Abortion Doctor found guilty of murder following late-term abortions

[BNguyen]

Disgusting. I'm all for abortion, but killing the poor thing AFTER it's been born is just monstruous. I mean you already gave birth, what's stopping you from delivering it to an orphanage?

Evidently, a pair of scissors.
Apologies, that was a horrible, horrible remark.

This isn't at all a demonstration of how pro-abortion is barbaric.
No, this is a demonstration of a sick individual doing sick things within a sick environment.
Just as a chef can cook up domestic pets that they found and serve them to unwitting customers, just as someone can walk into school with a multitude of firearms. Those aren't normal actions for your typical restaurant or school, and they most certainly aren't normal people doing the action.

But what I find most asinine of all, is the defense lawyer in this case.
In 2009, the man's grossly under-qualified staff administered a lethal dosage of a drug to a patient.
The lawyer states that it was "medical complications", implying that it was a regular procedure undertaken by a staff with credentials and an unforeseeable tragedy that occurred. But in reality, it just malpractice and criminal negligence. For this case, the lawyers are stating that it is simply due to the doctor's ethnicity that he was targeted with charges.

What in the actual fuck.
Have they done a comparison between a qualified abortion clinic and this grizzly shack?
Have they seen the results of the "doctor's" work? Have they heard him describe his procedure?
It sometimes boggles my mind the shit that lawyers will say to get paid.

You know, I'm all for a lawyer wanting to defend and innocent person but what goes into a lawyer's head to want to defend somebody who actually did a crime? Somebody so blantantly guilty that you'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see it

That's all good and well, but we treat everyone the same to avoid even the possibility of bias in the defense against their own client. What about murder cases that seem cut-and-dry, but DNA evidence later exonerates the "killer"? Every single person, no matter what, needs a fair trial, or the entire thing is a sham. Sometimes that means guilty people go free, but I'd prefer that to people forming their own judgments pre-trial and imprisoning, or worse, executing an innocent human being.

well, sure, DNA evidence can keep innocent people out of prison, but shouldn't it be used right from the start and not added in down the road? that's one of the few things wrong with the legal system a few decades ago: we had the tech. to do DNA testing but didn't use it and a man went to jail for about a decade before DNA evidence was finally brought in.
See, we should so what's smart - sometimes what's morally right is not always intellectually right.

 

[locoartero]

I'm as big a fan of abortion as anyone. To the point where i think it should be mandatory unless you can prove that you have at least $250,000 on deposit somewhere strictly allocated to the child's upbringing.

So you're pro-abortion and anti-choice. We grow stronger every day...

 

[locoartero]

well, sure, DNA evidence can keep innocent people out of prison, but shouldn't it be used right from the start and not added in down the road? that's one of the few things wrong with the legal system a few decades ago: we had the tech. to do DNA testing but didn't use it and a man went to jail for about a decade before DNA evidence was finally brought in.
See, we should so what's smart - sometimes what's morally right is not always intellectually right.

Sometimes, DNA is brought now, into cases that resulted in a conviction way before DNA evidence was admissible or the process to extract it even existed. In many instances, the exonerated were on fucking Death Row. If that's not enough to prove the death penalty is retarded... In other, more current instances, the police just don't care to ivestigate further or take samples because they've got someone they "like for it".

 

[BNguyen]

I'm as big a fan of abortion as anyone. To the point where i think it should be mandatory unless you can prove that you have at least $250,000 on deposit somewhere strictly allocated to the child's upbringing.

So you're pro-abortion and anti-choice. We grow stronger every day...

I think I'm a bit more moderate in that nobody can call themselves an adult unless they can take responsibility for their actions, good or bad. If a person doesn't take precautions before having sex when they don't want a child, then clearly they are not responsible and are therefore not adults - instead they try to shift responsibility onto someone else - in these kind of cases, the abortion doctor.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

What kind of cause can you give to explain why you would kill a baby unless the baby was already dying and you put it out of its misery, of course after it had been examined and was found that nothing could be done to save it?

Well, the keyword I did say was "Perhaps". I have no belief myself that it is a just cause, though I also don't rule out the possibility that it isn't. For me, abortions are a just cause. So it would depend on if you considered this case abortion or murder. I currently consider it the latter, but with abortion-like reason. So I don't know. It's all just something to think about, at any case.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

In the abortion debate community Gosnell's back-alley abortion clinic is old news. I think the chain of consequences will be misunderstood by the abortion-obstructionist community, but it's this: Criminalize safe abortion, make abortion access too difficult for women who want or need them, and the Gosnells of the world will flourish.

After the assassination of Dr. George Tiller there are too few doctors who are able and willing to perform late-term abortions (that is to say too few for the demand for those cases which a late-term abortion is medically necessary), so it's really no surprise that second-rate clinics using substandard practices would open up to take advantage of the situation.

This is exactly what happens in every other nation that criminalizes abortion.

238U

EDIT: typo.

 

[waj9876]

And...did the mothers know about this? Because if they did they deserve to be right up there with this doctor.

 

[solemnwar]

This story is much worse than what I had imagined from the title. I thought he was just aborting them after the legal deadline (3 months or something? I really don't know), but this is just sick. Livestock for slaughter get more humane deaths than this.

I'm all for abortion, but this sounds more like childbirth followed by blatant murder. Like someone else said, is taking them to an orphanage really that difficult?

which is another reason why I can't understand why women don't use the morning after pill ever, even after rape assaults, and if it happens to be the result of a relationship thing then why can't the guy also wear condoms? See there are a good number of ways to prevent an unwanted child without going to the idea of abortion which is why I can't support it.
Instead of preventing something from being developed at all, people want to wait until it actually resembles a human before they decide that that is the best time to do away with it.
Now I don't have any clue what makes a person want an abortion and want to actually perform the abortion but apparently these people do not think there might be more decent ways of handling the situation.

1. There are pretty much NO free contraceptives in many (probably most) countries. Condoms are ok (they still cost too much for what you get, from what I've seen), but they can break, and there are times they don't notice until later. The "more effective ones" also can possibly have some bad side-effects.
2. The Morning-After Pill is only effective within a certain time frame, and it's not always easy to get to it (some hospitals will outright refuse to offer it because they're religiously based, apparently).
3. You can't really call a bundle of cells that cannot possibly survive outside the room a person. It's why there are cut-off dates to abortion. After a certain point, a fetus can survive outside the womb (although in many cases they'll be HEAVILY physically and mentally disabled so it's sort of a fate-worse-than-death situation) and that is when the cut-off is initiated.
4. Even if someone were to put up the child for adoption, pregnancy is EXPENSIVE, especially ones deemed "at risk". There's a lot of pre-natal care.
5. Even today there is HUGE cultural backlash against women who become pregnant out of wedlock, or are under a certain age, ESPECIALLY if they aren't financially capable.
6. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she does not want. Again, the fetus is just a bundle of cells at this point that could not possibly survive outside the womb. An ANIMAL has more cognition than a fetus. Pregnancy can ruin lives- it destroys education and potential job opportunities. And then they'll just end up resenting the child, and that's not healthy for either party.

Talking about "prevention" is all well and good, but in many cases it's just not an option (cost is basically the main factor, and teaching anything other than abstinence is frowned on in many schools (here's looking at you, catholic schools with hilariously high pregnancy rates) so that doesn't help matters). And even the most effective contraceptives aren't 100% accurate, conception CAN happen despite the best of efforts (even if it's low).

I can't remember who said this, but: "No woman WANTS an abortion, but she should have the option to have one safely."

Even if abortion was to be made illegal again in the places where it's legal, women would find a way to have one anyways (see: the entire history of mankind, this shit's been going on since ancient time), and quite often it would result in their deaths. Whether by some form of herbally/chemically-induced miscarriage or the dreaded coat hanger, there's a pretty high chance of hemorrhaging to death.

 

[jetriot]

I am against abortion after the first trimester. I want that out of the way before saying that the argument "if a woman wants an abortion we should provide it because she will get one anyway" is incredibly flawed. It is like saying if a rapist wants to rape someone they will do it anyway so we should make it safe an legal.

As I age and find myself with a daughter of my own the entire abortion discussion really makes me physically ill. Again, I am ok with keeping 1st term abortions legal but see no reason that it should be legal beyond that point. I haven't always felt this way but I am to the point where I do not think I could be friends with an abortion doctor.

 

[BNguyen]

This story is much worse than what I had imagined from the title. I thought he was just aborting them after the legal deadline (3 months or something? I really don't know), but this is just sick. Livestock for slaughter get more humane deaths than this.

I'm all for abortion, but this sounds more like childbirth followed by blatant murder. Like someone else said, is taking them to an orphanage really that difficult?

which is another reason why I can't understand why women don't use the morning after pill ever, even after rape assaults, and if it happens to be the result of a relationship thing then why can't the guy also wear condoms? See there are a good number of ways to prevent an unwanted child without going to the idea of abortion which is why I can't support it.
Instead of preventing something from being developed at all, people want to wait until it actually resembles a human before they decide that that is the best time to do away with it.
Now I don't have any clue what makes a person want an abortion and want to actually perform the abortion but apparently these people do not think there might be more decent ways of handling the situation.

1. There are pretty much NO free contraceptives in many (probably most) countries. Condoms are ok (they still cost too much for what you get, from what I've seen), but they can break, and there are times they don't notice until later. The "more effective ones" also can possibly have some bad side-effects.
2. The Morning-After Pill is only effective within a certain time frame, and it's not always easy to get to it (some hospitals will outright refuse to offer it because they're religiously based, apparently).
3. You can't really call a bundle of cells that cannot possibly survive outside the room a person. It's why there are cut-off dates to abortion. After a certain point, a fetus can survive outside the womb (although in many cases they'll be HEAVILY physically and mentally disabled so it's sort of a fate-worse-than-death situation) and that is when the cut-off is initiated.
4. Even if someone were to put up the child for adoption, pregnancy is EXPENSIVE, especially ones deemed "at risk". There's a lot of pre-natal care.
5. Even today there is HUGE cultural backlash against women who become pregnant out of wedlock, or are under a certain age, ESPECIALLY if they aren't financially capable.
6. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she does not want. Again, the fetus is just a bundle of cells at this point that could not possibly survive outside the womb. An ANIMAL has more cognition than a fetus. Pregnancy can ruin lives- it destroys education and potential job opportunities. And then they'll just end up resenting the child, and that's not healthy for either party.

Talking about "prevention" is all well and good, but in many cases it's just not an option (cost is basically the main factor, and teaching anything other than abstinence is frowned on in many schools (here's looking at you, catholic schools with hilariously high pregnancy rates) so that doesn't help matters). And even the most effective contraceptives aren't 100% accurate, conception CAN happen despite the best of efforts (even if it's low).

I can't remember who said this, but: "No woman WANTS an abortion, but she should have the option to have one safely."

Even if abortion was to be made illegal again in the places where it's legal, women would find a way to have one anyways (see: the entire history of mankind, this shit's been going on since ancient time), and quite often it would result in their deaths. Whether by some form of herbally/chemically-induced miscarriage or the dreaded coat hanger, there's a pretty high chance of hemorrhaging to death.

so a several thousand dollar procedure or taking care of a developing fetus (including regular hospital visits, medicine, food, and other precautions) up to the abortion is a lot less expensive than buying condoms, or finding a hospital that would offer birth control?
I'm sorry but to me, abortion still shouldn't be the go to option, besides, if a person doesn't want a child, they should at least get educated on when is the best time to have sex without a good chance of getting pregnant. People are and should be free to have sex but they should try to think a little bit ahead instead of just having a fling, which is why we have so many abortions and children in orphanages today.
Is it just me or can a lot of people not think outside of their pants these days?

Jeez, people today simply think that they are entitled to do whatever they want and can shift blame or responsibility onto others when things get bad - take violent videogame blaming these days - people just don't want to own up that they might be at fault and not the games - if games were so traumatizing that they drive people to hurt others then wouldn't everyone that plays games be equally violent? (sorry to go off on a tangent about games but the relations feel close to me.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

And another life is snuffed out. Truly a sick man.

 

[BNguyen]

Okay, this is to everyone I've responded to on this subject - sorry if I sounded short-sighted or hateful. I'm done with this subject and I want to try to avoid it from now on, not because I can't argue (believe me I could argue all night) but simply because it would continue without good reason. So here's my two cents - I hate abortion, never liked, never want to have it done when I'm involved, never want to see it happen. This guy who did these things is a criminal and needs to be put away for it, the lawyer is ignorant for playing the race card, and it pisses me off when people's first thoughts are directed towards getting an abortion before getting an education or using a little common sense.
That's it, I'm done, bye.

 

[solemnwar]

This story is much worse than what I had imagined from the title. I thought he was just aborting them after the legal deadline (3 months or something? I really don't know), but this is just sick. Livestock for slaughter get more humane deaths than this.

I'm all for abortion, but this sounds more like childbirth followed by blatant murder. Like someone else said, is taking them to an orphanage really that difficult?

which is another reason why I can't understand why women don't use the morning after pill ever, even after rape assaults, and if it happens to be the result of a relationship thing then why can't the guy also wear condoms? See there are a good number of ways to prevent an unwanted child without going to the idea of abortion which is why I can't support it.
Instead of preventing something from being developed at all, people want to wait until it actually resembles a human before they decide that that is the best time to do away with it.
Now I don't have any clue what makes a person want an abortion and want to actually perform the abortion but apparently these people do not think there might be more decent ways of handling the situation.

1. There are pretty much NO free contraceptives in many (probably most) countries. Condoms are ok (they still cost too much for what you get, from what I've seen), but they can break, and there are times they don't notice until later. The "more effective ones" also can possibly have some bad side-effects.
2. The Morning-After Pill is only effective within a certain time frame, and it's not always easy to get to it (some hospitals will outright refuse to offer it because they're religiously based, apparently).
3. You can't really call a bundle of cells that cannot possibly survive outside the room a person. It's why there are cut-off dates to abortion. After a certain point, a fetus can survive outside the womb (although in many cases they'll be HEAVILY physically and mentally disabled so it's sort of a fate-worse-than-death situation) and that is when the cut-off is initiated.
4. Even if someone were to put up the child for adoption, pregnancy is EXPENSIVE, especially ones deemed "at risk". There's a lot of pre-natal care.
5. Even today there is HUGE cultural backlash against women who become pregnant out of wedlock, or are under a certain age, ESPECIALLY if they aren't financially capable.
6. A woman should not be forced to have a baby she does not want. Again, the fetus is just a bundle of cells at this point that could not possibly survive outside the womb. An ANIMAL has more cognition than a fetus. Pregnancy can ruin lives- it destroys education and potential job opportunities. And then they'll just end up resenting the child, and that's not healthy for either party.

Talking about "prevention" is all well and good, but in many cases it's just not an option (cost is basically the main factor, and teaching anything other than abstinence is frowned on in many schools (here's looking at you, catholic schools with hilariously high pregnancy rates) so that doesn't help matters). And even the most effective contraceptives aren't 100% accurate, conception CAN happen despite the best of efforts (even if it's low).

I can't remember who said this, but: "No woman WANTS an abortion, but she should have the option to have one safely."

Even if abortion was to be made illegal again in the places where it's legal, women would find a way to have one anyways (see: the entire history of mankind, this shit's been going on since ancient time), and quite often it would result in their deaths. Whether by some form of herbally/chemically-induced miscarriage or the dreaded coat hanger, there's a pretty high chance of hemorrhaging to death.

so a several thousand dollar procedure or taking care of a developing fetus (including regular hospital visits, medicine, food, and other precautions) up to the abortion is a lot less expensive than buying condoms, or finding a hospital that would offer birth control?
I'm sorry but to me, abortion still shouldn't be the go to option, besides, if a person doesn't want a child, they should at least get educated on when is the best time to have sex without a good chance of getting pregnant. People are and should be free to have sex but they should try to think a little bit ahead instead of just having a fling, which is why we have so many abortions and children in orphanages today.
Is it just me or can a lot of people not think outside of their pants these days?

Jeez, people today simply think that they are entitled to do whatever they want and can shift blame or responsibility onto others when things get bad - take violent videogame blaming these days - people just don't want to own up that they might be at fault and not the games - if games were so traumatizing that they drive people to hurt others then wouldn't everyone that plays games be equally violent? (sorry to go off on a tangent about games but the relations feel close to me.

You are judgemental and condescending. You're behaving like the typical middle-class white male and assuming that everyone is in exactly the same financial and educated status as you. I don't know your actual racial or financial status, of course, but that is what you come across like. And as a male, you have no right to say what happens to a woman's body, end of discussion.

To continue, an abortion is FAR cheaper than the cost of RAISING A CHILD (average cost of prenatal care: $2000; average cost of abortion: $350-$500, so NOT a several thousand dollar procedure, thank-you very much). It's also NOT THE FUCKING GO-TO OPTION. MISTAKES HAPPEN. You're a little drunk with your boyfriend so you don't remember, or you were both were caught up in the heat of passion and the thought of birth control slips the mind, various other reasons for birth control not to be used. And there's also that little fact of NO BIRTH CONTROL IS 100% EFFECTIVE. You could be wearing a condom, a female condom, and be on the pill, and that one that involves sticking a think into your uterus so that the embryo won't attach, and there is STILL A CHANCE TO BECOME PREGNANT. And an abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions. MANY people realise they CANNOT RAISE A CHILD for whatever reason, they're too young, they're too poor, they're not in a right place emotionally, etc., etc., etc., but whatever the reason they SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO HAVE A CHILD THEY DO NOT WANT.

Do you know who we leave to educate people on safe sex? Schools. Parents don't want to bother teaching their children that stuff, they plunk them in school or in front of the TV and leave it at that. And quite often schools will just say "um, just don't have sex". Maybe throw in a mention of condoms or the mysterious "pill" somewhere. Otherwise, it's just not something many people think about, ESPECIALLY if they are inexperienced and/or young.

If you really want abortions to go down? Petition to make birth control free. There was a study done once where they handed out birth control for free for a period of time, and abortion rates went down by 60% (I wish I could find this study again).

You can dislike abortions all you want. Nobody is making you get one. But as you cannot POSSIBLY know the circumstance of the women getting abortions, keep your judgemental, holier-than-thou attitude out of it.



Also your little tangent about video games and violence has UTTERLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION. It's not even comparing apples to oranges it's like compare apples to a goddamn ape. Leave that bullshit out of this, there is absolutely no relation whatsoever.

 

[Harlemura]

- His practice was staffed by unqualified people, and was kept in a filthy condition, with a raid turning up foetal remains stored in bags and bottles.

Oh geez, I know the whole story is horrible, but this part is just straight up nasty. Like, he's just leaving lumps of unborn baby lying around to be thrown in the bin later. Eurgh.

Anyway, as others have said, I hope everyone sees this as a doctor going bezerk in terms of the Hippocratic Oath rather than a whole case as to why abortion shouldn't be allowed.
I'm all for preventing a baby being born into a horrible life with no future prospects, but not if you have to sever anything.
With freakin' scissors.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

What this doctor did is hardly representative of proper abortions. While I will accept that fetuses are life, and that it is not of absolute value and can be sacrificed for many reasons, killing it after it's been born is...pretty horrific.

What I'd like to know is whether the 'mothers' were complicit or not. And if not, I bet they'll have a nasty shock when they hear.

 

[Maevine]

o.0

abortion = okay
chopping already delivered babies up = not okay

I'm going to go look at kittens now. My brain is too full of crying.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

It does not change my opinions on abortion, which I shall keep to myself. But it really shows the depravity of some Women and this particular Doctor. Most people in this thread thus far have only considered the Doctor in this case. But the women MUST have wanted it to be apart, or he'd have kidnapping charges as well as murder. I think these mothers should be punished as harshly as he, whether by the Death Penalty or serious imprisonment. I'm glad I'm not the Judge, as this would be a hard decision for him/her to make.

TL;DR the women need investigating, as clearly shown by the facts, they CHOSE to be there and were not forced into this. Fucking sickening that this happens.

 

[knight steel]

I guess you could say that this guy had:
A thankless job
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHH
Anyway is it bad that I was more disturbed/upset/angry over the unhealthy conditions than the actual abortion/murder whatever you want to call it I mean if your going to do this at least be professional and keep a clean work environment .

Also curious what's separates this from an abortion is it because it outside the body?
What if he killed it while it was inside the mother just before it was due to be born?
Is it the time it was done-what time is the cut off point and why.
When it can live independently?Why?what about those that are old/sick and have to rely on other's is it ok to kill them after all they aren't independant?
When it can feel pain?Why?Animals feel pain and we slaughter them anyway if it's just physical feeling that matter why are they different?
When it's capable of thought?Why?We kill people capable of thought all the time when we no longer like/want them such as the death penalty for criminals-war's with enemy soldiers ect ect.

 

[Sansha]

Holy good lord this is terrifying. I actually felt physically ill reading about this.

This isn't abortion. This cannot be logically turned into an argument against abortion. If anything this is an argument of what happens when women are either unable or too shamed to go to a licensed clinic.

To the fucking gallows with this lunatic.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Also curious what's separates this from an abortion is it because it outside the body?

Abortion is about a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. Her right to self determination outweighs the infant's right to life. Once an infant is no longer part of her body that right no longer applies.

I don't actually find killing a newborn child morally objectionable, but legally I think the easiest place to draw the line is at birth.