Lawsuit: Florida Clinic Botched Abortion, Threw Out Live Baby

[DiamondDave]

And your lack of awareness, or a lesser IQ, or a lack of what we deem usefulness, would then make you lesser, and disposable

Signed

Adolf

 

[DiamondDave]

Contraception NOR celibacy does the same thing.. you see.. a fetus already has the genetic spark of life... you can whack off to gay amish midget porn all you want, your sperm is not going to, in any way, become a human life... you not getting sex, is not termination of an organism that is in an early stage of development as a human

 

[Agnapostate]

And your lack of awareness, or a lesser IQ, or a lack of what we deem usefulness, would then make you lesser, and disposable

Signed

Adolf

I said nothing of IQ, but since you did, my IQ is above average. IQ is not specifically related to the ability to suffer through self-awareness that I mentioned (for the most part, IQ differences are ethically incommensurable), and you're beginning to expend your red herrings.

Contraception NOR celibacy does the same thing.. you see.. a fetus already has the genetic spark of life... you can whack off to gay amish midget porn all you want, your sperm is not going to, in any way, become a human life... you not getting sex, is not termination of an organism that is in an early stage of development as a human

Why is that relevant if the end consequence is the same?

 

[eots]

Women can not be equal to men if they are not allowed to control what goes on inside their own bodies.

where is the equality on the woman alone choosing to terminate a mans child or require him to pay child support ..if the choice is only hers ?

 

[DiamondDave]

And your lack of awareness, or a lesser IQ, or a lack of what we deem usefulness, would then make you lesser, and disposable

Signed

Adolf

I said nothing of IQ, but since you did, my IQ is above average. IQ is not specifically related to the ability to suffer through self-awareness that I mentioned (for the most part, IQ differences are ethically incommensurable), and you're beginning to expend your red herrings.

Contraception NOR celibacy does the same thing.. you see.. a fetus already has the genetic spark of life... you can whack off to gay amish midget porn all you want, your sperm is not going to, in any way, become a human life... you not getting sex, is not termination of an organism that is in an early stage of development as a human

Why is that relevant if the end consequence is the same?

From the way you have an ignorance about you, I could subjectively deem that you are not indeed aware. It is a subjective thing. Being a human being is not subjective. Whether you have 600000 cells, or 600000000000 cells, whether you have already been exposed to air or not.... hell, you seem 'infantile' to me.. and since infanticide is not the same as killing an aware person, then off with your head....

It is you who has stated quite emphatically that not all innocent human life is the same... opening the door for subjective judgment as to who can be made expendable... sounds eerily similar to old Adolf, now don't it?

The end consequence is NOT the same... you can have a vat of sperm the size of Kansas, or a vat of unfertilized eggs the size of Nebraska... there is not life, nor is there potential for those things to advance along a stage of being into life... only when you have something that has been given the spark of life, with the combination of 2 sets of DNA from both, do you get life...

 

[eots]

Your evidence to support that statement is exactly what?

My "evidence" rests in the fact that fetuses (and for that matter, infants) do not possess the capacity to view themselves as independent entities existing over time, and thus lack the capacity to form according preferences and interests about the future in the same manner that grown persons can.

And if you are deemed to have a lesser level or awareness, considering your lack of comprehension... then I guess it is OK to abort you too?

An animal will always be an animal.. a baby rat will be nothing more than an adult rat... a pre-born human will indeed become a human.. barring injury, tragedy, disease, etc

A fetus is not inferior to an adult human, just as an infant is not inferior, just as a toddler is not inferior, etc

But nice try

Again, I did not mention rat fetuses or babies, or even rats, for that matter. I mentioned fully grown nonhuman animals, such as dogs, goats or pigs. Or to simplify matters further, consider an adult chimpanzee, which has an indisputably greater capacity to be aware of its own existence and surroundings than a human infant does. I am merely inquiring as to why it is considered morally worse to kill a human infant than animals with greater levels of self-awareness.

You have cited potential, but I have already rebutted that claim by noting that contraception and celibacy have the same effect of inhibiting potential. I have also noted that claiming X = Y, therefore a potential X = Y is not accurate, just as crushing an acorn is not equivalent to chopping down a 20 year old oak tree. An even more illustrative example came in the way of the chicken and the egg. Though a (fertilized) egg would have the potential to eventually become a chicken, its current attributes (or specifically, lack of sensory attributes) would not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from being dropped into a pot of boiling water as a chicken would possess, despite the fact that it had the potential to become a chicken.

Similarly, despite a fetus's or infant's potential to develop into a grown person, its lack of self-awareness does not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from its own death as a grown person would possess, since the grown person would be capable of viewing him or herself as a distinct entity existing over time, forming preferences and interests about the future, and suffering from the denial of those preferences through being killed.

you have no idea what a fetus experieces..once the spark of life has ocurred...none

 

[Care4all]

Your evidence to support that statement is exactly what?

My "evidence" rests in the fact that fetuses (and for that matter, infants) do not possess the capacity to view themselves as independent entities existing over time, and thus lack the capacity to form according preferences and interests about the future in the same manner that grown persons can.

And if you are deemed to have a lesser level or awareness, considering your lack of comprehension... then I guess it is OK to abort you too?

An animal will always be an animal.. a baby rat will be nothing more than an adult rat... a pre-born human will indeed become a human.. barring injury, tragedy, disease, etc

A fetus is not inferior to an adult human, just as an infant is not inferior, just as a toddler is not inferior, etc

But nice try

Again, I did not mention rat fetuses or babies, or even rats, for that matter. I mentioned fully grown nonhuman animals, such as dogs, goats or pigs. Or to simplify matters further, consider an adult chimpanzee, which has an indisputably greater capacity to be aware of its own existence and surroundings than a human infant does. I am merely inquiring as to why it is considered morally worse to kill a human infant than animals with greater levels of self-awareness.

You have cited potential, but I have already rebutted that claim by noting that contraception and celibacy have the same effect of inhibiting potential. I have also noted that claiming X = Y, therefore a potential X = Y is not accurate, just as crushing an acorn is not equivalent to chopping down a 20 year old oak tree. An even more illustrative example came in the way of the chicken and the egg. Though a (fertilized) egg would have the potential to eventually become a chicken, its current attributes (or specifically, lack of sensory attributes) would not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from being dropped into a pot of boiling water as a chicken would possess, despite the fact that it had the potential to become a chicken.

Similarly, despite a fetus's or infant's potential to develop into a grown person, its lack of self-awareness does not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from its own death as a grown person would possess, since the grown person would be capable of viewing him or herself as a distinct entity existing over time, forming preferences and interests about the future, and suffering from the denial of those preferences through being killed.

you have no idea what a fetus experieces..once the spark of life has ocurred...none

Even though he was one at one time? so what does that mean?

 

[DiveCon]

[youtube]cjNo_0cW-ek[/youtube]


warning, it is LONG
27 minutes

 

[eots]

My "evidence" rests in the fact that fetuses (and for that matter, infants) do not possess the capacity to view themselves as independent entities existing over time, and thus lack the capacity to form according preferences and interests about the future in the same manner that grown persons can.



Again, I did not mention rat fetuses or babies, or even rats, for that matter. I mentioned fully grown nonhuman animals, such as dogs, goats or pigs. Or to simplify matters further, consider an adult chimpanzee, which has an indisputably greater capacity to be aware of its own existence and surroundings than a human infant does. I am merely inquiring as to why it is considered morally worse to kill a human infant than animals with greater levels of self-awareness.

You have cited potential, but I have already rebutted that claim by noting that


contraception and celibacy have the same effect of inhibiting potential. I have also noted
that claiming X = Y, therefore a potential X = Y is not accurate, just as crushing an acorn is not equivalent to chopping down a 20 year old oak tree. An even more illustrative example came in the way of the chicken and the egg. Though a (fertilized) egg would have the potential to eventually become a chicken, its current attributes (or specifically, lack of sensory attributes) would not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from being dropped into a pot of boiling water as a chicken would possess, despite the fact that it had the potential to become a chicken.

Similarly, despite a fetus's or infant's potential to develop into a grown person, its lack of self-awareness does not endow it with the same capacity to suffer from its own death as a grown person would possess, since the grown person would be capable of viewing him or herself as a distinct entity existing over time, forming preferences and interests about the future, and suffering from the denial of those preferences through being killed.

you have no idea what a fetus experieces..once the spark of life has ocurred...none

Even though he was one at one time? so what does that mean?

not at all...it means as we go through this process much it is lost to the cconsciouses memory..is all...much as an 2 yr old relative to an adult

 

[Care4all]

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant. She went to a clinic to get an abortion on the morning of July 20, 2006, after receiving medication and instructions the previous day.

was she told the baby was probably hurt from her fall?


and then there is this....

The doctor, Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique, also is the subject of a criminal investigation. Renelique was not present when the baby was born, but the Florida Medical Board upheld Department of Health allegations that he falsified medical records, inappropriately delegated tasks to unlicensed personnel and committed malpractice.

Joseph Harrison, the attorney representing Renelique at the license revocation hearing in Tampa, said Renelique has not decided whether to appeal.

The state attorney's office, meanwhile, said its criminal investigation into the incident is ongoing and no charges have been filed. A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion, police said when the incident occurred in 2006.

It's about time the AMA revoked his license....before this he had already had 5 malpractice suits against him where his insurance had to payout.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder if those who are Christian on here believe the Soul is present in a frozen embryo, if not, why not? But that's for another thread, I would suppose....

that's true that we lose memory of what has happened in our very early youth....

And i can agree that at a certain point, i believe it might be 16 weeks or so, that medical science has determined that the fetus can "feel" based on the development of their nerves and brain at that point.

I do not believe the child to be has any consciousness or feelings before that point.

 

[Jon]

Women can not be equal to men if they are not allowed to control what goes on inside their own bodies.

If a woman wants to control her body, she wouldn't put herself in the situation to get an unwanted pregnancy. The same goes for a man.

 

[Care4all]

They have a birth control pill for men now....guys should just start taking it.

I personally HATE the women's birth control pill...for me, it totally reduces my sex drive, make my body feel pregnant with the bloating and hurting boobs, and my sex drive goes down to about zero....

too bad i didn't know that i didn't need to take it to keep me from getting pregnant since i can't have kids, i could have had a more fulfilling sex life during the years i was taking it....! of course, the pill then is not the pill of today, the pill of yesteryear made me throw up....!!!

when i finally went off the pill, when matt and i first began trying for kids i was like, wow! eureka! hahahahahahahaha!

wondering what side effects others have had with the bc pill?

and if you were a man, would you take a male birth control pill if it could be applied by a patch on to your skin and only have to replaced once a month, in order to be certain of no unwanted pregnancies?

 

[DiveCon]

They have a birth control pill for men now....guys should just start taking it.

I personally HATE the women's birth control pill...for me, it totally reduces my sex drive, make my body feel pregnant with the bloating and hurting boobs, and my sex drive goes down to about zero....

too bad i didn't know that i didn't need to take it to keep me from getting pregnant since i can't have kids, i could have had a more fulfilling sex life during the years i was taking it....! of course, the pill then is not the pill of today, the pill of yesteryear made me throw up....!!!

when i finally went off the pill, when matt and i first began trying for kids i was like, wow! eureka! hahahahahahahaha!

wondering what side effects others have had with the bc pill?

and if you were a man, would you take a male birth control pill if it could be applied by a patch on to your skin and only have to replaced once a month, in order to be certain of no unwanted pregnancies?

the men polled about it mostly refused once they heard the possible side effects
when told it was the same side effects for the womens BC pill, those same men that refused to take the male one, said it was the womans responsibility


when i first learned about the side effects, i wouldnt want any woman i loved taking it and taking those risks

 

[Agnapostate]

From the way you have an ignorance about you, I could subjectively deem that you are not indeed aware. It is a subjective thing. Being a human being is not subjective. Whether you have 600000 cells, or 600000000000 cells, whether you have already been exposed to air or not.... hell, you seem 'infantile' to me.. and since infanticide is not the same as killing an aware person, then off with your head....

It is you who has stated quite emphatically that not all innocent human life is the same... opening the door for subjective judgment as to who can be made expendable... sounds eerily similar to old Adolf, now don't it?

The end consequence is NOT the same... you can have a vat of sperm the size of Kansas, or a vat of unfertilized eggs the size of Nebraska... there is not life, nor is there potential for those things to advance along a stage of being into life... only when you have something that has been given the spark of life, with the combination of 2 sets of DNA from both, do you get life...

There is no basis for such claims, inasmuch as a sperm can theoretically be defined as "human life," in that it's most certainly human sperm. It is not pig sperm or goat sperm. Similarly, a human embryo would certainly be human life in that it belongs to the species homo sapiens, and not to the species canus loopus, for instance. But you have not validated the claim that human life is inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at a similar level of awareness. What basis is there for such a claim?

you have no idea what a fetus experieces..once the spark of life has ocurred...none

Which part of my description of a fetus's awareness levels was inaccurate?

I wonder if those who are Christian on here believe the Soul is present in a frozen embryo, if not, why not? But that's for another thread, I would suppose....

I would expect so, considering the Biblical doctrine of God's acknowledgment prior to birth, and indeed, prior to conception stated in Jeremiah 1:5.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

When I was an evangelical Christian, I certainly believed in such a doctrine. The problem with that claim is that zygotes frequently split or fuse together. Is this then a case of one soul splitting into two or two souls fusing into one?

 

[Care4all]

From the way you have an ignorance about you, I could subjectively deem that you are not indeed aware. It is a subjective thing. Being a human being is not subjective. Whether you have 600000 cells, or 600000000000 cells, whether you have already been exposed to air or not.... hell, you seem 'infantile' to me.. and since infanticide is not the same as killing an aware person, then off with your head....

It is you who has stated quite emphatically that not all innocent human life is the same... opening the door for subjective judgment as to who can be made expendable... sounds eerily similar to old Adolf, now don't it?

The end consequence is NOT the same... you can have a vat of sperm the size of Kansas, or a vat of unfertilized eggs the size of Nebraska... there is not life, nor is there potential for those things to advance along a stage of being into life... only when you have something that has been given the spark of life, with the combination of 2 sets of DNA from both, do you get life...

There is no basis for such claims, inasmuch as a sperm can theoretically be defined as "human life," in that it's most certainly human sperm. It is not pig sperm or goat sperm. Similarly, a human embryo would certainly be human life in that it belongs to the species homo sapiens, and not to the species canus loopus, for instance. But you have not validated the claim that human life is inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at a similar level of awareness. What basis is there for such a claim?

you have no idea what a fetus experieces..once the spark of life has ocurred...none

Which part of my description of a fetus's awareness levels was inaccurate?

I wonder if those who are Christian on here believe the Soul is present in a frozen embryo, if not, why not? But that's for another thread, I would suppose....

I would expect so, considering the Biblical doctrine of God's acknowledgment prior to birth, and indeed, prior to conception stated in Jeremiah 1:5.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

When I was an evangelical Christian, I certainly believed in such a doctrine. The problem with that claim is that zygotes frequently split or fuse together. Is this then a case of one soul splitting into two or two souls fusing into one?

His acknowledgment of knowing him before he was born was for a prophet, that He sent to us....we do not know for certain that He knew us before we were born in the same personal manner....though it is possible....

the Early Church through to the Catholic Church later, until this past Century, thought that the Soul entered the Male, at 40 days and the Female at around 90.... so for a few thousand years, this is what the Church established as the dates of when they believed the soul enters us...(DO NOT ask me HOW they came to this, i never finished the article but i will finish it some time soon, if i could only find it again! )

The only reason i bring this up is that it makes me wonder how Christians/the Church, who knew this passage regarding "knowing him before he was born..." accepted the 40 days on males and 90 days on female on the entering of the Soul, unless they felt that God was SPECIFICALLY speaking about this particular profit only...is what i came to the conclusion of....but I could be wrong and am not dead set on any of this...not arrogant enough to think I know it all....that's for certain! lol

Some other religions that believe it enters the foetus at 120 days, this was in that article as well.

Anyway, it wasn't until recently in the span of things that the Catholic Churches and other Churches have taken the stance that the soul enters at conception, but there is absolutely NO REASON for this to be the case.

some religions believe the the Soul enters the body, UPON the child's first breath...."When God Breathed LIFE in to Adam, AFTER he had FORMED him" LIFE was Adam's first breath....

How one really knows, is beyond me....since people in charge have changed their minds so much about it....?

care

 

[xsited1]

Welcome to Obama's America. It was a botched abortion, so according to Obama they should have killed the baby. At least the girl won't have to be 'punished' with the baby.

You folks do realize that if you support people like Obama you're going to Hell, right?

 

[xsited1]

Welcome to Obama's America. It was a botched abortion, so according to Obama they should have killed the baby. At least the girl won't have to be 'punished' with the baby.

You folks do realize that if you support people like Obama you're going to Hell, right?

Nurse Who Exposed Infanticide-Based Abortions: Obama Lied During Debate

These people are murderers. Unrepentant murders will go to hell. If you support these people, that's where you'll end up.

 

[Care4all]

Welcome to Obama's America. It was a botched abortion, so according to Obama they should have killed the baby. At least the girl won't have to be 'punished' with the baby.

You folks do realize that if you support people like Obama you're going to Hell, right?

Nope xsisted, not for one nano second do i believe such, and there is not a Christian Church in the World that would teach such!!!!!!!! If there are Christian Churches teaching this kind of Doctrine I would say they are the farthest thing from being Christians that existed... that they would be teaching FALSE DOCTRINE....

you do not lose your salvation because you voted for someone who in one or two instances, stands for something that you don't....(and i did not vote for him, so i am not defending myself here) and secondly CHRIST DIED for all sin and those of us that accept such and accept him as God in the form of the Son, will not perish.

this is the fundamental belief of all Christians. Yes there is still sin and repenting and all of that, but this comes with acceptance of Him...we feel sorry for our sins and want to do better for Him, because He sacraficed Himself for us, for our transgressions.... a lovely message, really...

And also, Christ said He did not come for the righteous here on earth, He came to save the sinners, and He hung out with sinners quite a bit, and always came to their rescue...at least the humble sinners, not necessarily the self righteous sinners like the Pharisees...

Anyway, this is how I see it....

Care

 

[Agnapostate]

From the way you have an ignorance about you, I could subjectively deem that you are not indeed aware. It is a subjective thing. Being a human being is not subjective. Whether you have 600000 cells, or 600000000000 cells, whether you have already been exposed to air or not.... hell, you seem 'infantile' to me.. and since infanticide is not the same as killing an aware person, then off with your head....

It is you who has stated quite emphatically that not all innocent human life is the same... opening the door for subjective judgment as to who can be made expendable... sounds eerily similar to old Adolf, now don't it?

The end consequence is NOT the same... you can have a vat of sperm the size of Kansas, or a vat of unfertilized eggs the size of Nebraska... there is not life, nor is there potential for those things to advance along a stage of being into life... only when you have something that has been given the spark of life, with the combination of 2 sets of DNA from both, do you get life...

There is no basis for such claims, inasmuch as a sperm can theoretically be defined as "human life," in that it's most certainly human sperm. It is not pig sperm or goat sperm. Similarly, a human embryo would certainly be human life in that it belongs to the species homo sapiens, and not to the species canus loopus, for instance. But you have not validated the claim that human life is inherently superior to nonhuman animal life at a similar level of awareness. What basis is there for such a claim?



Which part of my description of a fetus's awareness levels was inaccurate?



I would expect so, considering the Biblical doctrine of God's acknowledgment prior to birth, and indeed, prior to conception stated in Jeremiah 1:5.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

When I was an evangelical Christian, I certainly believed in such a doctrine. The problem with that claim is that zygotes frequently split or fuse together. Is this then a case of one soul splitting into two or two souls fusing into one?

His acknowledgment of knowing him before he was born was for a prophet, that He sent to us....we do not know for certain that He knew us before we were born in the same personal manner....though it is possible....

the Early Church through to the Catholic Church later, until this past Century, thought that the Soul entered the Male, at 40 days and the Female at around 90.... so for a few thousand years, this is what the Church established as the dates of when they believed the soul enters us...(DO NOT ask me HOW they came to this, i never finished the article but i will finish it some time soon, if i could only find it again! )

The only reason i bring this up is that it makes me wonder how Christians/the Church, who knew this passage regarding "knowing him before he was born..." accepted the 40 days on males and 90 days on female on the entering of the Soul, unless they felt that God was SPECIFICALLY speaking about this particular profit only...is what i came to the conclusion of....but I could be wrong and am not dead set on any of this...not arrogant enough to think I know it all....that's for certain! lol

Some other religions that believe it enters the foetus at 120 days, this was in that article as well.

Anyway, it wasn't until recently in the span of things that the Catholic Churches and other Churches have taken the stance that the soul enters at conception, but there is absolutely NO REASON for this to be the case.

some religions believe the the Soul enters the body, UPON the child's first breath...."When God Breathed LIFE in to Adam, AFTER he had FORMED him" LIFE was Adam's first breath....

How one really knows, is beyond me....since people in charge have changed their minds so much about it....?

care

I'm inclined to agree, actually. Exodus 21:22-25 has this to say regarding the destruction of fetal life.

Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve. But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Now, since many Christians are apt to interpret the Bible literally, it is difficult to comprehend how a miscarried fetus could have those specific injuries unless it was partially formed.

Welcome to Obama's America. It was a botched abortion, so according to Obama they should have killed the baby. At least the girl won't have to be 'punished' with the baby.

You folks do realize that if you support people like Obama you're going to Hell, right?

Nurse Who Exposed Infanticide-Based Abortions: Obama Lied During Debate

These people are murderers. Unrepentant murders will go to hell. If you support these people, that's where you'll end up.

Hopefully they'll have barbecue tongs down there during the roast. Mine keep breaking.