Larry Brown #43 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think most are missing the huge question this story raises, or the big elephant in the room. Putting aside the classic abortion debate for a moment, you have to wonder what other kinds of horrors are taking place at abortion clinics that are considered "safe and legal," if this guy's shop wasn't inspected once in the last 17 years. How can we be confident that delivering babies and then killing them isn't far more commonplace than anyone wants to believe, if there's little to no oversight of these practices? Granted, this was just one state (Pennsylvania), but how confident are we that inspections and oversight is any more rigorous in other states? Rather than re-hashing the abortion debate, I think these are some of the questions we should be asking right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Ah, the old abortion debate.It all depends on where you believe life "begins", and that is an intensely personal subject, so I dont even know why people bother to argue much. My major pet peeve from "feminists" and militant pro-lifers, is that they often wrongly turn this into a debate about women having 'the right to do what they want with their body'. It really isnt, its a debate about where life begins. If you choose to believe its birth, kudos to you, and I bet you are disgusted by this doctor's actions and consider it murder, because someone's life has been taken away. But cant you see why someone who believes that lfie begins when the fetus is viable on its own (well before birth) would be just as disgusted by late term abortions? Or that people who believe that life begins at conception are disgusted by any abortion and view it as murder? It has little ot do with women rights, and has everything to do with human rights and what is considered a human. ---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 09:46 PM ---------- It IS a little strange that you focus on the female "slutbugs" while not giving the same vitriolic hatred to all the male animal-like douchebags that cant keep their dick in their pants. Blame is equal, women have more to lose physically, but men should stand to lose their honor/self-respect in a 'perfect society'. Unfortunately our society actually encourages promiscous behavior in men as a measure of manhood, when in reality promiscuity is a measure of nothing but your inability to practice self control. I actually intended to come back to this thread and edit my post and say pretty much what you just pointed out. The man doesn't deserve a free pass for being a slut and I don't think irresponsible men should be applauded for not taking the necessary precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy. You beat me to it, and I agree with you 110%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Assuming that the 40% statistic is correct, then ending abortions would result in increasing the birth rate in the US by 67%, instantly. (Right now, how many abortions per year, and how many adoptions?) That's a really serious impact on "the market". Yeah, it hovers between 100K-150K adoptions compared to around 1 mil-1.5 mil abortions. So your factor of ten was a pretty good guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSW Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is one of those instances where I am really, really grateful that I believe in God because I know He will be the one taking care of business with this "physician" and the innocent victims who were murdered. If the innocent victims were not "saved" will they still go to heaven? What does the bible say about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 If the innocent victims were not "saved" will they still go to heaven? What does the bible say about that? Bit of a sidetrack, but it is generally believed the innocent will go to heaven,and since they have not reached a age of reasoning or accountability they are free of sins price. If you are wanting a verse that plainly states so you are out of luck. Much like being 'saved' there are different views on that though. Larry the NY rate is a bit of a outlier which will influence results....as would behavior change and biology (you can have multiple abortions faster than you can carry a child,and unfortunately some do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 If the innocent victims were not "saved" will they still go to heaven? What does the bible say about that? I was wondering the same thing. What of original sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You know, I keep reading this kind of sentiment in this thread. (I don't know if it's just one person who's posting a dozen variations of it, or a dozen people. But, please. Consider this a response to all of the people who've made this or similar comments.) News Flash, you sanctimonious moralizers: A child is not an instrument of punishment that people like you can dish out to people you disprove of, to punish them for not being as noble and pure as you are. There are lots of perfectly valid reason for wanting to reduce, restrict, or eliminate abortions. Punishing the evil mother for violating the morality code that you want to impose on the world isn't one of them. [/rant] Have you not read up on child support laws around the country? For millions upon millions of men, a child is used as an instrument of punishment. A means to wring every last penny possible out of the man for "support of the child". Yet, there is no way for a man to "audit" the woman to make sure his hard earned money is supporting the child and not being used for the comfort of the mothers lifestyle.Also, I used action and reaction specifically to avoid using the word consequence. Sex. What are the possible outcomes? -pleasure -disappointment -pain -happiness -disease -anger -pregnancy When a man and a woman partake in sex, and the woman or the man catches a disease, is that a consequence of an action? If your heart is broke, is that a consequence? The point is, both parties actively choose to participate, knowing full well that there could be both positive and negative consequences. You could have the night of your life, but you could also end up with an incurable disease. Yet only 1 possible outcome of sex is legislated by our govt: pregnancy. If you get herpes, the govt has no medical procedure in place to "cure you" in 1 visit. If your heart is broken, the govt couldn't give a **** less. If you experienced pain? Tough ****. But, if you get pregnant, the woman is allowed to go to a medical clinic (without the consent of the other chromosome donor) and "remove" a fetus. Now, that same woman can keep the pregnancy (without the consent of the other chromosome donor), never tell the man, give birth and demand 25% of his take home income per month until the child is 18/23. The issue is complicated. And no child deserves to suffer the consequences. However, being born poor beats the hell outta being ripped limb from limb by a vacuum. Or being partially born and having your head "surgically decompressed" by shoving scissors in and using a vacuum to suck out the brain. If a woman is killed by another human being while she is 4 months pregnant the govt has no issue with charging the killer with 2 cases of murder. Yet the same govt is ok if that woman walks into a clinic and kills that same fetus. Either it is a life or it isn't, you can't apply different definitions based on circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Have you not read up on child support laws around the country? For millions upon millions of men, a child is used as an instrument of punishment. A means to wring every last penny possible out of the man for "support of the child". No. It isn't. Not once. Not ever. Go try that line someplace else. Maybe you and HH can sing a chorus of "The Everybody In the World Is Picking On Rich While Male Christians Blues". If you get herpes, the govt has no medical procedure in place to "cure you" in 1 visit. But if such a cure existed, and a bunch or moralizers were trying to make the cure illegal, because they wanted people to get Herpes "to teach them a lesson", then they'd be expressing just a repugnant a "morality" as the one I'm responding to. Edit: You know, I've had this theory for years (a decade?) now. That I can only come up with one possible explanation to explain the various positions taken by the Republican Party when it comes to sexual issues. Republicans want to make sex illegal. They want to ban it, entirely. (OK, maybe they'd be willing to allow it, under limited circumstances, like between heterosexual married couples who have a good enough income and are performing sex in the Republican approved style. Maybe.) But, they know that they will never get voted into office if they reveal this desire. Therefore, they've developed a fallback position. One that they can push. Not as good as banning sex, but it's second best, and they're willing to settle (until they can get enough power to go all the way.) They'll make sex as dangerous as they can. And then hope that the danger will scare people off. (Or maybe, they can then point at the danger, and use the danger as an excuse to push their agenda further.) To make sex as dangerous as possible, they have to: Outlaw as many forms of birth control as possible. The ones they can't outlaw, they'll restrict as much as they can, to keep it away from as many people as possible. They'll make it publicly humiliating to get it. They'll require people who purchase birth control to wear embarrassing signs. They'll pass laws saying that no one is permitted to purchase birth control of any kind, unless every person in the store unanimously approves. This rule will apply even to forms of birth control like condoms. And they'll make it illegal for people to know about birth control. Or disease prevention. It must be made illegal for anyone to inform anyone in any way about birth control. Because sex is more dangerous when people are ignorant. Now, I've been trying not to express this opinion I've got. Because I have this "thing" about people who engage in argument by inventing imaginary, evil, thoughts and motives, and claiming that anybody who disagrees with them, believes these things. But I have to say. It's hard to avoid expressing my opinion that many Republicans are opposed to abortion because they want to make sex dangerous, so they can punish people who have sex without permission, when people in this thread are saying that it's their motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 But if such a cure existed, and a bunch or moralizers were trying to make the cure illegal, because they wanted people to get Herpes "to teach them a lesson", then they'd be expressing just a repugnant a "morality" as the one I'm responding to. How should society view a cure for a ailment of limited duration that takes another's life to 'cure'? What is a life worth? added Do we still practice human sacrifice after another fashion? Will future generations regard us as no better than savages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 No. It isn't. Not once. Not ever. Go try that line someplace else. Maybe you and HH can sing a chorus of "The Everybody In the World Is Picking On Rich While Male Christians Blues". Really? No men are punished by child support laws? Seriously? How about Michael Strahan having to pay $365,000/year in child support (reduced on appeal, but still ordered)? I know guys that literally pay their mortgage, alimony and child support and that leaves them with VERY little money. Meanwhile the woman remarries and stays home so as not to provide an avenue to have the support reduced. But go ahead and believe what you want. Don't let facts get in the way at all.But if such a cure existed, and a bunch or moralizers were trying to make the cure illegal, because they wanted people to get Herpes "to teach them a lesson", then they'd be expressing just a repugnant a "morality" as the one I'm responding to.Larry, pregnancy is not a disease. There is no cure for pregnancy, there are only outcomes. You like strawmen don't you? I NEVER said that a woman should carry a baby to term to "to teach them a lesson". Quit cherry picking posts trying to make a point. Use the context or move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I NEVER said that a woman should carry a baby to term to "to teach them a lesson". Then I guess I wasn't addressing you, was I? My comment was directed at the numerous posts expressing the sentiments I described. (And I specifically said that I was addressing multiple people, or at least multiple posts. That I was addressing an argument, a motive, and not any particular person. (Even edited my post, to remove any reference to any particular post or poster.)) Quit cherry picking posts trying to make a point. Use the context or move on. I assume that, any minute now, you'll edit your post, and direct your anger at the person who brought Herpes into the discussion. (You know. The post I responded to? Quoted?) (I think that's called "context".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramdizzle Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 people like this should have a special place in Hell reserved for them. makes me sick, especially because I have a newborn daughter and cant believe someone would just jam scissors into the back of a breathing human being. Keeping body parts around his office is sick and twisted. I wont go into what is abortion and what is not, but I home they burn this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Then I guess I wasn't addressing you, was I? My comment was directed at the numerous posts expressing the sentiments I described. (And I specifically said that I was addressing multiple people, or at least multiple posts. That I was addressing an argument, a motive, and not any particular person. (Even edited my post, to remove any reference to any particular post or poster.)) I assume that, any minute now, you'll edit your post, and direct your anger at the person who brought Herpes into the discussion. (You know. The post I responded to? Quoted?) (I think that's called "context".) You quoted me. Both times. And you took my post, twisted it and used it to point to a strawman, all the while cherry picking (out of context) to best suit what you wanted to say. If you want to rebut my posts, do so. Don't quote a phrase and then try to generalize anyone contrary to your POV. You can't take a single point from a bulleted point and twist it into a hypothetical while changing the definition. Pregnancy ≠Herpes. You can hypothetisize all you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Our Society has made babies as disposable as kleenex and are only considered living human beings if the mothers want them. There are 2 million abortions per year and they are on the rise. Not really suprised at all that this goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You quoted me. Both times. What does that tell you? Want to accuse me of cherry picking material and ignoring context? Don't bring up a subject, have me respond to it, and then chew me out for mentioning the subject (while hiding the fact that I was responding to you.) And I responded to what you posted. You want to claim that "For every action there is a reaction." isn't an argument claiming that people who have sex deserve to be stuck with a kid they didn't want? Then please, explain to all of us what you did mean by that comment. Please, explain to us how you weren't referring to pregnancy as an undesirable consequence that people who have sex should be forced to go through. Fill us in on the "context". (Since you're apparently unable or unwilling to simply say that the argument I dislike, isn't one that you made, therefore I must be referring to someone else.) (And then, while you're at it, you can apologize to me. For taking my statement out of context (I was responding to a topic that you had brought up), and trying to claim that I said something I didn't.) (You know. If you're gonna climb up on a High Horse and accuse somebody of doing something evil, at least try not to do the thing you're (falsely) accusing somebody else of doing, in the same post as your accusation.) Pregnancy ≠Herpes. Never said it was. (I'm certain that I'll be receiving an apology any minute. You being such a crusader against people trying to claim people said things they didn't, and all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm trying to think of a reason why it would take a pregnant woman 6 months to decide to abort an un-wanted child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm trying to think of a reason why it would take a pregnant woman 6 months to decide to abort an un-wanted child... Ya got to ask that In a world where people give birth w/o knowing they are even pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm trying to think of a reason why it would take a pregnant woman 6 months to decide to abort an un-wanted child... As I understand it, a fairly large percentage of late-term abortions come after tests show genetic or developmental abnormalities in the fetus. Whether or not you think that excuses anything is up to you, but it explains why it is done, at least in those cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 As I understand it, a fairly large percentage of late-term abortions come after tests show genetic or developmental abnormalities in the fetus. Whether or not you think that excuses anything is up to you, but it explains why it is done, at least in those cases. Yeah, at least when that abortion doctor was killed, the stories at the time said that at the time, the only way to even get an abortion that late, was if two doctors certified that it was medically necessary. Supposedly, one of the common reasons for them is that supposedly there's this rare condition where the fetus never grows any lungs. It will grow. It looks cute on the ultrasound. It's growing and kicking it's little feet and rolling around there inside Mommy. And it will keep growing and developing, too. Until it's born. And when it's born, it will die. Because it doesn't have lungs. It also said that there were allegations from pro-lifers that there was some question about just how accurate these judgments were. Let's face it, even with two doctors, that's often still a judgment call. ---------- All of that said, though. It doesn't like like this guy was following those rules. (Yes, yes, Thank you :obvious:) Those things about two doctors and all, that's the rules for legal abortions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yeah, at least when that abortion doctor was killed, the stories at the time said that at the time, the only way to even get an abortion that late, was if two doctors certified that it was medically necessary. Supposedly, one of the common reasons for them is that supposedly there's this rare condition where the fetus never grows any lungs. It will grow. It looks cute on the ultrasound. It's growing and kicking it's little feet and rolling around there inside Mommy. And it will keep growing and developing, too. Until it's born. And when it's born, it will die. Because it doesn't have lungs. It also said that there were allegations from pro-lifers that there was some question about just how accurate these judgments were. Let's face it, even with two doctors, that's often still a judgment call. ---------- All of that said, though. It doesn't like like this guy was following those rules. (Yes, yes, Thank you :obvious:) Those things about two doctors and all, that's the rules for legal abortions. Actually the rules vary,with the two Dr one being the strictest...and 'medically necessary' varying quite a bit http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/states-restrictions-post-viability-abortions http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/ Know any good source for percentages for specific reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Know any good source for percentages for specific reasons? On this subject? I don't know if there are any good sources for any facts. Face it. This is a subject with lots of people who feel very strongly. On both sides of the issue. One where it's easy for a person to convince himself that a little lying to help his side is justified. I felt the same way when they announced that they wanted to re-investigate MLK's death. There is no piece of evidence that they could find, today, that they can trust hasn't been tampered with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 On this subject? I don't know if there are any good sources for any facts. The German influence in my life cries out for better documentation of our Holocaust...the other just wants it to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Look, I'm the number one guy to bring up abortion examples. but this is like pointing at a 50cal chaingun and saying 2nd amendment. This stands on its own for brutality and the lack of human decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I still cringe for the exact reason I put on page 6. I think there is general agreement what this guy did was beyond the pale...but I never see people willing to take in the kids we would have to take in to make abortion a non-option. If 40% are aborted, we are talking about adding another 2 kids for every 3 being born now...only the 2 new kids will need to be cared for outside of their biological parents. People talk about waiting lists for addoption...there aren't that many waiting, and it takes forever. It took years for us to complete the process, and that was with the parents completely inept because they have to rule everyone in the bio family out...again and again. If you are interested in adoption, shoot me a PM, and I can hook you up with the agency we used for medically fragile which can be anything as mild as a little bit premature to HIV indeterminate (which can mean not having it but it takes a while to know). We aren't necessarily talking extreme CP type of illnesses. In all of the abortion threads through the years, I have posted that offer. I have had exactly one reply. Given this comes up regularly on these boards, and I've been here forever, what does that say for our society as a whole's willingness to deal with what getting rid of abortion would mean. We can't even step up for the children who are here. I'm sad to say it (but I will), but I'm not sure society as a whole is much more responsible than the teenager who sleeps with a guy figuring she won't get pregnant the first time. Both know what they want and turn a blind eye to what consequences would result. Heck, at least the teen has a decent chance of no consequences from the impulsive action...yet we'll feel free from our high horse to denounce the teens or the "sluts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 gbear,while i agree there is need for more adoption and reforming it ,we do not solve it by killing the unwanted ones do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.