Kermit Gosnell on Trial for Abortion "House of Horrors

[logical4u]

[

"Beating heart" I guess that went over your head nutjob

Doesn't matter. It will be struck down. Does't meet the viability test of Roe or the Health restrictions of Bolton.

So what you are going to have is a law that will never be enforced and will be struck down, but they will make the religious whacks think they accomplished something.

If you people on the right were serious about wanting to reduce the numbers of abortions, you'd support strong wage acts, universal health care, mandetory paid family leave and all the other things that make choosing to keep a baby easier. You'd support comprehensive sex education in the schools without the lie about abstinence (ask Bristol Palin how well that works).

Before Roe, women were having abortions. Probably just as many as they had after Roe.

Hense, why the court struck these laws down. They were unworkable and mean-spirited.

Women will always get pregnant if they have sex. Strong wage acts (same people support bringing in slave labor as illegal immigrants), Universal health care (ends up making "master race" because medical treatments are "limited", but preventative care is supported), Mandatory paid family leave (punishes the employer for an employee's choices). Raising a child has NEVER been easy: encouraging prepared adults to marry and have children is the BEST way to have a productive society.

 

[JoeB131]

So do you, you ******* pervert. Stop sniffing around pregnant women and abortion clinics. It's ******* gross.

Man, the thought that go through your head.

Kind of twisted, really. You spend waaayyyy too much time thinking about this.

Abortion should be legal because they are going to happen, regardless.

Countries were abortion is illegal (like the Philippines) have higher abortion rates than ones where they are legal and paid for by the government (like France).

This isn't about babies or even the women. It's about you trying to impose your magic sky man on the rest of us. No thanks.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Women will always get pregnant if they have sex. Strong wage acts (same people support bringing in slave labor as illegal immigrants), Universal health care (ends up making "master race" because medical treatments are "limited", but preventative care is supported), Mandatory paid family leave (punishes the employer for an employee's choices). Raising a child has NEVER been easy: encouraging prepared adults to marry and have children is the BEST way to have a productive society.

So you are all for protecting the babies, but not if a rich person is deprived of his wealth? Is that it?

Because I want to get this clear.

I've known women who've lost their jobs because they got pregnant. Some cases, the boss found a BS Excuse to fire them, other cases, they were out too long after a difficult pregnancy and the meager 12 UNPAID weeks an employer offers expired.

So I do find it interesting that given a choice between compelling an employer to be supportive and putting terminating a pregnancy out there as a choice, you come down on the side of an employer greed rather than right to life.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure, Jo. Their pimps fire them, if they can't drag them to the abortionist.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, Jo. Their pimps fire them, if they can't drag them to the abortionist.

Wow, you are like really sex obsessed, aren't you?

I'd speculate further, but frankly, I've just had breakfast.

 

[koshergrl]

You're in every abortion thread ever created, male, and you're grossed out by the thought of sex?

Lol..we already established you're a liar, perv.

 

[tinydancer]

Okay... now you can go back to not understanding the problem after I've explained it to you.

The states regulate abortion and they can make as strict a abortion laws as they like this is the way we can fight abortion. Until Roe is overturned. People like you are sick ***** with your death cult mentality

North Dakota state senate approves strict new abortion legislation

Measure would prevent abortion if heartbeat can be detected – granting North Dakota the most restrictive abortion laws in US

I have friends who told me of girls they'd gotten pregnant, they made them get abortions they told me of the pain, the bleeding experienced from the procedure, killing babies it's sick shit and these where legal abortions.

So the argument went RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD again.

Fetuses aren't babies. No matter how much you want them to be. At the point most abortions are peformed, the fetus looks like a cocktail shrimp and is smaller than a kidney bean.

The North Dakota law will be struck down just like every other sad attempte to wiggle around Roe.

This is what you don't get. The Plutocrats don't want to get rid of Roe. Their mistresses need to abort fetuses, too! they just want to keep stupid religious whacks like you and Kosher voting against your own economic interests so they can have more of the money.

Roe was decided by a Republican Court, (5 of the 7 justices voting for were appointed by Ike and Nixon) and half the justices appointed by Republicans since Roe (O'Connor, Kenedy, Souter, Stevens) have upheld it.

That you are too dumb to realize you are being played is the sad thing here.

When was the last time you were pregnant?

When was the last time you had a baby inside you partying so much you could barely sleep thru the night because she/he is dancing inside you like she/he is in a conga line?

When was the last time you watched in wonder as the baby inside you moves their hands and you can almost see thru your own skin to witness this miracle called your baby?

 

[JoeB131]

You're in every abortion thread ever created, male, and you're grossed out by the thought of sex?

Lol..we already established you're a liar, perv.

Actually, if you think of what pimps and prostitutes do as "sex" in a normal context, I suspect you are the one who has a problem.

I visit these things to expose the hypocrisy of those who get all worked up about fetuses and don't give a **** about children.

 

[JoeB131]

[

When was the last time you were pregnant?

When was the last time you had a baby inside you partying so much you could barely sleep thru the night because she/he is dancing inside you like she/he is in a conga line?

When was the last time you watched in wonder as the baby inside you moves their hands and you can almost see thru your own skin to witness this miracle called your baby?

What does that have to do with anything I am talking about?

Come on. I'll wait.

I was talking about the politics, which goes right over your head.

THe politics is that Abortion is the distraction, the REAL crime is what the plutocrats have done to the middle class in this country, which probably causes more abortions to happen.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the real crime is the murder of infants and the exploitation and abuse of women and girls in the name of "choice".

 

[logical4u]

You mean providing a needed medical service?

No. providing a social service when there is no need of a medical service.

You have a condition that will radically alter your life, that can be treated for $300.00.

Or you can pay $10,000 and have your life altered radically.

Every child a wanted child.

You choose to have sex. There are inexpensive ways to AVOID pregnancy. Once you are pregnant (that you chose to do the act, knowing the results), killing the child is not a life saving procedure in 99.99% of cases. Quit pretending you give a shit about women that will have medical problems as a RESULT of abortion (more prone to some types of cancer, more prone to mental illnesses, etc). Just accept the fact that you get off on seeing a person at their most vulnerable point being "terminated".

 

[JoeB131]

No, the real crime is the murder of infants and the exploitation and abuse of women and girls in the name of "choice".

Nobody has an abortion unless they want one. Please. Get a grip.

I've known a few women who've had abortions. None of them were exploited. They knew exactly what they were doing. they made bad choices and they were dealing with them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You choose to have sex. There are inexpensive ways to AVOID pregnancy. Once you are pregnant (that you chose to do the act, knowing the results), killing the child is not a life saving procedure in 99.99% of cases. Quit pretending you give a shit about women that will have medical problems as a RESULT of abortion (more prone to some types of cancer, more prone to mental illnesses, etc). Just accept the fact that you get off on seeing a person at their most vulnerable point being "terminated".

What I get off on is watching religous fuckwads get their panties in a knot knowing they can't do anything about it.

Yes, there are inexpensive ways to avoid pregnancy. Abortion is one of them.

And frankly, while there have been dubious claims about "health risks" related to abortion, the fact is, tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods and guns in the house are more likely to do you in. But they are all about big corporations making money. So the Religious nutters don't care about that.

Now here's the thing. I actually believe less abortions would be a positive development. It's just I don't think you get there by putting unworkable laws on the books.

My suggestions-

1. Comprehensive Sex Eduction
2. Universal Health Care that covers all pregnancy related expenses.
3. Paid Family and Medical Leave

That gets you less abortion. Other countries have done it and it works. France does these things, and their per-capita abortion rate is half ours.

Conversely, other countries have tried prohibition. The US did, and it didn't work.

The Philippines does, but it is estimated they have 500-800K abortions in the Philippines every year. In a population of 90 million, that's a higher abortion rate than the US.

 

[logical4u]

Mainstream doctors can and have always been perfectly competent to provide needed medical service when it comes to medically necessary abortions.

Other than that, there is no "needed medical service". Abortion isn't "medical care". It's an invasive procedure (that should give joe a woody).

You guys wouldn't even allow the necessary abortions.

I think the only two people qualified to determine when an abortion is necessary are the woman and her doctor.

The rest of you need to mind your own fuckin' business.

If you were minding you own business, there would not be abortion clinics. Your type went out to young women and told them that having promiscuous sex would "set them free". Once they did that and were saddled with children and poverty, your types told them that killing the babies before they were born was a "good" choice. When conservatives notified the same young women that "choosing" to grow up, then choose a man that would marry you, and raise a family together is the very best for the young woman, the young man, and the future children, suddenly, you think those same young people shouldn't have anyone "else" in their business. What a hypocrite. What a destroyer of societies you are.

I find it ironic the "progressives" (or whatever term you are using "today") are teaching directly AGAINST what made this country like any other on the face of the planet. Instead, they are teaching young people to duplicate the thinking, philosophies, and policies of the countries around the world that do not have the same standard of living, have more corruption, and less freedom. What are you thinking? Why do want to destroy the productivity and liberty that is found in this country and replace it with a corrupt system were the majority of the population lives in equal misery? Society that is not dedicated to the future of "families" will fail, every time, because it becomes a society based on personal greed (something you want to blame on republicans), instead of providing for the future well being of the next generation. How does murdering the children and spending the money they have not earned yet, build the next generation?

 

[logical4u]

[

Women will always get pregnant if they have sex. Strong wage acts (same people support bringing in slave labor as illegal immigrants), Universal health care (ends up making "master race" because medical treatments are "limited", but preventative care is supported), Mandatory paid family leave (punishes the employer for an employee's choices). Raising a child has NEVER been easy: encouraging prepared adults to marry and have children is the BEST way to have a productive society.

So you are all for protecting the babies, but not if a rich person is deprived of his wealth? Is that it?

Because I want to get this clear.

I've known women who've lost their jobs because they got pregnant. Some cases, the boss found a BS Excuse to fire them, other cases, they were out too long after a difficult pregnancy and the meager 12 UNPAID weeks an employer offers expired.

So I do find it interesting that given a choice between compelling an employer to be supportive and putting terminating a pregnancy out there as a choice, you come down on the side of an employer greed rather than right to life.

If there is no employer, how does a "family" provide for its children? Forcing an employer to provide perks it can not afford helps NO ONE. If an employer values an employee, these perks will be provided. If the woman is MARRIED, and has the support of her husband that knowingly and willingly decided to have children, there is a plan for pregnancy and raising children. If not, why is she "choosing" to get pregnant? Why doesn't she "choose" to work for an employer that can afford and wants to provide this benefit?

I find it interesting that you would force employers to go out of business to support your "agenda". Talk about shoving your beliefs onto others......

 

[JoeB131]

[

If you were minding you own business, there would not be abortion clinics. Your type went out to young women and told them that having promiscuous sex would "set them free". Once they did that and were saddled with children and poverty, your types told them that killing the babies before they were born was a "good" choice. When conservatives notified the same young women that "choosing" to grow up, then choose a man that would marry you, and raise a family together is the very best for the young woman, the young man, and the future children, suddenly, you think those same young people shouldn't have anyone "else" in their business. What a hypocrite. What a destroyer of societies you are.

If you think teens are needing "progressives" to tell them to have sex, you have selective amnesia about what it was like to be a teenager.

It isn't about "notifying", you guys want to impose yourselves whether they want them or not.

Sorry, some women want to have lots of enjoyable sex and never have children. Learn to deal. That's her choice.

[
I find it ironic the "progressives" (or whatever term you are using "today") are teaching directly AGAINST what made this country like any other on the face of the planet. Instead, they are teaching young people to duplicate the thinking, philosophies, and policies of the countries around the world that do not have the same standard of living, have more corruption, and less freedom. What are you thinking? Why do want to destroy the productivity and liberty that is found in this country and replace it with a corrupt system were the majority of the population lives in equal misery? Society that is not dedicated to the future of "families" will fail, every time, because it becomes a society based on personal greed (something you want to blame on republicans), instead of providing for the future well being of the next generation. How does murdering the children and spending the money they have not earned yet, build the next generation?

Not sure what you are talking about here. I suspect you are one of these Americans without a passport who doesn't speak any language besides English who thinks America is the very bestest country in the world.

If anything, you religious Knobs are the ones who dominate in the poorer countries. Richer countries are the ones where they are converting unused churches into nail salons, and they are better off for it.

Now, yeah, you do almost stumble on a good point. A society of greed will damage families when both parents are working slave wage jobs and the kids are neglected.

But who is the one who argues that working folks are paid too much and the rich, the poor dears, they just aren't being allowed to keep enough of their wealth...

It ain't the progressives.

 

[logical4u]

[

You choose to have sex. There are inexpensive ways to AVOID pregnancy. Once you are pregnant (that you chose to do the act, knowing the results), killing the child is not a life saving procedure in 99.99% of cases. Quit pretending you give a shit about women that will have medical problems as a RESULT of abortion (more prone to some types of cancer, more prone to mental illnesses, etc). Just accept the fact that you get off on seeing a person at their most vulnerable point being "terminated".

What I get off on is watching religous fuckwads get their panties in a knot knowing they can't do anything about it.

Yes, there are inexpensive ways to avoid pregnancy. Abortion is one of them.

And frankly, while there have been dubious claims about "health risks" related to abortion, the fact is, tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods and guns in the house are more likely to do you in. But they are all about big corporations making money. So the Religious nutters don't care about that.

Now here's the thing. I actually believe less abortions would be a positive development. It's just I don't think you get there by putting unworkable laws on the books.

My suggestions-

1. Comprehensive Sex Eduction
2. Universal Health Care that covers all pregnancy related expenses.
3. Paid Family and Medical Leave

That gets you less abortion. Other countries have done it and it works. France does these things, and their per-capita abortion rate is half ours.

Conversely, other countries have tried prohibition. The US did, and it didn't work.

The Philippines does, but it is estimated they have 500-800K abortions in the Philippines every year. In a population of 90 million, that's a higher abortion rate than the US.

Abortion is not a way to "avoid" pregnancy. Abortion kills the child in the womb, "ending" pregnancy.

You don't think that Planned Parenthood is a "big corporation"? You don't think they make millions off killing the unborn? Silly man.

Please show me where in any thread I said abortion should be "illegal". I have said that I don't think taxpayers should be financing abortions. No where have I said abortions should be "illegal". I do not believe in writing laws that cannot be or are designed to be, selectively enforced. I do think Planned Parenthood should stop getting gov't funds. I would love to see the American public wake up to the tragedy of abortion, and choose to have one for medical emergency, only. Not my call, but I will not say abortion is a "good thing", and I take offense to anyone that says it is. So, on reducing the numbers of abortions is one thing on which we can agree.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Women will always get pregnant if they have sex. Strong wage acts (same people support bringing in slave labor as illegal immigrants), Universal health care (ends up making "master race" because medical treatments are "limited", but preventative care is supported), Mandatory paid family leave (punishes the employer for an employee's choices). Raising a child has NEVER been easy: encouraging prepared adults to marry and have children is the BEST way to have a productive society.

So you are all for protecting the babies, but not if a rich person is deprived of his wealth? Is that it?

Because I want to get this clear.

I've known women who've lost their jobs because they got pregnant. Some cases, the boss found a BS Excuse to fire them, other cases, they were out too long after a difficult pregnancy and the meager 12 UNPAID weeks an employer offers expired.

So I do find it interesting that given a choice between compelling an employer to be supportive and putting terminating a pregnancy out there as a choice, you come down on the side of an employer greed rather than right to life.

If there is no employer, how does a "family" provide for its children? Forcing an employer to provide perks it can not afford helps NO ONE. If an employer values an employee, these perks will be provided. If the woman is MARRIED, and has the support of her husband that knowingly and willingly decided to have children, there is a plan for pregnancy and raising children. If not, why is she "choosing" to get pregnant? Why doesn't she "choose" to work for an employer that can afford and wants to provide this benefit?

I find it interesting that you would force employers to go out of business to support your "agenda". Talk about shoving your beliefs onto others......

Again, if you are too undercapitailzed to provide decent wages and benefits, you should go out of business. Someone else will pick up the slack...someone who does it right.

You see, you kind of suffer from the derangement that it's the businesses that create the economy. It isn't. It's the workers. The produce goods and services, they buy goods and services.

A Capitalist is a parasite who has conviced you he's a vital organ, that's about it.

 

[logical4u]

[

If you were minding you own business, there would not be abortion clinics. Your type went out to young women and told them that having promiscuous sex would "set them free". Once they did that and were saddled with children and poverty, your types told them that killing the babies before they were born was a "good" choice. When conservatives notified the same young women that "choosing" to grow up, then choose a man that would marry you, and raise a family together is the very best for the young woman, the young man, and the future children, suddenly, you think those same young people shouldn't have anyone "else" in their business. What a hypocrite. What a destroyer of societies you are.

If you think teens are needing "progressives" to tell them to have sex, you have selective amnesia about what it was like to be a teenager.

It isn't about "notifying", you guys want to impose yourselves whether they want them or not.

Sorry, some women want to have lots of enjoyable sex and never have children. Learn to deal. That's her choice.

[
I find it ironic the "progressives" (or whatever term you are using "today") are teaching directly AGAINST what made this country like any other on the face of the planet. Instead, they are teaching young people to duplicate the thinking, philosophies, and policies of the countries around the world that do not have the same standard of living, have more corruption, and less freedom. What are you thinking? Why do want to destroy the productivity and liberty that is found in this country and replace it with a corrupt system were the majority of the population lives in equal misery? Society that is not dedicated to the future of "families" will fail, every time, because it becomes a society based on personal greed (something you want to blame on republicans), instead of providing for the future well being of the next generation. How does murdering the children and spending the money they have not earned yet, build the next generation?

Not sure what you are talking about here. I suspect you are one of these Americans without a passport who doesn't speak any language besides English who thinks America is the very bestest country in the world.

If anything, you religious Knobs are the ones who dominate in the poorer countries. Richer countries are the ones where they are converting unused churches into nail salons, and they are better off for it.

Now, yeah, you do almost stumble on a good point. A society of greed will damage families when both parents are working slave wage jobs and the kids are neglected.

But who is the one who argues that working folks are paid too much and the rich, the poor dears, they just aren't being allowed to keep enough of their wealth...

It ain't the progressives.

Why is it when "progressives" (or whatever name you are calling yourselves "today") are enlightening individuals when they are "preaching" practices that will destroy society, but conservatives are "imposing" when they "preach" practices that have been demonstrated to work on constructing societies?

Women that want "lots of enjoyable sex" without children can have themselves fixed, and never have to worry about feminine "inconveniences". Those women that "choose" to have sex and have abortions, are murdering their children.

You don't think the USA has the best standard of living in the world? Our "poor" live better than most "middle class" people from a majority of countries.

Not sure what a " religious Knob" is, but it is not the "Christian" religious that are dominating ANY country. It is the greedy tyrants/dictators (the wannabe in this country has just closed the "people's house" to the people) that make the problems thru their desire to "control" the population. Unfortunately, in the USA, the party that is trying to do that thru health care, regulations, and laws that practice subjugation (for sugary drinks, salt, and fat intake) is the same party that the "educated elite" and the totally uneducated support. This same party has consistently experimented on the "poor" they profess to care about (Tuskagee and abortion/neutering women in NC, etc).

As for converting churches into businesses, we are beginning to see the results of that in the EU, where "greed" (if you aren't serving the LORD, you are serving an earthly substitute such as money) is collapsing countries' economies, and leaving people that "bought" the social programs in utter poverty.

"Greed" will destroy societies. Communism is greed by the ruling. Socialism is greed by the masses, where spreading the wealth is more important than "creating" wealth. Democratic society votes the wealth (majority wins!). Republics pit all the above against each other to "balance" wealth and power. Conservatives do not support "low wages" for the middle class. Conservatives want every person to be able to keep more of what they "earn", and to be free to take another job or start their own business (since no one does that on their own, it must be easy, right?). Conservatives do not want the gov't to pick and choose who gets to succeed, and who doesn't using confiscation and regulation to control "outcomes". Conservatives do not trust the gov't (because the gov't is made of imperfect people) to do what is best for families. Progressives do trust the gov't (imperfect people) to RULE over them, and more importantly to RULE over those they want to see subjugated. Abortion is about subjugation of the will of gov't types onto to the "poor" and middle class (because for some reason, most "rich" people don't have abortions).

 

[logical4u]

So you are all for protecting the babies, but not if a rich person is deprived of his wealth? Is that it?

Because I want to get this clear.

I've known women who've lost their jobs because they got pregnant. Some cases, the boss found a BS Excuse to fire them, other cases, they were out too long after a difficult pregnancy and the meager 12 UNPAID weeks an employer offers expired.

So I do find it interesting that given a choice between compelling an employer to be supportive and putting terminating a pregnancy out there as a choice, you come down on the side of an employer greed rather than right to life.

If there is no employer, how does a "family" provide for its children? Forcing an employer to provide perks it can not afford helps NO ONE. If an employer values an employee, these perks will be provided. If the woman is MARRIED, and has the support of her husband that knowingly and willingly decided to have children, there is a plan for pregnancy and raising children. If not, why is she "choosing" to get pregnant? Why doesn't she "choose" to work for an employer that can afford and wants to provide this benefit?

I find it interesting that you would force employers to go out of business to support your "agenda". Talk about shoving your beliefs onto others......

Again, if you are too undercapitailzed to provide decent wages and benefits, you should go out of business. Someone else will pick up the slack...someone who does it right.

You see, you kind of suffer from the derangement that it's the businesses that create the economy. It isn't. It's the workers. The produce goods and services, they buy goods and services.

A Capitalist is a parasite who has conviced you he's a vital organ, that's about it.

You suffer from the derangement that a "business" starts off "wealthy" and can afford to pay top dollar with top benefits. Many small businesses provide services at an affordable price for the community where they do business. If they raise their prices, they either go out of business or move to a more affluent community. To saddle them with the responsibility of keeping workers that cannot stay on the job for 3 months out of 12, is a great inconvenience that could cripple the business, especially in hard times. As businesses grow, and become more successful, they can afford to hire the more productive worker, and pay to keep them, including benefits. Each person in the USA has a choice of jobs, and can choose to take a better job or one with better benefits. To force a small business to compete with the same benefits as a larger company/corporation is to force the small business out of business and to support the monopoly of the larger corporations and support "corporate greed".

I noticed you did not comment on young people waiting to get married, and then have children with a plan in mind of how the finances would be thru the pregnancy and afterwards. Why is it that liberals don't ever want to "promote" these "choices"?