NY Times on Dr. Gosnell: Serial Killer a Bad Housekeeper

posted at 3:35 pm on January 24, 2011 by John Sexton

Sunday the NY times published its second article about the Philly abortion clinic of Dr. Gosnell. The headline is Squalid Abortion Clinic Escaped State Oversight and that’s a pretty good description of the article itself. Author Sabrina Tavernise relates an account of what it was like to enter Gosnell’s clinic (“a nightmare”) and of what went on there. The article also raises the failure of state regulators to deal with the problem for 30 years.

Here’s what bothers me. The article focuses almost exclusively on the admittedly unpleasant experience of the adult victims. For instance:

  • The women who emerged from it — often poor blacks and Hispanics — appeared dazed and in pain, and sometimes left in ambulances.
  • Two women died while under his care.
  • the dangerous practices went unnoticed, except by the women who experienced them.
  • The clinic…stands as a grim reminder of how degrading it was for the women who went there

All of this is of course true, but it seems like an unusual way to frame the story given that 7 of the 8 murder charges against Dr. Gosnell involve the murder of babies who did not leave the clinic at all. As the grand jury report explains, that number was just the tip of the iceberg. “Snipping” the neck of live, fully born babies has been Gosnell’s regular practice for decades. The assistant he employed between 2002-2008 has admitted to killing 100 babies this way. Gosnell himself likely killed many times this number.

The real number of victims will probably never be known but the grand jury testimony supports the idea that Dr. Gosnell is one the most prolific serial killers in US history. So why so much attention given to the filthy conditions of his clinic and so little to the victims. It’s almost as if the Times had published a story titled Serial Killer a Bad Housekeeper. Um, yeah, but isn’t that missing the point? Do we really expect the den of a murderer to be neat and odor free?

To be fair, the Times does quote one line from the grand jury report which mentions the deaths of the babies, but then we’re right back to the story about conditions in the facility, as if the filth of the place is what made it objectionable, not the ongoing murder of helpless infants.

Thus far, the Times has published just two stories on the case, the initial one Thursday and this current one by Tavernise. Maybe the editors are planning a companion piece that focuses on the majority of Dr. Gosnell’s victims, i.e. the hundreds of babies whose spinal cords he severed. As a standalone piece, today’s article gives new meaning to the phrase burying the lede.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Please note, huskerdiva is a seasoned registered nurse who has worked in the trenches. WHAT are your medical bonifides, thuja?

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Thanks for your kind words & prayers OC – Just listening to God’s nudging me to do what I can to let his/her light shine through me words/actions :-)

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since this story broke. Even awake, during work I hear poor little innocent babies shrieking and screaming in pain and agony inside my head.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:03 PM

I haven’t had a good night sleep since I forgot to water my tomato seedlings a few days in a row. Even awake, during work I hear poor little tomato plants shrieking and screaming in pain and agony inside my head.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Just, fcuk you, you heartless and soul-less piece of human excrement.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:25 PM

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Thanks KJ – Loved your blogpost on this story:-)

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Praying for you thuja….there was a time when I too was “pro-choice” in another galaxy long, long ago……

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Thank you, ma’am.

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Even awake, during work I hear poor little tomato plants shrieking and screaming in pain and agony inside my head.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

They need light

DarkCurrent on January 24, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Just, fcuk you, you heartless and soul-less piece of human excrement.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:25 PM

I don’t hate you.
Let me lovingly tell you that you would be better off if you got some perspective.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Let me lovingly tell you that you would be better off if you got some perspective.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Perspective?

ladyingray on January 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Praying for you thuja….there was a time when I too was “pro-choice” in another galaxy long, long ago……

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

May I sincerely thank you for your prayers?
I don’t think they will change me. I don’t know that God and politics works that way. Still, it is a decent gesture on your behalf.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Let me lovingly tell you that you would be better off if you got some perspective.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

And you my dear would be better off actually debating facts….rather than using sarcasm

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I don’t hate you.
Let me lovingly tell you that you would be better off if you got some perspective.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM

I’d prefer that you hate me. You obviously hate defective babies.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM

May I sincerely thank you for your prayers?
I don’t think they will change me. I don’t know that God and politics works that way. Still, it is a decent gesture on your behalf.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Certainly, and you’re very welcome….

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM

The NYT’s should have stated: Gosnell posed as a caring doctor, just as we pose to be a newspaper.

GarandFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM

GarandFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Now that was good.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:42 PM

The NYT’s should have stated: Gosnell posed as a caring doctor, just as we pose to be a newspaper.

GarandFan on January 24, 2011 at 6:41 PM

+1000

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Why risk the mothers life by having an abortion. Why not just deliver the child and then kill it?

Stout on January 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Heck why stop there. Why don’t we kill the baby who is a mistake and the person who made the mistake. If we can’t abide people who are mistakes then we had best get rid of the kind of people who make mistakes in the first place. Right? Why should mistake makers get a pass just because they are older? Isn’t that ageist?

I say hunt the parents down too. After a while only the genetically fit will be around. Then we won’t ever have to worry about it, right?

In fact, in the interest of making sure that no mistake is missed, we probably should raise the limit to say, I dunno, 18 or so. That way we can be sure we haven’t missed anyone who might inconvenience anyone else.

Lily on January 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Go Lily – You’re on fire girl!!!!!

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Sorry I exploded in profanity.
I just don’t see any room for sarcasm in this horrific genocidal and painful slaughter of the innocents.
I stand by my profanities.
I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and like Luther, we are not big on pietism.
We call filthy swine wallowing in sh!t, filthy swine wallowing in sh!t.
That’s all.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM

It was a bit ironic thuja called for civil discourse, then quickly resorted to sarcasm…..just sayin’….

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:50 PM

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Yep. I noticed that, my Hero/Heroine.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:53 PM

AS Chewy once said – dog is looking hungrily @ hubby, better go feed them both :-) Later guys…..

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:54 PM

I’m pretty sure that was Josef Mengele’s excuse too

bannedbyhuffpo on January 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Our notable Boulder Colorado third trimester abortionist, warren hern, is probably more careful to crush skulls and suck brains out BEFORE pulling the remains out through the birch canal so as to avoid the negative publicity that Gosnell is getting.

bannedbyhuffpo on January 24, 2011 at 7:05 PM

bannedbyhuffpo on January 24, 2011 at 7:05 PM

So is our filthy pig of a monster. He kills ‘em before evacuation.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Where did thuja go?

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM

It was a bit ironic thuja called for civil discourse, then quickly resorted to sarcasm…..just sayin’….

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:50 PM

No. Sarcasm is a sensible and civil response to mawkishness. Civil debate isn’t about who can cry the best. Extreme emotions don’t prove anything.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Ok thuja, no emotion then.

Why is killing the child necessary in a post-viability abortion? The mother’s bodily domain could be “restored” just as easily by delivering the child alive and placing him for adoption.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Why is killing the child necessary in a post-viability abortion? The mother’s bodily domain could be “restored” just as easily by delivering the child alive and placing him for adoption.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:17 PM

The point of an abortion is so that there is no child. As technology increases more and more fetuses will be viable. I really can’t see that the increase in technology has much to do with the morality of abortion.

On the other hand, relative to Dr. Gosnell, as long as abortion laws provide an adequate amount of time to abort, an abortionist who egregiously violates the the law by aborting much older fetuses should be punished.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:25 PM

On the other hand, relative to Dr. Gosnell, as long as abortion laws provide an adequate amount of time to abort, an abortionist who egregiously violates the the law by aborting much older fetuses should be punished.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Sell it where a baby human isn’t involved, monster.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 7:28 PM

The point of an abortion is so that there is no child

Wrong. The point of abortion is that there is no longer an imposition upon the mother’s bodily domain.

There is no reason that the child has to die to satisfy this condition.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:36 PM

There is no reason that the child has to die to satisfy this condition.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Of course it does, otherwise it would be adoption…DUH.

The point of abortion is that there is no child. EVER. AT. ALL.

And thuja is right. The advance of technology does not change the morality of it at all.

It is a practice engaged in by soul-less monsters.

Lily on January 24, 2011 at 7:48 PM

The point of an abortion is so that there is no child

Wrong. The point of abortion is that there is no longer an imposition upon the mother’s bodily domain.

There is no reason that the child has to die to satisfy this condition.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Vera, I think you have fallen for a feminist talking point. While women are motivated by both the desire to have a fetus-free body and to eliminate a future child, the point of an abortion is to kill a fetus. I suppose we could do fetus transfer to women who want a child, if our society thought made sense. It sounds weird to me, though it could just be because I hadn’t thought of the possibility before.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Wrong. The point of abortion is that there is no longer an imposition upon the mother’s bodily domain.
Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:36 PM

That’s the public face that is put up for the not-medically-required abortions, but I’m pretty sure we all know that the real motivation is to remove the social responsibility attached to having a child.

Count to 10 on January 24, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I suppose we could do fetus transfer to women who want a child, if our society thought made sense. It sounds weird to me, though it could just be because I hadn’t thought of the possibility before.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:49 PM

An artificial womb is probably easier technologically.

Count to 10 on January 24, 2011 at 7:52 PM

An artificial womb is probably easier technologically.

Count to 10 on January 24, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I think we have enough problems without deliberately setting out to create an army of orphans.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Vera, I think you have fallen for a feminist talking poin

It doesn’t matter what the “real” reason is, the constitutional reasoning only applies to bodily domain.

Of course, liberal judges do whatever the hell they please, disregarding their own rational for previous rulings.

My point is that there is no argument to support post-viability abortions. You can’t say that it is because of bodily rights because that child could be born and given away. There’s no principle underpinning that decision other than “I wanted to kill my kid.” That’s not a sufficient reason, and doesn’t hold up to any sort of intellectual scrutiny.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:59 PM

You want child sacrifice in America?

Fine, put your newborn into the loving arms of Moloch or cast it into the fiery valley of Gehenna.

Inanemergencydial on January 24, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I’d prefer that you hate me. You obviously hate defective babies.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I don’t have time in my life for hate.

“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.”
Leviticus 19:17

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 8:31 PM

It doesn’t matter what the “real” reason is, the constitutional reasoning only applies to bodily domain.

Of course, liberal judges do whatever the hell they please, disregarding their own rational for previous rulings.

My point is that there is no argument to support post-viability abortions. You can’t say that it is because of bodily rights because that child could be born and given away. There’s no principle underpinning that decision other than “I wanted to kill my kid.” That’s not a sufficient reason, and doesn’t hold up to any sort of intellectual scrutiny.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 7:59 PM

I don’t believe its accurate to characterise what Blackmun wrote in Roe v Wade as a bodily autonomy argument. Judith Jarvis Thompson’s bodily autonomy argument was only published in the Fall of 1971. Perhaps Blackmun could have read it before writing Roe v Wade, but it seems much too quick to me. I’ll have to read Blackmun’s decision at some point. If you are absolutely convinced you are right on this, please let know, and I will hasten my reading of it.

I agree with you about Roe v Wade as a judicial decision, because the Courts shouldn’t have gone there. I don’t want a judicial dictatorship. I felt vaguely guilty over this issue this weekend, as I wishing people Roe v Wade day this weekend. I actually would like to return making this sort of decision to the states. Will it ruin our argument if agree on something? You won’t hate me for this?

I would argue for the right of a woman who wants to kill her early fetus despite whatever technologies are available for premature babies. I certainly don’t understand why it wouldn’t survive intellectual scrutiny. Virtually everyone supports the pill and the IUD. Yet, they cause the death of potential human beings. Obviously, we aren’t willing to bring every potential person into personhood.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I think we have enough problems without deliberately setting out to create an army of orphans.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM

And that would be the least of our worries. The number of people who confuse their wombs with clown cars is not decreasing – no-pain pregnancies would give them visions of being ‘blessed’ with enough children to start a small town.

Dark-Star on January 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I would argue for the right of a woman who wants to kill her early
fetus despite whatever technologies are available for premature
babies. I certainly don ’t understand why it wouldn’t survive
intellectual scrutiny. Virtually everyone supports the pill and the IUD.
Yet, they cause the death of potential human beings. Obviously, we
aren ’t willing to bring every potential person into personhood.
thuja on January 24, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Ahh, yes. The college philosophy class staple argument.

You do realize that, for all practical purposes, the college philosophy class definition of “potential person” also applies to newly born infants.

So you’ve just made an affirmative argument in favor of infanticide.

spinach.chin on January 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM

No. Sarcasm is a sensible and civil response to mawkishness. Civil debate isn’t about who can cry the best. Extreme emotions don’t prove anything.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 7:14 PM

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm
hardly “sensible” sweetheart especially when your intent is on provoking strong emotions – for many this is a very emotional subject, but you want to debate without emotion, then attempt to provoke others…..will continue to pray honey

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 10:03 PM

would argue for the right of a woman who wants to kill her early
fetus despite whatever technologies are available for premature
babies. I certainly don ’t understand why it wouldn’t survive
intellectual scrutiny. Virtually everyone supports the pill and the IUD.
Yet, they cause the death of potential human beings. Obviously, we
aren ’t willing to bring every potential person into personhood.

It doesn’t survive intellectual scruitany because Roe isn’t a blank check for child killing. It merely claims to weigh the balance of life vs the balance of bodily domain and comes down on the side of bdily domain. If the logic is instead that abortion shoudl be allowed because a woman doesn’t want to be a mother, why limit it to pregnancy? Why can’t I kill my 7 month old. He’s not self aware, he has no attachment to the world beyond me and my direct family. Those are all the “soft” arguments for abortion, and they’re all completely bunk.

As for “potential people” no one is a “potential person” past amphymixis. The only “potential people” are sperm and eggs that have yet to meet. Once fertilization occurs, they are developing human beings.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 10:33 PM

hardly “sensible” sweetheart especially when your intent is on provoking strong emotions – for many this is a very emotional subject, but you want to debate without emotion, then attempt to provoke others…..will continue to pray honey

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 10:03 PM

No, I do agree at all, and I’m completely willing to double down on this. OmahaConservative’s asinine mawkishness has no place in civil political debate. No place whatsoever! We should not respect the temper tantrums of small children nor the political temper tantrums of small minded people who didn’t get their way in politics. If we were to accept it as a serious political argument, we would be forever held in blackmail to our most irrational citizens. For instance, Obamacare could never be repealed if we were to take OmahaConservative’s histrionics seriously.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 10:45 PM

As for “potential people” no one is a “potential person” past amphymixis. The only “potential people” are sperm and eggs that have yet to meet. Once fertilization occurs, they are developing human beings.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Ok! Just honestly admit that this means banning the pill and the UID and let’s have this debate!

Politically speaking, I don’t think you stand a chance of winning.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM

thuja, you are correct. The pill has the very real chance of killing a conceived life. And at that point, they aren’t “potential human beings”, they are human beings.

And why do you distinguish a women’s right to kill her “early fetus” in you 9:17 post? What is the rational for a distinction?

Stout on January 24, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Ok! Just honestly admit that this means banning the pill and the UID and let’s have this debate!

If it is proven that the pill or IUD prevent implantation at a rate higher than NFP, then sure. All the evidence I’ve seen says this isn’t the case.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Ok! Just honestly admit that this means banning the pill and the UID and let’s have this debate!

Politically speaking, I don’t think you stand a chance of winning

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM

You first.

Are you, or are you not in favor of infanticide?

If not, then why not?

spinach.chin on January 24, 2011 at 11:42 PM

thuja, you are correct. The pill has the very real chance of killing a conceived life. And at that point, they aren’t “potential human beings”, they are human beings.

Stout on January 24, 2011 at 11:19 PM

If it is proven that the pill or IUD prevent implantation at a rate higher than NFP, then sure. All the evidence I’ve seen says this isn’t the case.

Vera on January 24, 2011 at 11:26 PM

Vera, could you work out a position on this with Stout and get back to me. It’s not my place to comment on the internal disputes of the pro-life movement.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Well, that was a fast debate. No response to any question posed to you… And by the way, Vera and I do not have conflicting statements.

Stout on January 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Well, that was a fast debate. No response to any question posed to you… And by the way, Vera and I do not have conflicting statements.

Stout on January 24, 2011 at 11:47 PM

As I understand your statements, your statement implies that the pro-life movement would want to ban the Pill and IUD and Vera implies the opposite. If I’m wrong about this, please explain. I’ll reply tomorrow morning.

By the way, I found your response overly glib. Would it hurt you to provide reasons for your argument before you attack me?

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 12:02 AM

I’ll clarify: I am simply saying that the pill can prevent implantation of an embryo. I’m not speaking for anyone buy myself, but yes, I believe these drugs are immoral.

Which argument, the part about human being? At conception, a human life is created with a complete DNA. There’s no potential about it.

Stout on January 25, 2011 at 12:27 AM

I haven’t had a good night sleep since I forgot to water my tomato seedlings a few days in a row. Even awake, during work I hear poor little tomato plants shrieking and screaming in pain and agony inside my head.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

What the hell’s a matter with you?

You take someone’s compassion and grief of slaughtered infants and mock it? There’s a special place in hell for such people!

In my realm, that kind of insensitivity would get ya a slap upside the……

Never mind, I’ll just figure you’re a run of the mill pro choice, baby killin’, liberal!

What the hell has happened to this place? If crap like that, and comparin’ babies to refrigerators can’t get ya knocked off this site, I’m glad I don’t spend that much time here anywore!

AllosaursRus on January 25, 2011 at 1:43 AM

: I am simply saying that the pill can prevent implantation of an embryo. I’m not speaking for anyone buy myself, but yes, I believe these drugs are immoral.

I agree with this. My issue is that NFP also results in this due to the fact that preganacy that occurs due to intercourse outside of the fertile time often results in miscarriage due to the degredation of genetic material. Obviously we couldn’t ban the practice, so this goes down at leat in my book, as something that is tragic but not something we can stop. Neither intend to destroy an innocent life.

Of course, knowing what I do, I would not take such risks.

Now the IUD is a different matter. It is a dangerous, horrible contraption. My best friend is currently in a very dangerous situation because of the IUD. Hers punctured her uterus and implanted itself between the outer wall of her uterus and her bladder. She got pregnant and the doctors think the best thing to do is just to leave the IUD where it is and hope for the best. She has two daughters under 3 and had a legitimate reason for wanting to delay pregnancy because she was pre-eclamptic in both of her previous pregnancies. Now she has to deal with the IUD issue on top of her pre-eclampsia issues. Fun. The sad part is she did all of this to avoid hormones. The IUD insert is intentionally misleading on its effect on implantation.

So yeah, I’m not a big fan of the IUD. The pill I hate, but don’t think should be illegal.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 7:59 AM

So yeah, I’m not a big fan of the IUD. The pill I hate, but don’t think should be illegal.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 7:59 AM

I’m glad you support their legality. I just can’t help but think that you support this because a fertilized egg as an “innocent life” that we shouldn’t kill is a little too absurd. You can’t even pull out the “abortion stops a bleeding heart” line or talk about pain before there is a nerve cell.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 8:25 AM

I just can’t help but think that you support this because a fertilized egg as an “innocent life” that we shouldn’t kill is a little too absurd

How is it absurd? A new, unique human life is formed at amphimixis. That is the only clear line in the entire course of human development. Anything beyond that time is completely arbitrary.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM

How is it absurd? A new, unique human life is formed at amphimixis. That is the only clear line in the entire course of human development. Anything beyond that time is completely arbitrary.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM

First, I see no reason to equate a life’s membership in the species homo sapien with the moral demands that personhood would give us. I would have no trouble killing a fertilize human egg. When I say no trouble, I mean I would have guilt or thought about it afterwards. Feelings of guilt shouldn’t be over something symbolic. What happened to Michael Vick’s dogs is something that should distress us. There was a realness and a horror to it.
Second, I don’t see the problem with the stage of development when we make it illegal to kill a fetus being arbitrary. The age when children can get a driver’s license or purchase alcohol is also arbitrary. It’s not an argument against requiring a child reach an age appropriate for driving.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 9:19 AM

First, I see no reason to equate a life’s membership in the species homo sapien with the moral demands that personhood would give us

Why not?

Second, I don’t see the problem with the stage of development when we make it illegal to kill a fetus being arbitrary. The age when children can get a driver’s license or purchase alcohol is also arbitrary. It’s not an argument against requiring a child reach an age appropriate for driving.

There is a difference between restricting liscensing and restricting rights. We can put restrictions upon certain acts within a society, but we can not put restrictions upon basic legal protections.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 9:28 AM

First, I see no reason to equate a life’s membership in the species homo sapien with the moral demands that personhood would give us. I would have no trouble killing a fertilize human egg. When I say no trouble, I mean I would have guilt or thought about it afterwards. Feelings of guilt shouldn’t be over something symbolic. What happened to Michael Vick’s dogs is something that should distress us. There was a realness and a horror to it.
Second, I don’t see the problem with the stage of development when we make it illegal to kill a fetus being arbitrary. The age when children can get a driver’s license or purchase alcohol is also arbitrary. It’s not an argument against requiring a child reach an age appropriate for driving.

There is nothing “symbolic” about a fertilized egg. It is an actual human, not a symbol of a human or a “potential human” but a real live human just not old enough to live on its own.

I think the reason that you don’t get that is because, apparently, in your mind there is no real moral difference between allowing someone a license to drive based on their age and killing someone based on their age.

Lily on January 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM

But hey, at least they were mainly Blacks and Hispanics…that should make liberals happy.
Minorities…think, think of who really has your best interest at heart, these devils have no problem killing you off…

right2bright on January 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM

One would think they would get that. It is really sad that they don’t. Sad for all those babies. I still can’t get past about page 10 in the report. I just cry when I read it. 40 million babies. Why? We need to fight this.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Turn off your automatic wingnut rage generator and read my post again.

Most. People. Do. Not. Want. Special. Kids.

Is THAT simple enough for you?

Dark-Star on January 24, 2011 at 4:56 PM

That comment is like the guy on huffpoop thread who said they should make all abortions 3rd trimester so that things like cleft palates show up and you can see them on ultrasounds so then you can abort the child. I think perhaps they should remove the uteruses of anyone having a 3rd trimester abortion and that might bring the numbers down some, (and then do a vas on the man that got her pregnant.)

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM

So why all the spittle-flecked fury over it?

Dark-Star on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Because we see all life as value and especially babies. They are helpless and vulnerable, if we don’t protect and nurture the most helpless among us we have no hope. If we have to explain it to you, I am not certain you will ever get it. I see people defend puppies and kittens but will advocate killing babies that could breath on their own. My heart hurts.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I think perhaps they should remove the uteruses of anyone having a 3rd trimester abortion and that might bring the numbers down some, (and then do a vas on the man that got her pregnant.)

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I’d go farther: taxpayer-funded abortions should come with that condition. We’d save so much on welfare costs and repeat offenders it wouldn’t even be funny. Only problem is that the rabidly pro-natalists of America would hit the ceiling – hell, the program that pays drug addicts to voluntarily get snipped is constantly under fire.

Also there should be some way for unmarried women to collect child support from the biological father. Our current system allows you to walk away without any penalty…leaving the mother with a baby and 18 years of expenses. Often as not taxpayers and private charity also end up paying for such shenanigans. Enough of that. You banged it, you bought it!

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM

No, people object to it because the ultrasound raises the costs of an abortion and many people getting abortion are desperately poor.

thuja on January 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Who says? I think many people use it as a way to delay responsibility when pregnancy happens in college, or before they are ready.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Also there should be some way for unmarried women to collect child support from the biological father. Our current system allows you to walk away without any penalty…leaving the mother with a baby and 18 years of expenses. Often as not taxpayers and private charity also end up paying for such shenanigans. Enough of that. You banged it, you bought it!

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM

There already is. It’s called a DNA test. As for your sterilization fantasy, sorry we’re not communist china yet. The government should not be in the business to push sterilization as a cost saving measure.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since this story broke.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Me neither, yesterday I went to our crisis pregnancy center, I have to do something to help. It was really nice and they need baby clothes and other things. I have started contributing so they can get an ultrasound too. If we all put our money where our heart is it will help.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

There already is. It’s called a DNA test. M

Which means jack squat if the lady doesn’t have a ring on her finger. Any number of tearful teenage moms can attest to the fact that ‘dad’ can run off and leave them holding the baby and the bills.

Putting an end to that would not only save public and private charity $, but help stem the tide of teen-breeding. It’s long past time we started holding young people accountable for what they do with their reproductive organs.

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Which means jack squat if the lady doesn’t have a ring on her finger. Any number of tearful teenage moms can attest to the fact that ‘dad’ can run off and leave them holding the baby and the bills.

What planet do you live on? An unmarried mother need only pettition the court for child support, and the father can be tracked down, hauled in, and forced to provide a DNA sample. If he matches the judge (or Maury Povich) yells “You are the father!” and he pays child support.

Men tried to set up a “man’s abortion” law via Dubay v. Wells, but the case was dismissed. A “baby daddy” is just as much on the hook for child support as an ex-husband.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Which means jack squat if the lady doesn’t have a ring on her finger. Any number of tearful teenage moms can attest to the fact that ‘dad’ can run off and leave them holding the baby and the bills.

Ack! Quote fail.

What planet do you live on? An unmarried mother need only pettition the court for child support, and the father can be tracked down, hauled in, and forced to provide a DNA sample. If he matches the judge (or Maury Povich) yells “You are the father!” and he pays child support.

Men tried to set up a “man’s abortion” law via Dubay v. Wells, but the case was dismissed. A “baby daddy” is just as much on the hook for child support as an ex-husband.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM

What planet do you live on?

Earth, come visit it sometime.

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Praying for you thuja….there was a time when I too was “pro-choice” in another galaxy long, long ago……

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Me too huskerdiva,

I was a liberal hippie as a 18 y/o working as a nursing assistant in OB-GYN in the delivery room, my whole thinking about the “rightness” of pro-choice changed. Roe vs Wade passed when I was a Senior in high school.

I saw the wonderment of life in that hospital. I saw people take home the imperfect down’s babies and love them even more than the perfect ones. It was the beginning of my pathway out of liberalism and the madness of the early 70′s. I could not buy what they were selling. Sadly many of my friends did, and regret it deeply.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Me neither, yesterday I went to our crisis pregnancy center, I have to do something to help. It was really nice and they need baby clothes and other things. I have started contributing so they can get an ultrasound too. If we all put our money where our heart is it will help.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Maybe rather than crying over your fantasy fetus friends, you could worry about how women are treated in Islamic region, you could worry about betting on dog fights, you could worry about the children who lost their hands in Liberia’s civil war, or something much more real?

I want to be civil, but your emotions are just morally silly. I remember crying at the end of the Lord of the Rings, but I never thought my tears had any moral significance.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Maybe rather than crying over your fantasy fetus friends, you could worry about how women are treated in Islamic region, you could worry about betting on dog fights, you could worry about the children who lost their hands in Liberia’s civil war, or something much more real?

Screw you. First of all, your oh so clever alliteration aside, the unborn are not “fantasy” they are living human beings. Second of all, Farmgirl is doing something to help women facing crisis pregnancies, which is far more than you’re doing.

What is it that makes the pro-death crowd convinced that if someone cares for the unborn they can’t possibly have other interests? Oh, that’s right: Bigotry.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Way to avoid admitting that you were talking out your ass.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:59 AM

I’d go farther: taxpayer-funded abortions should come with that condition. We’d save so much on welfare costs and repeat offenders it wouldn’t even be funny. Only problem is that the rabidly pro-natalists of America would hit the ceiling – hell, the program that pays drug addicts to voluntarily get snipped is constantly under fire.

Also there should be some way for unmarried women to collect child support from the biological father. Our current system allows you to walk away without any penalty…leaving the mother with a baby and 18 years of expenses. Often as not taxpayers and private charity also end up paying for such shenanigans. Enough of that. You banged it, you bought it!

Dark-Star on January 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I am thinking maybe people should stop getting pregnant, stop promoting sexual encounters in grade school, and when they do get pregnant give it up if they don’t want to be a parent. There are many people that would adopt them, they can’t get babies from China or other countries anymore. I am old fashioned enough that I think people should wait until they are married to have kids. How that would change things.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I think perhaps they should remove the uteruses of anyone having a 3rd trimester abortion and that might bring the numbers down some, (and then do a vas on the man that got her pregnant.)

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Oh brother, I guess I should have put the sarc tag on…didn’t think anyone would take this seriously….

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Ack! Quote fail.

What planet do you live on? An unmarried mother need only pettition the court for child support, and the father can be tracked down, hauled in, and forced to provide a DNA sample. If he matches the judge (or Maury Povich) yells “You are the father!” and he pays child support.

Men tried to set up a “man’s abortion” law via Dubay v. Wells, but the case was dismissed. A “baby daddy” is just as much on the hook for child support as an ex-husband.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Your right Vera, work with a woman that had to do that and he has to help with child support. DNA doesn’t lie.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Me neither, yesterday I went to our crisis pregnancy center, I have to do something to help. It was really nice and they need baby clothes and other things. I have started contributing so they can get an ultrasound too. If we all put our money where our heart is it will help.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Maybe rather than crying over your fantasy fetus friends, you could worry about how women are treated in Islamic region, you could worry about betting on dog fights, you could worry about the children who lost their hands in Liberia’s civil war, or something much more real?

I want to be civil, but your emotions are just morally silly. I remember crying at the end of the Lord of the Rings, but I never thought my tears had any moral significance.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM

What is more real than killing our children? It isn’t morally silly, it is debased. It is hard to understand that some think it’s ok, and a right. Call me silly but I think it is evil.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Fantasy fetus

Isn’t this the essence of the pro-death choice argument.

You can’t see the fetus (until ultrasounds came along). It isn’t cute yet. So why not kill it. The fetus can’t speak up for itself or defend itself.

We’ll it’s not a fantasy fetus. Because it isn’t cute and cuddly yet, is no reason it should be ok to kill it.

I don’t care about a dog compared to a human. Yes animal cruelty is wrong and makes me upset, but it is in no way comparable to the wholesale murder of our children.

Stout on January 25, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Screw you. First of all, your oh so clever alliteration aside, the unborn are not “fantasy” they are living human beings. Second of all, Farmgirl is doing something to help women facing crisis pregnancies, which is far more than you’re doing.

What is it that makes the pro-death crowd convinced that if someone cares for the unborn they can’t possibly have other interests? Oh, that’s right: Bigotry.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Vera, you know we are suppose to have a new political tone? If Majority Leader Cantor can ask Nancy Pelosi to sit by him at the State of the Union, you could start your reply to me without an expletive.

I do my part to help women with crisis pregnancies. I occasionally go taunt the pro-lifers at the abortion clinic on Saturday morning. It seems they would rather argue with me than harass women trying to get abortions. The clinic escort’s for the patients love it when I show up.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Vera, you know we are suppose to have a new political tone? If Majority Leader Cantor can ask Nancy Pelosi to sit by him at the State of the Union, you could start your reply to me without an expletive.

Aw, poor Thuja. You come on here saying the most heartless things you can think of and then act SHOCKED! that people tell you to f’ off. Cry me a river.

You’re an intellectually dishonest idiot who can’t even defend your own beliefs. Your one skill is saying something inflammatory and then running away.

Grow up.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Fantasy fetus

Isn’t this the essence of the pro-death choice argument.

Stout on January 25, 2011 at 12:37 PM

You know you misquoted me. Vera pointed out my “clever alliteration” and so you couldn’t have missed the accurate quote. I used the expression “fantasy fetus friends”. Obviously, the fetus isn’t a fantasy, and to imply that I intended to say that is misquoting me. So, no, your misquote isn’t the essence of any argument, including mine.

By the way, Michelle Bachman faces the same issue in the leftists quoting her as saying “armed and dangerous”. She did use those three words, but in context she meant something else.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Maybe rather than crying over your fantasy fetus friends…

So the Fetus’ aren’t the “fantasy” in this situation? Who is? I’ll remind you that you said this in response to:

I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since this story broke.

OmahaConservative on January 24, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Me neither, yesterday I went to our crisis pregnancy center, I have to do something to help. It was really nice and they need baby clothes and other things. I have started contributing so they can get an ultrasound too. If we all put our money where our heart is it will help.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Nice try.

You’re either saying that (A) pro-life people outside an abortion center are false in their concern for the well being of the unborn child -or- (B) that the fetus is a fantasy.

You’re exact definition of fantasy in the later case may be up for interpretation; ranging from doesn’t exist to so inconsequential to not require any concern.

In either case, you have clearly stated in what regard you hold an unborn child.

Your words. Own them.

Stout on January 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Is the inability to understand other’s points of view required for “pro-lifers”? I would anticipate that most people reading “fantasy fetus friends” would understand that I mean the pro-lifers are fantasizing fetuses as friends.

You’re an intellectually dishonest idiot who can’t even defend your own beliefs. Your one skill is saying something inflammatory and then running away.

Grow up.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM

You are aware that we will never agree? And that we will probably never meet? And that no matter how moderately I put my ideas they would still be inflammatory in your eyes? We are just locked in a dialog. There is no sense in getting angry at me.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 2:32 PM

And that no matter how moderately I put my ideas they would still be inflammatory in your eyes? We are just locked in a dialog.

That’s a load of crap. Instead of posting snarky remarks you could try actually answering the questions posed to you.

Let’s try this. You said:

First, I see no reason to equate a life’s membership in the species homo sapien with the moral demands that personhood would give us
Why not

As I asked hours ago, why not?

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Maybe rather than crying over your fantasy fetus friends, you could worry about how women are treated in Islamic region, you could worry about betting on dog fights, you could worry about the children who lost their hands in Liberia’s civil war, or something much more real?

I want to be civil, but your emotions are just morally silly. I remember crying at the end of the Lord of the Rings, but I never thought my tears had any moral significance.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Just want you to know I do what I can for the poor, hungry and abused. I have donated to Middle East, and African causes via Cross International, Campus Crusades, Sat7, Voice of the Martyrs, and Samaritans Purse. Although I don’t have a lot of money to give I give what I can. I choose to give through organizations that show people how to lift themselves out of poverty. And also give them hope. Many of the people on the receiving end of these contributions are christians that are persecuted or killed for their beliefs. That is a story that MSM does not want to tell to the world. Do you know many of the refugees in Liberia are sustained by christian organizations, who’s pilots are risking their lives to fly food and clothing into to those ravaged areas that government entities will not? We hear the tolerance line from the left, but it is a two way street. When will you ever give us what you demand from us?

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 3:41 PM

thuja,

these 2 are doing great things in Hati, consider sending them a few bucks, they are really suffering down there.

http://www.crossinternational.org/
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

you could worry about the children who lost their hands in Liberia’s civil war, or something much more real? thuja on January 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Other worthy causes by both of the above ministries… We do care for all suffering humans, but Jesus said we should especially care for the “little ones”.

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Relief_and_Development
http://www.crossinternational.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Regions-Zambia&category=GetInvolved
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/giving/giftcatalog.html

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Let’s try this. You said:
First, I see no reason to equate a life’s membership in the species homo sapien with the moral demands that personhood would give us

As I asked hours ago, why not?

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 3:17 PM

I hold that the first goal of morality is as a brake on sadism, the second goal is to enable us to better get along, and third to produce a better world.
With that in mind, let’s start with a fertilized egg. There is no blood and no pain and no mind. There is no pain, so sadism isn’t an issue. A fertilized egg is more like toaster than even a pet turtle and so getting along isn’t an issue. Third, I don’t see how refusing to kill a unwanted human egg improves the world. Thus, I really can’t see why killing a human egg has any more moral significance than eating a potato.

The arguments are similar, but more complicated, with a fetus. At bottom, I can’t over the fact that I find a grown dog more morally compelling in terms of the respect I would give him. Yet, a dog is something we can kill.

thuja on January 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Sorry to be so blunt, but your argument is full of it.

You value someone’s worth, their right to life, based whether other people consider them worth having around (for lack of better words) in two of your three criteria.

One has their right to life regardless of how other people value it. I do not need other people to stick up for me for me to have a right to life.

So no problems killing people in comas. They can’t feel pain (especially if medicated) and what possible use can they contribute to society.

You have a very selfish attitude regarding someone’s right to life. Essentially, as long as it doesn’t hurt them, and they’re not advancing your world view of “getting along” and “producing a better world” (scary to think what you think this means), then no problem killing them.

Frankly, you disgust me.

The arguments are similar, but more complicated, with a fetus. At bottom, I can’t over the fact that I find a grown dog more morally compelling in terms of the respect I would give him. Yet, a dog is something we can kill.

Money quote. You struggle with the moral equivalence of putting down a dog vs killing a human.

Stout on January 25, 2011 at 6:07 PM

There is no pain, so sadism isn’t an issue

So if I kill someone in their sleep, it’s ok?

the second goal is to enable us to better get along,

How does it help us to “get along” to live in a society that places so little value on life that a mother kills her own child?

. Third, I don’t see how refusing to kill a unwanted human egg improves the world.

First of all, it isn’t an egg. Post conception, it is a zygote. Regardless, valuing ALL human life improves the world because it honors humanity and protects us all from arbitrary functionalism that serves to undermine our personhood. Not to mention we aren’t, you know, killing people.

At bottom, I can’t over the fact that I find a grown dog more morally compelling in terms of the respect I would give him

I can’t help that you don’t have a soul.

Vera on January 25, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2