Kermit Gosnell

[Katzndogz]

Gosnell wasn't incompetent. He competently cut the spinal cords of these infants with a scissors.

Since that wasn't the purpose of the procedure he was doing, he was incompetent.

If he cut the spinal chords outside the womb, that is. The state didn't really prove he did.

The state provided evidence that he did. Whether or not that was enough to prove the case is now before the jury.

 

[JoeB131]

Gosnell wasn't incompetent. He competently cut the spinal cords of these infants with a scissors.

Since that wasn't the purpose of the procedure he was doing, he was incompetent.

If he cut the spinal chords outside the womb, that is. The state didn't really prove he did.

The state provided evidence that he did. Whether or not that was enough to prove the case is now before the jury.

Uncorraborated accomplice testimony usually isn't considered valid.

Don't you ever watch episodes of Law and Order?

You take someone who is guilty of dealing drugs and tell them, "Uh, yeah, just say that Gosnell was killing those babies outside the womb".

"Oh, yeah, for 10 years off my sentence, I'll tell you he was kidnapping ladies off the streets and grinding those babies into sausages!"

See the problem?

The Medical Examiner was unable to determine if those fetuses were terminated inside or outside the womb.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since that wasn't the purpose of the procedure he was doing, he was incompetent.

If he cut the spinal chords outside the womb, that is. The state didn't really prove he did.

The state provided evidence that he did. Whether or not that was enough to prove the case is now before the jury.

Uncorraborated accomplice testimony usually isn't considered valid.

Don't you ever watch episodes of Law and Order?

You take someone who is guilty of dealing drugs and tell them, "Uh, yeah, just say that Gosnell was killing those babies outside the womb".

"Oh, yeah, for 10 years off my sentence, I'll tell you he was kidnapping ladies off the streets and grinding those babies into sausages!"

See the problem?

The Medical Examiner was unable to determine if those fetuses were terminated inside or outside the womb.

Unable to determine is not the same as a determination that they weren't killed outside the wombs.

Ergo, we resort to the evidence at hand.

YOU, being unqualified and ignorant and a propagandist, share the ignorant opinion that we usually don't rely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.

Except you don't understand what corroboration means. It does NOT require independent proof of each and every facet of the claims, you dork.

The FACT of all the dead baby bodies PLUS the fact of the scissor wounds on the back of the necks and the severing of the spinal cords DOES tend to corroborate not only that the incidents happened, but also the reliability of the folks who made CONFESSIONS. If YOU were one of those "nurses", YOU being a dopey *****, might, possibly, confess to a crime or to crimes which YOU did not actually commit.

But MOST people, and all rational people, would DENY that they committed any action which they did NOT in fact commit, at least when "admitting" such depraved but fictional behavior gets you the privilege of being imprisoned.

I have no idea what the jury will determine. But there is enough evidence to justify a conviction. Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. It's that adjective "reasonable" that flummoxes idiots like you, JpeBitch.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Unable to determine is not the same as a determination that they weren't killed outside the wombs.

Ergo, we resort to the evidence at hand.

YOU, being unqualified and ignorant and a propagandist, share the ignorant opinion that we usually don't rely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.

Except you don't understand what corroboration means. It does NOT require independent proof of each and every facet of the claims, you dork.

The FACT of all the dead baby bodies PLUS the fact of the scissor wounds on the back of the necks and the severing of the spinal cords DOES tend to corroborate not only that the incidents happened, but also the reliability of the folks who made CONFESSIONS. If YOU were one of those "nurses", YOU being a dopey *****, might, possibly, confess to a crime or to crimes which YOU did not actually commit.

But MOST people, and all rational people, would DENY that they committed any action which they did NOT in fact commit, at least when "admitting" such depraved but fictional behavior gets you the privilege of being imprisoned.

I have no idea what the jury will determine. But there is enough evidence to justify a conviction. Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. It's that adjective "reasonable" that flummoxes idiots like you, JpeBitch.

Except that they had most of these folks dead to rights for dealing drugs... The Judge has already thrown out three of the murder charges, despite their "Testimony".

Again, most of these people got time off their sentences because they testified. Juries tend to take that into account.

The only thing that "justifies" a conviction in your tiny mind is you don't like abortion.

I ask the question again. Why aren't any of the women who had abortions there being charged with murder? Gosnell was not riding around in the street in the Abortion Mobile luring women in with free candy. They went to his clinic, paid him and walked out one fetus lighter.

And not a one of them reported him for killing their "babies". That didn't get figured out until they raided the place for drugs and found freezers full of fetuses.

I don't know what a jury will do, but the appeals courts will throw any sentences out, mostly because a lot of evidence was entered that never should have been.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

[

Unable to determine is not the same as a determination that they weren't killed outside the wombs.

Ergo, we resort to the evidence at hand.

YOU, being unqualified and ignorant and a propagandist, share the ignorant opinion that we usually don't rely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony.

Except you don't understand what corroboration means. It does NOT require independent proof of each and every facet of the claims, you dork.

The FACT of all the dead baby bodies PLUS the fact of the scissor wounds on the back of the necks and the severing of the spinal cords DOES tend to corroborate not only that the incidents happened, but also the reliability of the folks who made CONFESSIONS. If YOU were one of those "nurses", YOU being a dopey *****, might, possibly, confess to a crime or to crimes which YOU did not actually commit.

But MOST people, and all rational people, would DENY that they committed any action which they did NOT in fact commit, at least when "admitting" such depraved but fictional behavior gets you the privilege of being imprisoned.

I have no idea what the jury will determine. But there is enough evidence to justify a conviction. Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. It's that adjective "reasonable" that flummoxes idiots like you, JpeBitch.

Except that they had most of these folks dead to rights for dealing drugs... The Judge has already thrown out three of the murder charges, despite their "Testimony".

Again, most of these people got time off their sentences because they testified. Juries tend to take that into account.

The only thing that "justifies" a conviction in your tiny mind is you don't like abortion.

I ask the question again. Why aren't any of the women who had abortions there being charged with murder? Gosnell was not riding around in the street in the Abortion Mobile luring women in with free candy. They went to his clinic, paid him and walked out one fetus lighter.

And not a one of them reported him for killing their "babies". That didn't get figured out until they raided the place for drugs and found freezers full of fetuses.

I don't know what a jury will do, but the appeals courts will throw any sentences out, mostly because a lot of evidence was entered that never should have been.

There are lots of reasons to toss out specific charges and that includes making a mistake, but it doesn't matter.

Other murder counts remain.

Your opening sentence "except ... drugs" is irrelevant. SO what? Yes. They had them on drug charges. That's nice. But it's not a sufficient basis on which to conclude that "therefore they would be much more likely to falsely inculpate themselves and plea guilty to murde,r" you moron.

What justifies a conviction in MY mind (not an acquittal as YOU demand because you are totally pro abortion) is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

And it's there. Plodding hack propagandists like you simply refuse to look.

The balance of your post is insipid pointless twaffle. I don't give a shit WHY they finally figured it out. I don't care that they took too long. What matters, you imbecile, is that they did figure it out and that they have apparently come to the correct conclusions.

Sever the spinal cords of full term babies BEFORE they make it out of the womb and the birth canal alive, and it evades a charge of murder.

But, do it after they are born alive (despite your best efforts) and make it OUTSIDE of mom's body, and cry (i.e., draw breath), and what you are doing is no longer an abortion. Then it's called "murder," you hideous dishonest shit bag.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sever the spinal cords of full term babies BEFORE they make it out of the womb and the birth canal alive, and it evades a charge of murder.

But, do it after they are born alive (despite your best efforts) and make it OUTSIDE of mom's body, and cry (i.e., draw breath), and what you are doing is no longer an abortion. Then it's called "murder," you hideous dishonest shit bag.

No, it's still an abortion. Those women didn't go to an abortion clinic looking to have a baby.

Also, let's get real. These fetuses were shot up with a drug intended to kill them. That they might have survived a few minutes longer if they hadn't had their spinal chords cut is a bit silly.

The Prosecutors had this joker dead to rights on drug dealing and the woman he killed. They are attempting to politicize this for an anti-choice agenda... and failing miserably, it seems.

In 2002, they passed the Federal "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" to protect "babies" in botched abortions. Number of prosecutions under that act in the last 11 years?

ZERO.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

[

Sever the spinal cords of full term babies BEFORE they make it out of the womb and the birth canal alive, and it evades a charge of murder.

But, do it after they are born alive (despite your best efforts) and make it OUTSIDE of mom's body, and cry (i.e., draw breath), and what you are doing is no longer an abortion. Then it's called "murder," you hideous dishonest shit bag.

No, it's still an abortion. Those women didn't go to an abortion clinic looking to have a baby.

Also, let's get real. These fetuses were shot up with a drug intended to kill them. That they might have survived a few minutes longer if they hadn't had their spinal chords cut is a bit silly.

The Prosecutors had this joker dead to rights on drug dealing and the woman he killed. They are attempting to politicize this for an anti-choice agenda... and failing miserably, it seems.

In 2002, they passed the Federal "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" to protect "babies" in botched abortions. Number of prosecutions under that act in the last 11 years?

ZERO.

No. It IS called "murder."

It is "infanticide" to be a bit more precise.

A child born ALIVE is a human being despite your sick, twisted mutterings, you ******* dishonest hack lunatic.

And if you set about to THEN try to kill it, and you take action accordingly, and you succeed, you are just a murderer.

I realize you rat fuckers like to distort the meaning of even the most basic words and concepts to suit your lowlife agendas. But that one is not even up for debate.

Suck a bag of dicks, you cocksucking rat ****.

Furthermore, that there may not have been any PROSECUTIONS under the Federal BAIPA is not proof that the practice of shelving children born alive after an abortion procedure fails is not happening, you hopeless idiot.

 

[earlycuyler]

Na, he had body parts from white babies in the fridge in the lunch room to, along with latino (PC). Its a sad state of affairs when folks look past murdered children to defend a political position. Definitely a sign of sallow thinking.

avast ye, earlycuyler!

respectfully, matey, i didn't say nothin' 'bout bein' black or white. some folks always see race, even if no one mentions it...

...imma talkin' 'bout poverty in them inner cities, which knows no color. imma not defendin' any kind 'o political position here nor be i mannin' the decks in defense 'o Dr. Gosnell - and if anyone be reachin' fer the "sallow" thinkin' crutch, 'tis yerself me bucko.

imma sayin' that i doubt the proclivities 'o Dr. Gosnell woulda continued fer this long in Newport Coast California, or in a town like Scarsdale New York. if this kinda procedure had been inflicted on Karen Santorum when she had her own abortion, i think it woulda garnered national headlines and outrage from the outset.

*shrugs*

- MeadHallPirate

He would have continued for that long in Newport beach California for the same reason he continued so long where he was. See, thees woman went to other clinics and were turned away because those doctors would not do abortions for women this far along. Poor women have superb access to abortion. Just look at planned parenthood's website. You will see.

 

[JoeB131]

No. It IS called "murder."

It is "infanticide" to be a bit more precise.

A child born ALIVE is a human being despite your sick, twisted mutterings, you ******* dishonest hack lunatic.

And if you set about to THEN try to kill it, and you take action accordingly, and you succeed, you are just a murderer.

I realize you rat fuckers like to distort the meaning of even the most basic words and concepts to suit your lowlife agendas. But that one is not even up for debate.

Suck a bag of dicks, you cocksucking rat ****.

Furthermore, that there may not have been any PROSECUTIONS under the Federal BAIPA is not proof that the practice of shelving children born alive after an abortion procedure fails is not happening, you hopeless idiot.

Guy, sorry, man... the fact there are no prosecutions means most of the time, this happens and no one says jack-diddly.

Infanticide is when you go into a materinity ward and start poisoning the babies.

Abortion is abortion. That some abortions have to be finished outside the womb... meh, been happening since the Roman times.

So your solution would be waiting an hour for that fetus to finish dying?

 

[WillowTree]

No. It IS called "murder."

It is "infanticide" to be a bit more precise.

A child born ALIVE is a human being despite your sick, twisted mutterings, you ******* dishonest hack lunatic.

And if you set about to THEN try to kill it, and you take action accordingly, and you succeed, you are just a murderer.

I realize you rat fuckers like to distort the meaning of even the most basic words and concepts to suit your lowlife agendas. But that one is not even up for debate.

Suck a bag of dicks, you cocksucking rat ****.

Furthermore, that there may not have been any PROSECUTIONS under the Federal BAIPA is not proof that the practice of shelving children born alive after an abortion procedure fails is not happening, you hopeless idiot.

Guy, sorry, man... the fact there are no prosecutions means most of the time, this happens and no one says jack-diddly.

Infanticide is when you go into a materinity ward and start poisoning the babies.

Abortion is abortion. That some abortions have to be finished outside the womb... meh, been happening since the Roman times.

So your solution would be waiting an hour for that fetus to finish dying?

It was murder.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No. It IS called "murder."

It is "infanticide" to be a bit more precise.

A child born ALIVE is a human being despite your sick, twisted mutterings, you ******* dishonest hack lunatic.

And if you set about to THEN try to kill it, and you take action accordingly, and you succeed, you are just a murderer.

I realize you rat fuckers like to distort the meaning of even the most basic words and concepts to suit your lowlife agendas. But that one is not even up for debate.

Suck a bag of dicks, you cocksucking rat ****.

Furthermore, that there may not have been any PROSECUTIONS under the Federal BAIPA is not proof that the practice of shelving children born alive after an abortion procedure fails is not happening, you hopeless idiot.

Guy, sorry, man... the fact there are no prosecutions means most of the time, this happens and no one says jack-diddly.

Infanticide is when you go into a materinity ward and start poisoning the babies.

Abortion is abortion. That some abortions have to be finished outside the womb... meh, been happening since the Roman times.

So your solution would be waiting an hour for that fetus to finish dying?

No. You are either dishonest or woefully (emphasis on "fully") ignorant.

Infanticide is the murder of an infant (a baby).

Murder is the unlawful and unprivileged taking of human life.

A baby is a living human. When one intentionally snuffs out the life of a person who has just been born, a baby who is breathing, then one is committing murder.

There is no other honest or accurate way to couch it.

Not that facts or honesty will deter you from trying.

 

[JoeB131]

[


No. You are either dishonest or woefully (emphasis on "fully") ignorant.

Infanticide is the murder of an infant (a baby).

Murder is the unlawful and unprivileged taking of human life.

A baby is a living human. When one intentionally snuffs out the life of a person who has just been born, a baby who is breathing, then one is committing murder.

There is no other honest or accurate way to couch it.

Not that facts or honesty will deter you from trying.

Reality check, guy.

Where aer all the prosecutions for this happening, then? I mean, other than Gosnell, who was just plain sloppy, and he's been doing it for 40 years.

Even before Roe v. Wade, women were never prosecuted for having abortions and abortionists were never charged with murder.