Abortion as Murder.

[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.

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.

I agree 100%. This case however exposes the flaw in the viability argument the SCOTUS set up. As according to their own decission a viable fetus is a person the state has an interest in protecting. So using their own test, it should be clearly illegal to abort after 4 1/2 months.

 

[Anguille]

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"?

A type of kinard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

What's your excuse?

 

[BenNatuf]

For anyone who chooses i would like to see some cogent response to how the fact that medical science has progressed to the point that virtually every fetus that is the product of a normal preganancy is viable at 4 1/2months does not create an inconsistancy in Roe's mechanics. Roe stated quite clearly that the state does have an interest in protecting the life of viable persons, thats why they set up the mechanics of the trimester system. At the time virtually no baby born at less than 8 months lived. Now, children are born regularly and survive at 4 1/2 months showing conclusively that medical science has changed the point of viability considerably. If the states interest in protecting viable persons that Roe set up is to be honored, how is the trimester system consistant with it?

This case may highlight that inconsistancy and force the courts to revisit Roe if they wish to remain consistant with it. If the state has an interest in protecting viable persons then the trimester system prevents them from doing so.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

Pretty self-explanatory.

You're makin' somethin' out of nothin'.

 

[whitehall]

Think about it people. It wasn't a "botched" abortion. The full term babies were stabbed to death after they were born. The dirty little secret about "partial birth abortion" is the fact that it isn't about the health of the mother. Why would technicians turn the baby upside down in the birth canal to cause what they used to call a "breach birth" in a seemingly unnecessary and painful procedure to the mother? A glitch in the manslaughter law allows a baby to be killed inches away from a successful birth if it's head remains in the birth canal long enough to be stabbed to death. The doctor in question who ran the "horribly smelling" "slaughter house" of an abortion clinic in Pa is accused of the cold blooded murder of at least sevan infants who laid helpless on a table. Who could stab living puppies to death much less human beings? His wife and 9 other employees are also charged.

 

[frazzledgear]

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...

I don't understand what you think was not presented fully. Do you even know what "viable" means? It means the child will likely live if born at that time -that is all it means. It means forcing the baby to be born early won't kill it -it will just be born early! What is it you think amounts to extenuating circumstances in the above? The fact these children were forced to be born during the 6th, 7th or 8th month of pregnancy? Think that makes them less human somehow? Not quite real people for you? My youngest son was born when I was just 26 weeks pregnant, was 11 1/2" long and weighed exactly 2 lbs. and immediately cried! Tiny, born extremely premature, a human being -and EXQUISITELY sensitive to pain. That is because the nerve endings of someone born that prematurely are just a few cell layers right below the surface of the skin and the fat layer that will later help cover them not yet developed. A needle stick would cause his heart rate to nearly double and his blood pressure to drop. So if you convinced yourself that these not quite human "things" who don't really feel pain -not the least bit true. They actually feel pain much more acutely than a full term baby does. But see -they are supposed to still be inside and protected from pain at that point in their development so it normally doesn't matter that their nerve endings are so close to the surface of their paper thin skin. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that when they are that young and still in the womb being ripped apart doesn't hurt a bit. All babies lose weight after their birth before they start gaining again -my son dropped to 1 lb. 9 oz. before he started gaining weight. So for a while he was even tinier than when he was born!

My extremely prematurely born son is a totally normal 22 year old college student today. Was he really less human just because he was smaller and younger than a full term baby? Wouldn't that also mean a 4 year old is actually more human than a 2 year old who is smaller? And a 15 year old more human than a 12 year old? If my extremely premature baby wasn't yet quite "human" -exactly when did he become "human"? I mean its not like someone has a guppy in there until a magical day when it turns into a human -so when does the "human being" thing kick in for you here? I have never yet met any parent of an extremely premature baby who supports abortion -because they KNOW for a fact it is a living child no matter how small it is having seen their own tiny child with their own eyes at a time it should not yet have been born -but was anyway and can no longer deny it is a real human being and a person in its own right. One that owns its OWN life and no one else. Abortion is really THE worst and very lethal form of age discrimination.

This monster deliberately forced the birth of viable fetuses who were born alive. Once born no baby is a "fetus" -they are babies. And when they are born alive they are also citizens of the US with the identical right to keep its life as YOU have. Forcing a child to be born is not an "abortion" -it is a human being's BIRTH and he KNEW that even if he forced them to be born then -they would live. AND DID. That is what "viable" means -it means if they are born at that time -they will likely LIVE. They did and their birth day was just earlier than it would have been if left alone. Remember other posts discussing when citizenship occurs? IT OCCURS AT BIRTH -regardless of whether it is a premature birth or not. Premature babies are citizens too and these were just premature babies -and citizens too. With the same right to keep their life as YOU have! And because they were living, breathing babies instead of dead ones like he wanted - he murdered them by sticking scissors into their backs to cut their spinal cord below the base of the skull. I hope you aren't suggesting that because he forced an early birth on these living, breathing children it somehow means they were still "not quite human" for you. If so, I would find that very bizarre, inhumane, disgusting and totally morally bankrupt frankly. There are about 500,000 children born prematurely every year who are born anywhere from several months early to several weeks early -the vast majority of whom go on to have normal lives.

I do know the hard core pro-abortion people would insist its really not that big of a deal he murdered these children -and the reason why is because he had a malignant purpose for forcing them to be born early and hoped they would die even though he knew they probably wouldn't. Killing even viable (which means WOULD LIVE IF BORN THEN) babies before or during birth is something the hard core pro-abortion people approve of anyway -so it somehow "cleanses" the murders for them when he went ahead and murdered them when the babies disappointed him by living!

The people who would see no big deal here are probably the very same ilk who go absolutely bonkers at the idea of a fucking chicken living in a crowded hen house -but place zero value on the shared humanity of babies being murdered before, during or after their birth.

I almost threw up reading this article, not just about this monster murdering babies but even the description of the abattoir he was operating. Dozens of baby feet cut off and lined up on a shelf? Blood and urine stained areas? Obviously none of these monsters who were arrested even have a conscience or they would never have been able to sleep at night. If a jury places no more value on his life than he did for these children, I won't lose any sleep.

Which is another reason I could never be a liberal. They got it totally backwards about who has really earned a death penalty among our species. They think the innocent and very young should be deprived of their lives for the "crime" of being conceived and merely EXISTING and that inconveniencing mommy is worthy of death. But will take to the street waving signs chanting and demanding that someone who held an entire family hostage, raped and sodomized the 4 year old for hours and then burned the entire family alive be spared the death penalty for a crime he CHOSE to commit KNOWING full well it was a death penalty offense and did it anyway. I have far more respect for those who oppose both the death penalty and abortion - while I have come to realize those who support abortion but oppose the death penalty are both morally bankrupt and likely mentally ill.

Think this baby in this picture is waiting to see which monster of his own species is going cut his spinal cord with a pair of scissors? His gestational age is about 6 months here but if a human being is a small one, its not a real murder to kill this child? How about if it was stuck into him a few seconds before he took his first breath earlier this same day? THAT work for you as "not a real murder" as long as he hasn't been born yet? Which means if some monster is quick enough to stick him before the child is born its fine and dandy with you to stick scissors into a kid like this as long as its inside the mother? Pretty revolting position on its own. But this guy didn't do that. He did it to one child after another who looked like THIS one.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

First of all, this is about someone who DID kill babies after they were born -and therefore "real" people in the eyes of the law!

Funny how it is most likely to be Democrats who insist abortion is "none of your business". It is the EXACT same thing Democrats also said about slavery -and in fact felt so strongly it was no one else's business they seceded from the Union upon the election of a Republican anti-slavery President. Yes, Democrats are the party of death today and slavery in the past. There is NO cleansing the filthy history of Democrats -although some like Hillary Clinton have tried by LYING and claiming the revolting and filthy history of the Democrat Party actually belongs to Republicans and THEY own that of Republicans. But you have to be a really ignorant MORON to fall for it.

Does repeating that line REALLY work for you when it comes to the life of another human? If so then it is equally appropriate to say the same thing about incest, child abuse and domestic violence. Hey -if it isn't YOUR child being raped or YOUR wife being beaten, it isn't any of your damn business either so BUTT OUT! Especially if it isn't YOUR tax dollars being used for their medical care, right!

It isn't my child being killed and it isn't my tax dollars being used to kill that child -but with that attitude watching my neighbor's kid get snatched off the street isn't my kid either -so why bother calling police when it means my tax dollars would be used to try and find that kid? The killing of another human being is the concern of all of us as a species and for any moral society. YOU are simply quibbling about the AGE of the individual being killed. And I refuse to. If that amounts to you having "no hope" for me as the left would define it-then THANK GOD for that!

(BTW -the law NEVER allows the father to have ANY say about whether his child will be killed or not. NOT EVER. WOMEN own the reproductive rights of men and men have NO reproductive rights whatsoever under our laws. Have you really never researched why it is that the number one cause of death among pregnant women since shortly after Roe v. Wade is HOMICIDE and nearly always at the hands of the father of her unborn child? Interestingly, the number one cause of death for pregnant women prior to Roe v. Wade was ALWAYS complications of pregnancy. Not any more though -its MURDER. My, aren't we just doing a WONDERFUL job of evolving as a species? ROFL)

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

You people got off track. This isn't about someone who killed a viable FETUS -an unborn child who would live if born at that time. He forced the baby to be born FIRST knowing it would likely survive its birth and live. When they did live and were breathing, living citizens of this country with the same right to keep their life this guy had -he MURDERED THEM. The fact he forced them to be born early is IRRELEVANT. They were living, breathing children who survived their premature birth he forced on them -and because they didn't die from being born early -he killed them by stabbing them with scissors and cutting their spinal cords. AFTER they born and were BREATHING, LIVING CHILDREN. THAT is why he was arrested. THAT is MURDER. He wasn't arrested because he killed a viable fetus while it was inside the mother -but because he killed living, breathing babies AFTER they were born!

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

Pretty self-explanatory.

You're makin' somethin' out of nothin'.

Forcing a baby to be born prematurely is NOT an abortion! It is inducing BIRTH. An abortion is the killing of a fetus BEFORE it is born and BEFORE it takes its first breath. Because any baby that takes even ONE breath is a CITIZEN of this country. It is why even late term abortions are done BEFORE the child is born and BEFORE it is allowed to take its first breath. If you deliberately kill ANY baby that is BREATHING, it is MURDER. Not an abortion. There is NO SUCH THING as killing a fetus after it is born because once it is born it is a BABY and not a fetus. What law exists that allows anyone to deliberately kill a living, breathing BABY? A "baby" is not determined by its gestational age and is NEVER determined by whether the person who delivered it wants it dead or not -but ONLY by whether it is born or not. If it is born, it is NEVER a fetus again. If that baby is alive -he committed MURDER when he took a pair of scissors, stabbed it in the back and cut its spinal cord in order to MURDER it.

This guy forced babies to be born prematurely -which is NOT an abortion and is just forcing them to be born prematurely. They inconveniently refused to die and kept on living and breathing just like hundreds of thousands of other premature babies born in this country every year. Because they refused to die - he MURDERED THEM. It is why he was arrested for MURDER and not for performing late term abortions! When you deliberately kill a living, breathing child, no matter its age -it is NEVER an abortion, it is always a MURDER. Even if you forced it to be born early hoping it would die -when it refuses to die and keeps living and breathing the law says NO ONE has the right to kill that child any more than they have the right to kill YOU.

 

[frazzledgear]

Think about it people. It wasn't a "botched" abortion. The full term babies were stabbed to death after they were born. The dirty little secret about "partial birth abortion" is the fact that it isn't about the health of the mother. Why would technicians turn the baby upside down in the birth canal to cause what they used to call a "breach birth" in a seemingly unnecessary and painful procedure to the mother? A glitch in the manslaughter law allows a baby to be killed inches away from a successful birth if it's head remains in the birth canal long enough to be stabbed to death. The doctor in question who ran the "horribly smelling" "slaughter house" of an abortion clinic in Pa is accused of the cold blooded murder of at least sevan infants who laid helpless on a table. Who could stab living puppies to death much less human beings? His wife and 9 other employees are also charged.

There is actually NO SUCH THING as a medical need to deliberately kill an unborn child in order to save the life of the mother. In this day and age to pretend that is a legitimate medical situation is one of THE biggest lies going. Doctors will try to save the life of BOTH of their patients. There are only times when they must deliver a baby early which puts its life at risk and which they may not survive because they are too premature - but they will NEVER deliberately kill the baby to save the life of the mother and there is NO medical situation that exists where deliberately killing the baby is ever required. There are only women who carried a child until it is ready to survive on its own who suddenly decide they want that child DEAD -and doctors willing to oblige them. For the right price of course.

 

[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.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/

Pretty self-explanatory.

You're makin' somethin' out of nothin'.

So in other words you can't answer the question. Got it. Pretty simple really, you're deflecting to nothing.

 

[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.

You people got off track. This isn't about someone who killed a viable FETUS -an unborn child who would live if born at that time. He forced the baby to be born FIRST knowing it would likely survive its birth and live. When they did live and were breathing, living citizens of this country with the same right to keep their life this guy had -he MURDERED THEM. The fact he forced them to be born early is IRRELEVANT. They were living, breathing children who survived their premature birth he forced on them -and because they didn't die from being born early -he killed them by stabbing them with scissors and cutting their spinal cords. AFTER they born and were BREATHING, LIVING CHILDREN. THAT is why he was arrested. THAT is MURDER. He wasn't arrested because he killed a viable fetus while it was inside the mother -but because he killed living, breathing babies AFTER they were born!

Not off track at all as the question is how it is any different legally to kill an unborn child in the person of a viable fetus whether or not the child is still in the womb. Does where a child is when you kill it make that much of a difference? certainly the child is no different, in either case it is viable. This will test Roe and may force the courts to revisit it if for no other reason than to at minimum update its mechanics to reflect current medical technology regarding viability.

 

[High_Gravity]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

 

[Bern80]

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.

No one is seeing your 'education' either. You're right though, it is a very simple concept. Murder is murder is murder is murder. You say it's no one's business but yours? Well in every other case of the killing of an innocent human being the state has decided it is indeed someone elses business. There are only two ways to even attempt to legally or morally justify abortion. 1) You define a whatever you want to call it in the womb as somthing less than a person or human being for the whole nine months until it is born, therefore you can't murder what is not human, or 2) you acknowledge at some point in the pregnancy that a fetus is a human person, but murder in that case is justifiable somehow. Pick one.

 

[Bern80]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.

Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.

 

[High_Gravity]

Have any of you anti abortion people even adopted an orphan? or even have a foster kid? I doubt it.

 

[Bern80]

Is everyone who doesn't support abortion ok with people dropping those babies off at their houses once their born? we will see how long they stay anti abortion when they have to come out of pocket to support those kids.

Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.

Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.

It isn't rhetoric. That is the reality of the argument you are making. That if you don't want something because it's a financial burden, even if that something happens to be your child, it's okay for you to kill it. Further those people who are oppossed to killing innocent children who would not choose to have your child forced on them need to shut up, right?

The difference is those people you are telling to shut up would not have a choice in having an unwanted child forced on them in your scenario. The woman who got pregnant did make a choice and had the opportunity to make a lot of choices that would have kept her from committing murder. I'm a big pro-choice kinda person......up until your choices affect those of other people.

 

[High_Gravity]

Nice argument. Now murder is okay if someone is a financial burden to you. Got it.

Lets see how long you keep up that rhetoric when people are dropping off babies on your doorstep.

It isn't rhetoric. That is the reality of the argument you are making. That if you don't want something because it's a financial burden, even if that something happens to be your child, it's okay for you to kill it. Further those people who are oppossed to killing innocent children who would not choose to have your child forced on them need to shut up, right?

The difference is those people you are telling to shut up would not have a choice in having an unwanted child forced on them in your scenario. The woman who got pregnant did make a choice and had the opportunity to make a lot of choices that would have kept her from committing murder.

Alot of women get abortions because they can not afford to provide for another mouth, are you or any of the other anti abortion crowd willing to step up and do it? who is supposed to care for these kids?