AP: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors

[twa]

The women got what they paid for didn't they?

If he didn't do it somebody else would ,or they would do it themselves right??

The not inspected is what I find hard to believe

[dreamshatterer]

There is a special place in hell for people like this.

[Hunter44]

The women got what they paid for didn't they?

If he didn't do it somebody else would ,or they would do it themselves right??

The not inspected is what I find hard to believe

Wow, you're hardcore. On that note he saved us tax payers a lot of money too. Think about all the welfare that would've went to these dead beat moms and their herds of children. This guy did a public service!! Figures the state would step in and infringe on the mans right to make a living...

[Larry]

Although, I have to confess. I can certainly see the potential problems for someone performing partial birth abortions.

I mean, your customer came to see you, because she wants to end her pregnancy. That was "the mission". But the fetus accidentally got born.

What do you do? Hand the baby to your customer (who came to you to have the pregnancy ended) and say "Here ya go. You're stuck with it."?

Let's make things more complicated. The now-baby is two months premature. The baby can live, if it receives a million dollars worth of health care. (Health care which, BTW, you are not equipped to provide, before you even start to talk about "who's gonna pay for it?")

Bear in mind that "viable" is a function of "how much you willing to spend?"

Me? Frankly, I wouldn't mind just outlawing late-term abortions. I think that society will be better off of mothers-to-be have, say, a 90 day "cooling off period", in which they can contemplate their decision before being committed. But I don't have a problem with the idea of a rule where, say "if the fetus were to be born, right now, in the county hospital, then it would probably live" equals "viability", and at that point, it's too late, and you're committed.

My problem with that standard is that it's a judgment call.

Suppose, for example, that the law says that when the fetus is 6 months old, then it's too late.

Problem is, it's impossible to determine, with precision, whether the fetus if 6 months old, or two weeks shy.

What you'd have would be a situation analogous to a rule that says that an NFL official has to rule whether the receiver's feet came down in bounds, and if the replay booth, later, says he was wrong, then he's facing the death penalty. (In fact, if the opposing coach can find just one official, anywhere in the world, who's willing to claim that the first official was wrong, then he's facing the death penalty.)

At least the present, completely arbitrary rule of "it's human at birth" isn't a judgment call.

I'd like to prohibit (most) late-term abortions. (I wouldn't mind an exception for those things like "the fetus has no lungs. It will never breathe.") But how do you do it without it being a judgment call?

[twa]

Wow, you're hardcore. On that note he saved us tax payers a lot of money too. Think about all the welfare that would've went to these dead beat moms and their herds of children. This guy did a public service!! Figures the state would step in and infringe on the mans right to make a living...

Ain't that what we hear all the time?

What fundamental difference is there between a 6 month fetus and after?

All this condemnation for the Dr when he gave them what they wanted....Larry it is ALL a judgment call

[Bang]

Pretty much, lol. Post-birth viability is the key for me, though. I'm quite liberal on this issue, but when the baby could feasibly survive on its own (and has, by the looks of it) it becomes murder.

I agree. This is vile.

I'm pro choice, but it's kind of like the cuban immigrant law,, if you can make it to the shore, you're here.

This is murder.

~Bang

[mcsluggo]

i have to say that this case just sounds TOOOO perfect... like the centipede doctor or something. Obviously if this is all on the up-and-up it is terrible.

[Hubbs]

Also..... In Before Navy Dave.

[DjTj]

I agree. This is vile.

I'm pro choice, but it's kind of like the cuban immigrant law,, if you can make it to the shore, you're here.

This is murder.

~Bang

That's pretty much my position. If the mother's womb is the only thing that can keep the baby alive, then it's her choice. If doctors can keep the baby alive without the mother, then the state should have the power to intervene. At seven or eight months, the decision should be adoption, not abortion.

[December90]

Although, I have to confess. I can certainly see the potential problems for someone performing partial birth abortions.

I mean, your customer came to see you, because she wants to end her pregnancy. That was "the mission". But the fetus accidentally got born.

What do you do? Hand the baby to your customer (who came to you to have the pregnancy ended) and say "Here ya go. You're stuck with it."?

Let's make things more complicated. The now-baby is two months premature. The baby can live, if it receives a million dollars worth of health care. (Health care which, BTW, you are not equipped to provide, before you even start to talk about "who's gonna pay for it?")

Bear in mind that "viable" is a function of "how much you willing to spend?"

Me? Frankly, I wouldn't mind just outlawing late-term abortions. I think that society will be better off of mothers-to-be have, say, a 90 day "cooling off period", in which they can contemplate their decision before being committed. But I don't have a problem with the idea of a rule where, say "if the fetus were to be born, right now, in the county hospital, then it would probably live" equals "viability", and at that point, it's too late, and you're committed.

My problem with that standard is that it's a judgment call.

Suppose, for example, that the law says that when the fetus is 6 months old, then it's too late.

Problem is, it's impossible to determine, with precision, whether the fetus if 6 months old, or two weeks shy.

What you'd have would be a situation analogous to a rule that says that an NFL official has to rule whether the receiver's feet came down in bounds, and if the replay booth, later, says he was wrong, then he's facing the death penalty. (In fact, if the opposing coach can find just one official, anywhere in the world, who's willing to claim that the first official was wrong, then he's facing the death penalty.)

At least the present, completely arbitrary rule of "it's human at birth" isn't a judgment call.

I'd like to prohibit (most) late-term abortions. (I wouldn't mind an exception for those things like "the fetus has no lungs. It will never breathe.") But how do you do it without it being a judgment call?

The "Fetus" a human being whether viable or not. Choosing to call a human something else so you can be comfortable killing it changes nothing. As anti-abortion as I am, (I think it is murder) How about the compromise that you are legally allowed to murder your own baby in the 1st trimester only. Does that reduce or eliminate enough of the "judgment call" aspect for you?

[Boss_Hogg]

yuck, words cannot describe my reply.

[Larry]

The "Fetus" a human being whether viable or not.

According to people who invented that "definition" to justify their agenda of banning abortions.

[Bang]

According to people who invented that "definition" to justify their agenda of banning abortions.

Once it's born, it's no longer a fetus.

That isn't up to any semantics,i don't think.

~Bang

[Larry]

That's pretty much my position. If the mother's womb is the only thing that can keep the baby alive, then it's her choice. If doctors can keep the baby alive without the mother, then the state should have the power to intervene. At seven or eight months, the decision should be adoption, not abortion.

Pointing out that science, right now, can raise a fertilized egg to term. All it takes is a whole boatload of money and a volunteer host.

It can turn a sperm into a baby. All it takes is all of the above, and an egg.

In fact, Dolly the Sheep says that I can take a few of your dead skin cells and raise it to term. All it takes is some more money, and a fertilized egg.

Again. "Viable" depends on "how much you willing to pay?"

----------

Although, I agree with you. My opinion is that seven or eight months is too late, you're committed.

---------- Post added January-19th-2011 at 05:45 PM ----------

Once it's born, it's no longer a fetus.

That isn't up to any semantics,i don't think.

~Bang

Yep. That's the current standard.

I find myself wondering if these were actually born. I mean, the piece is obviously trying as hard as it can to make this case spectacular. (This might not necessarily mean the reporter is spinning things. He appears to simply be quoting what the prosecutor said.) I wouldn't be surprised if "the other side" makes differing claims. But I'll also agree that I'm not 100% certain that they weren't born, either. I can at least invent imaginary scenarios in which it might have happened. The claims that they were born may well be true. And I certainly have no basis to dispute them.

[Sticksboi05]

Do you even have to ask yourself "How could a person do this" anymore?

There is alot of sick **** going on in this world.

The world was a much darker place in earlier centuries and millenniums. We have seriously "humaned" our society.

And this guy is a piece of ****.

[DjTj]

Pointing out that science, right now, can raise a fertilized egg to term. All it takes is a whole boatload of money and a volunteer host.

Only if it is transferred within a few days of fertilization. If you take an embryo or fetus out of the womb at any period between about a week after fertilization to about 7 months, it is not going to survive.

In fact, Dolly the Sheep says that I can take a few of your dead skin cells and raise it to term. All it takes is some ore money, and a fertilized egg.

As far as I know, successful human cloning has not occurred. And cloning is creating a separate life, not taking an existing one to term.

Again. "Viable" depends on "how much you willing to pay?"

In my opinion, the government should pay. If a woman abandons her baby on the doorstep of a church, the government will pay for the orphanage, the foster home, and will try to find adoptive parents. The government will get orphans immunized and will send them to a doctor if they are sick. Why not do the same if the baby is abandoned two months earlier?

Although, I agree with you. My opinion is that seven or eight months is too late, you're committed.

And your opinion is consistent with the law:

We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. We adhere to this principle for two reasons. First, as we have said, is the doctrine of stare decisis. Any judicial act of line-drawing may seem somewhat arbitrary, but Roe was a reasoned statement, elaborated with great care. We have twice reaffirmed it in the face of great opposition. See Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. at 759; Akron I, 462 U.S. at 419-420. Although we must overrule those parts of Thornburgh and Akron I which, in our view, are inconsistent with Roe's statement that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn, see infra at 882-883, the central premise of those cases represents an unbroken commitment by this Court to the essential holding of Roe. It is that premise which we reaffirm today.

The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can, in reason and all fairness, be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 163. Consistent with other constitutional norms, legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, see supra at 860, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits, given that the medical community and all those who must apply its discoveries will continue to explore the matter. The viability line also has, as a practical matter, an element of fairness. In some broad sense, it might be said that a woman who fails to act before viability has consented to the State's intervention on behalf of the developing child.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0505_0833_ZO.html

[Destino]

All these complaints and they failed to inspect his clinic since 1993? WTF?

abortion clinics are legit businesses. Why not let them self regulate and if there is a problem with how they are doing business customers will go elsewhere and they'll be forced to shut down. sorry couldn't help myself.

Seriously for a minute...

This sounds like straight up murder and the fact that it took almost two decades to look into the situation is unbelievable.

[ZoEd]

Beyond horrible and disgusting.

For the first time in over 5 years I have used the ignore feature based on some of the posts in this thread. Disagree with me about politics, life, or whatever, but to rationalize the murder of innocent children, you can go **** yourself. Maybe someone should take a pair of scissors to the back of your neck severing your spine.

[Larry]

Only if it is transferred within a few days of fertilization. If you take an embryo or fetus out of the womb at any period between about a week after fertilization to about 7 months, it is not going to survive.

My point stands. A fertilized egg can be raised to term. (If you have enough resources.) It it "viable"?

A sperm cell can also be raised to term. All it requires are near-identical resources. Is it "viable"?

----------

I understand, here. This is a really hot button issue. One which a lot of people feel really strongly about. (Including myself.)

And, given human history, I think that whatever rule we come up with, is going to be an arbitrary one.

Just like the current standard is an arbitrary one. As we're pointing out to each other, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a newborn, and a fetus that's due a few weeks from now.

But then, there's nothing that says an arbitrary standard is necessarily wrong, either. The standard of "you can vote if you're 18" is an arbitrary one. The standard of "21 to drink" is an arbitrary one.

The current "it's a person when it's born" is arbitrary.

And I don't have a problem with people arguing that we need a new standard.

For a long time, a person was dead when they stopped breathing. Then we changed that, and people were dead when their heart stopped. Then we changed that, and people were dead when brain activity ceased. (Unless Congress decided to intervene, for some campaign donors.)

So there's certainly precedent that, over time, society's arbitrary standards arbitrarily change.

And I do think that science and technology have changed enough, that we should be debating the possibility of changing this one.

However, I have a problem with changing it to the point where birth control becomes murder.

I think that, for the good of society, the new standard needs to be something between birth (too late) and fertilization (too early).

Unfortunately, there really isn't a good, clear, non-judgment-call point of demarcation, in between those events.

[Predicto]

Beyond horrible and disgusting.

For the first time in over 5 years I have used the ignore feature based on some of the posts in this thread. Disagree with me about politics, life, or whatever, but to rationalize the murder of innocent children, you can go **** yourself. Maybe someone should take a pair of scissors to the back of your neck severing your spine.

I dunno, maybe you read a different thread than I did. I saw about 40 straight posts denouncing this guy in the strongest terms, along with a couple of comments highlighting how difficult the abortion issue really is to quantify (something all of us already were aware of, I suspect).

[Larry]

I dunno, maybe you read a different thread than I did. I saw about 40 straight posts denouncing this guy in the strongest terms, along with a couple of comments highlighting how difficult the abortion issue really is to quantify (something all of us already were aware of, I suspect).

Until someone disagreed with his pronouncement from on high of his divine ability to pronounce what is and isn't human. At which time his superior morality required him to call for the death of anyone disagreeing with his opinion.

[Mickalino]

Wow. Nice catch.

There is no way to defend this guy, but making 30k a year is totally different than "making millions."

You wonder what else the reporter changed or obscured. :whoknows:

The fact that he's not actually an abortion doctor ?

[Larry]

The fact that he's not actually an abortion doctor ?

Didn't hear that. Where'd you get that from?

(BTW, if anybody else has additional facts in this case, please consider this a request directed at y'all, too.)

Or, Larry could go to Google.

BBC story, from a few minutes ago.

Mentions that the state prohibits abortions past 24 weeks. Says that the adult death supposedly occurred as the result of staff giving her repeated doses of an outdated sedative. Says that the prosecution claims that his staff were neither trained nor licensed.

Last sentence of the article:

Dr Gosnell and clinic workers were ultimately arrested when law enforcement officers raided the clinic seeking evidence of illegal prescription selling.

WaPo:

His clinic had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, a family physician not certified in obstetrics or gynecology, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but they said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.

Gosnell didn't advertise, but word got around. Women came from across the city, state and region for illegal late-term abortions, authorities said. They paid $325 for first-trimester abortions and $1,600 to $3,000 for abortions up to 30 weeks. The clinic took in $10,000 to $15,000 a day, authorities said.

Although I'm wondering. Were abortions all he did? Or were they only part of his business? (I wouldn't think it would be possible to take in $10K/day, just from third-trimester abortions.)

Few if any of the unconscious patients knew their babies had been born alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were much further along, authorities said.

Prosecutors said Gosnell falsified the ultrasound examinations that determine how far along a pregnancy is, teaching his staff to hold the probe in such a way that the fetus would look smaller.

Gosnell sometimes joked about the babies, saying one was so large he could "walk me to the bus stop," according to the report.

Granted, I assume that all of these stories are simply pulling quotes from the same prosecution document. But still, this is looking a lot less like a bunch of inflated claims.

[Mickalino]

Didn't hear that. Where'd you get that from?

I retract.

My bad.

[Hunter44]

Didn't hear that. Where'd you get that from?

(BTW, if anybody else has additional facts in this case, please consider this a request directed at y'all, too.)

It says in the article that he wasn't licensed to perform abortions.

Gosnell got his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and is board certified in family practice. He started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology, authorities said.

"He does not know how to do an abortion. He's not board certified," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said. "Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do."