Abortion clinic employees plead guilty to murder

[Si modo]

And don't get me wrong, I do think it's wrong to abort babies, I really do. But I also think adultery is wrong, and covetnous, and all the other sins.

Personally, I think Planned Parenthood is completely out of control. I think NOW has lost all perspective.

Both of those organizations need to wise up. Until they do, I no longer consider much of any of their positions as having much credibility at all.

 

[Dragon]

This isn't non-typical. I've worked with abortion clinics, and been in them.

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

 

[Si modo]

This isn't non-typical. I've worked with abortion clinics, and been in them.

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

Agreed.

Although the disgusting nature of these atrocities does induce quite an emotional response, as they should; those emotions can't be allowed to cloud rationale.

 

[koshergrl]

This isn't non-typical. I've worked with abortion clinics, and been in them.

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

These numbers come from PP and the Guttmacher institute. If you had done your homework, you would have seen the multiple disclaimers they have that lay out the fact that the numbers are estimates and incomplete, as the reporting is so sketchy (and in many, many instances, non-existent).

Those numbers are worthless, and Guttmacher admits it, as does PP.

 

[koshergrl]

This isn't non-typical. I've worked with abortion clinics, and been in them.

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

Agreed.

Although the disgusting nature of these atrocities does induce quite an emotional response, as they should; those emotions can't be allowed to cloud rationale.

Rationalizing murder is just as disgusting as the murders themselves.

 

[Si modo]

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

Agreed.

Although the disgusting nature of these atrocities does induce quite an emotional response, as they should; those emotions can't be allowed to cloud rationale.

Rationalizing murder is just as disgusting as the murders themselves.

I'm certainly not rationalizing murder in any way.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure you are. You just said you can't let murder "cloud rationale". That's a classic example of rationalizing murder, you even used the term yourself.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It isn't typical of abortions. Nor is it typical of clinics where abortion services are provided (AFAIK there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic," which would imply a clinic that ONLY does abortions).

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Scroll down to the pie chart showing when abortions are performed. 88% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (first 12 weeks) of pregnancy. Only 1.5% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. The third trimester begins after 24 weeks, so that would be an even smaller percentage. The number of abortions performed using the procedure you described is vanishingly small.

Under the guidelines of the Roe decision, states are permitted to ban abortion in the third trimester (or after viability) except to protect the life or health of the mother. Most states do in fact impose severe restrictions on late-term abortion.

So the Court and most state governments recognize a distinction between late and early abortion. So does common sense. A fetus not long before birth shares many characteristics with a newborn baby, and in most cases could become a newborn baby without further gestation, at worst requiring treatment for the hazards of premature birth. Such a fetus, if outside the womb, would be regarded by common sense and ordinary language as a "baby." This is not true of an embryo in the early stages of pregnancy; whatever logical basis you might argue for treating them the same (ultimately based on religious arguments inevitably), these arguments must overcome the common-sense instinctive reaction which does not treat them the same.

What you are doing here is taking the natural revulsion people have over the killing of a newborn baby and trying to transfer that natural revulsion to an object for which it is not natural at all. At most, you are presenting a valid argument here for restraints imposed on late-term abortion, which in most states already exist.

To use this as an argument for restricting or outlawing abortion performed in the first trimester is not rational.

Agreed.

Although the disgusting nature of these atrocities does induce quite an emotional response, as they should; those emotions can't be allowed to cloud rationale.

Rationalizing murder is just as disgusting as the murders themselves.

Obviously we see things differently on this issue, but to you words are as bad as murder?

 

[koshergrl]

And I hate to keep carping on it, but that's exactly the terminology that..yes, you guessed it...the nazis used.

It's the same terminology anyone uses when they justify killing off a vulnerable or captured population.

 

[Si modo]

Sure you are. You just said you can't let murder "cloud rationale". That's a classic example of rationalizing murder, you even used the term yourself.

Huh? Not allowing murder to cloud rationale is not 'rationalizing murder'.

 

[koshergrl]

Agreed.

Although the disgusting nature of these atrocities does induce quite an emotional response, as they should; those emotions can't be allowed to cloud rationale.

Rationalizing murder is just as disgusting as the murders themselves.

Obviously we see things differently on this issue, but to you words are as bad as murder?

How many people did Hitler kill with his own hands?

I'll bet exactly zero..until he offed himself, that is.

 

[Si modo]

Now we've gone Godwin?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sure you are. You just said you can't let murder "cloud rationale". That's a classic example of rationalizing murder, you even used the term yourself.

How would you respond to a more hardcore fundamentalist who said you were pro-murder by not being against the use of the morning after pill?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Rationalizing murder is just as disgusting as the murders themselves.

Obviously we see things differently on this issue, but to you words are as bad as murder?

How many people did Hitler kill with his own hands?

I'll bet exactly zero..until he offed himself, that is.

So to you a member of the Aryan Brotherhood today is just as bad as Hitler because he speaks highly of him?

Wouldn't that be kind of downplaying the Holocaust and all the deaths?

 

[koshergrl]

Spare me the hypotheticals. They're garbage.

 

[Si modo]

Spare me the hypotheticals. They're garbage.

So, how is stating that persons should not allow murder cloud their rationale equivalent to 'rationlizing murder'?

I have net ever, EVER, rationalized murder. In fact, I have always been against the death penalty.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Spare me the hypotheticals. They're garbage.

Saying words are the same as actions is worse than garbage, it's shit.

 

[Dragon]

These numbers come from PP and the Guttmacher institute. If you had done your homework, you would have seen the multiple disclaimers they have that lay out the fact that the numbers are estimates and incomplete, as the reporting is so sketchy (and in many, many instances, non-existent).

Those numbers are worthless, and Guttmacher admits it, as does PP.

They are not worthless at all. They are quite sound, and based on data that fully justify the estimates being made. By contrast there is no evidence WHATEVER that most abortions are performed in the last trimester.

I also appeal to common sense here. Suppose yourself to be a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. When would you first find out you were pregnant? Likely, the first time you missed a period. Pick up a pregnancy test at the drugstore, get a positive. It's now, at most, a month into the pregnancy. You decide to abort the pregnancy. Do you make an appointment and go do it right away, while the procedure is:

1) Simpler and far less invasive,
2) Cheaper; and
3) Less traumatic in terms of seeing the embryo/fetus as a "baby"?

Or do you wait around until the last trimester, when you have a belly the size of all outdoors and the procedure involves major surgery, costs a ton of money, and is likely to give you nightmares for years?

Obviously, you go soon. And the great majority of women who have abortions do just that. In fact, I would be surprised to discover that many, if any, late-term abortions are done for other than medical reasons involving the discovery of appalling genetic defects or else serious threat to the mother's health. A late-term abortion performed for convenience makes no sense at all; that's NOT convenient.

Which is another reason I don't see anything wrong with restrictions on late-term abortion. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has plenty of time to terminate it in the first two trimesters if that's her choice. Restricting it in the third trimester to abortions performed for valid medical reasons is not unreasonable.

 

[koshergrl]

I never said that most abortions were in the final trimester, you nitwit.

And the numbers AREN'T sound, which is why the PP and Guttmacher sites are full of disclaimers.

And of course you're pro-late-term abortion.

Blech.