need the fetus.

Simple shit...

So your argument has devolved into an argument about where children can be legally killed and whether you can see them? Will the house do? A nice park perhaps? Thats pretty weak. BTW dumbass, need is irrellevant, a baby needs its mother long after its born. Should she still be able to kill it? If this is the best you can do at logical reasonning maybe you should take up a new hobby? How are you at basket weaveing?

 

[BenNatuf]

if that was the case then why not 1st and 2nd be illegal as well?
Most people consider it ok to make it illegal if the fetus can survive outside the womb. Hence why 3rd trimesters are illegal.I find nothing wrong with that. with the advancing of technology abortions will become less and less. The odds that a woman cant figure out if she wants an abortion by the 3rd is perhaps what? 0.01% if that of cases? Most likely there is a problem where the mother may die or incest or rape.

again, mind your own business.

The SCOTUS set up the trimester system in an age when it was thought unlikely that a fetus would ever be viable before the third trimester. Medical science has proven them wrong. Given that the test of whether the state has an interest in preserving the life of an unborn is viability, should the law be changed to reflect the new reality? BTW, the SCOTUS in Roe determined the state DOES have an interest in preserving viable fetus', so as a citizen of the state, it is my business.

id leave it up to the states to decide on changing those laws.
If you want to remove the fetus from the mother instead of aborting it, ok who's paying for that?
I doubt the mother will be, she just wanted to abort it.
Engineering a fetus from a few weeks to 9 months is going to be costly. I mean hey, i will gladly take all your money and other prolifers to pay for it.

Some people want to bash the neighbor with a hammer... so what? Her wishes are irrellevant, she has no right to kill. The states cannot change the laws to reflect the new reality unless Roe is either revisitted or overturned. So, in the meantime, according to the very test Roe set up, we are killing persons the state has an interest in protecting.