# The Philadelphia Horror: How mass murder gets a pass



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2011)

The Philadelphia Horror: How mass murder gets a pass
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011 EXCERPT: 

 Lets give the climate of hate rhetoric a rest for a moment. Its  time to talk about the climate of death in which the abortion industry  thrives unchecked. Dehumanizing rhetoric, rationalizing language, and a  callous disregard for life have numbed America to its monstrous  consequences. Consider the Philadelphia Horror.
  In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered  by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades.  Whistleblowers  informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of  innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and  advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way  until,  that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide  factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of  unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of  womens choice. Prosecutors charged  Gosnell and his death squad with multiple counts of murder,  infanticide, conspiracy, abuse of corpse, theft, and other offenses.
 The 281-page grand jury report (see full embedded document below)  released Wednesday provides a bone-chilling account of how Gosnells  Womens Medical Society systematically preyed on poor, minority  pregnant women and their live, viable babies. The reports introduction  lays out the criminal enterprise that claimed the lives of untold  numbers of babies  and mothers:
_This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered  women.  What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live,  viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy  and then murdered  these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.  The  medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy  fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread  venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their  wombs and bowels  and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.   Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on  here.  But no one put a stop to it._
 Echoing the same kind of dark euphemisms plied by Planned Parenthood  propagandists who refer to unborn life as fetal and uterine material,  Gosnell referred to his deadly trade as *ensuring fetal demise*.   Reminiscent of the word wizards who refer to the skull-crushing  partial-birth abortion procedure as intact dilation and evacuation and  intrauterine cranial decompression, Gosnell described his destruction  of babies spinal cords as *snipping*. 

END EXCERPT
I made it to page 40 of the 281 page grand jury and could not get any farther. This man, his employees and everyone who SHOULD have stopped him should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Their names and crimes should be known worldwide alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mengele.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 24, 2011)

Wow?


----------



## granfire (Jan 24, 2011)

Alright, decrying climate of hate and using incitefull language in the same article...
I am not quiet seeing the point?

I was trying to sift through the hate to figure out what the crime was.
Abortions being legal and all. So it would be a case of the MD not being specialized in the area? Or his staff isn't? Did his patients die? I mean, the term 'butcher' would imply - to me at least - that they were using rusty coat hangers and leaving women to bleed to death by the thousands....

OOHHHHH, ok, the _italic_ part...

got it...rusty coat hangers...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2011)

granfire said:


> Alright, decrying climate of hate and using incitefull language in the same article...
> I am not quiet seeing the point?
> 
> I was trying to sift through the hate to figure out what the crime was.
> ...


This guy, killed newborns, as a matter of course. He had cats wandering through the "clinic" had a 15 year old administering IV drugs, reused surgical instruments until they broke, and wasn't investigated and shut down because the government didn't want to stir up the abortion debate.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2011)

granfire said:


> I was trying to sift through the hate to figure out what the crime was.
> Abortions being legal and all. So it would be a case of the MD not being specialized in the area? Or his staff isn't? Did his patients die? I mean, the term 'butcher' would imply - to me at least - that they were using rusty coat hangers and leaving women to bleed to death by the thousands....
> 
> OOHHHHH, ok, the _italic_ part...
> ...



First of all, I understand your point; the anti-abortion advocates are using this as a wedge issue to put their point across, and the article Big Don cited is definitely using some of that same sort of language they appear to dislike.

However, there appears to have been crimes committed here; serious ones.

If I am reading the news articles correctly, the doctor and some of his staff are accused not of performing abortions incorrectly, or of being unlicensed, etc, as such; they are accused of murder.  In a least several cases, they are accused of having delivered living babies and then killing post-delivery.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/abortion-dr.-kermit-gosnell-arrested



> He is also facing seven murder charges for the deaths of infants who  were killed after being born viable and alive during the 6th, 7th and  8th month of pregnancy.
> Gosnell "induced labor, forced the live  birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy  and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with  scissors and severing their spinal cord," District Attorney Seth  Williams said.
> Along with the murder charges the District  Attorney has charged Gosnell with Infanticide, Conspiracy, Abortion at  24 or more weeks, Abuse of Corpse, Theft, Corruption of Minors,  Solicitation and other related offenses.




Abortion is legal in most circumstances in the USA, but not all.  Late-term abortions are generally prohibited; those being cases where the baby *could* survive if delivered, but the abortion procedure kills the fetus prior to delivery.

While many will argue the gray area that blurs the border of when a fetus becomes a person, and thus has legal rights (including the right to be alive), there is no argument that I am aware of in circumstances where the baby is delivered, alive, and is then put to death.  That is not abortion, that is murder.

I would urge us all to use good behavior and decorum in this thread; it's a very emotional issue for many.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 24, 2011)

granfire said:


> Alright, decrying climate of hate and using incitefull language in the same article...
> I am not quiet seeing the point?
> 
> I was trying to sift through the hate to figure out what the crime was.
> ...


Even if the conditions were safe, not being properly certified means you are committing murder.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Even if the conditions were safe, not being properly certified means you are committing murder.
> Sean



I would have to respectfully disagree with that statement.  Performing an unlicensed abortion is certainly illegal, but I doubt it would be charged as murder unless the definition of murder were met; specifically that a 'person' as currently defined by law were illegally killed.  While we may all disagree on what the definition of a 'person' is, generally speaking a person has been born and is alive.

There are exceptions; I am aware that some have been charged with two counts of homicide for killing a pregnant woman near term; but speaking in general I suspect unlicensed abortion would not rise to the definition of murder.

All this to say, however, that delivering a live baby and then killing it is most definitely murder in my opinion.  It would appear a Grand Jury also thought so in the cited case.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2011)

Click on the link in the OP! Scroll past the commentary! READ the grand jury's report linked there! If you do not HATE this man, his employees and every level of state bureaucracy that allowed this to go on, something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## billc (Jan 24, 2011)

Wow, such a thin line between a legal medical procedure and murder for some people.  I have to think that more thought needs to be put into this issue from the pro side.  A slip of paper protects someone from murder.  What if he had let his lisence laps for one day.  Would the "legal procedures" for that day be murder, but the procedures the day before and the day he renewed his lisence be okay?  So in the future, make sure the baby is not alive before it clears the womb, because if you end its life just outside of the womb, that would be murder?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Wow, such a thin line between a legal medical procedure and murder for some people.  I have to think that more thought needs to be put into this issue from the pro side.  A slip of paper protects someone from murder.  What if he had let his lisence laps for one day.  Would the "legal procedures" for that day be murder, but the procedures the day before and the day he renewed his lisence be okay?  So in the future, make sure the baby is not alive before it clears the womb, because if you end its life just outside of the womb, that would be murder?


Take a cop's badge away, and he or she can not fight crime anymore. It is really quite simple. You are or you aren't authorized.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Wow, such a thin line between a legal medical procedure and murder for some people.  I have to think that more thought needs to be put into this issue from the pro side.  A slip of paper protects someone from murder.  What if he had let his lisence laps for one day.  Would the "legal procedures" for that day be murder, but the procedures the day before and the day he renewed his lisence be okay?  So in the future, make sure the baby is not alive before it clears the womb, because if you end its life just outside of the womb, that would be murder?



I realize it is a very difficult thing to have a calm discussion about, but I know we can try.

In this particular case, the charge is murder; people have been killed illegally.  Living, breathing, and having already been born.  This is not part of the abortion debate as such, although it certainly intersects with arguments pro and con abortion and the point at which a fetus becomes a person.  In this case, there is no question as far as I can tell; licensing has nothing to do with it.  This would be murder if performed under any conditions by any person, regardless of license.  Once a child is born and breathes, it is alive and a person by any legal definition I am aware of.  Killing the child is no different than killing an adult in the eyes of the law at this point; there is no medical license to allow such things to be done, ever.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I realize it is a very difficult thing to have a calm discussion about, but I know we can try.


 
why would or should anyone remain calm over some disgusting piece of filth delivering a baby then using scissors to kill the baby?
No screw that calm bullcrap. This guy is a pile of crap serial killer and deserves to be removed from society as soon as possible.
This is no abortion, this is murder, the most horrible of all murders I can possibly think of.
Calm has nothing to do with the situation, if you can remain calm after reading this then you have problems.
I damn near vomited just reading the post, I am not even going to go read the rest of it because its to horrible. I have seen some horrible stuff in my life, but the thought of what this monster did is truely horrifying.
Calm?
no calm has nothing to do with this conversation.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 24, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> why would or should anyone remain calm over some disgusting piece of filth delivering a baby then using scissors to kill the baby?
> No screw that calm bullcrap. This guy is a pile of crap serial killer and deserves to be removed from society*the living* as soon as possible.
> This is no abortion, this is murder, the most horrible of all murders I can possibly think of.
> Calm has nothing to do with the situation, if you can remain calm after reading this then you have problems.
> ...


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 24, 2011)

I agree with Bill most strongly on this.  

I am not *anti*-abortion but abortion is not what was being dealt with by the legal system in this case (as far as I could tell with a sinfully skimpy look at the OP).  

A baby that has been born is a person in it's own right to my mind - is there a legal definition on this do you think?  There surely must be.

Bringing a baby forth and then killing it is murder as far as I would judge it - not that I have any special credentials to make such a judgement of course, tho' that would be my vote if I were a juror.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree with Bill most strongly on this.
> 
> I am not *anti*-abortion but abortion is not what was being dealt with by the legal system in this case (as far as I could tell with a sinfully skimpy look at the OP).
> 
> ...


 
Maybe I need to make my thoughts clear, I am not anti-abortion either.
I am very apprehensive about it, but I am not against it..... although I think I am closer to being a prolife person then an abortion advocate for sure. Regardless this is not an abortion conversation. This is a conversation about a mass murderer, manipulator, abuser, criminal scumbag with no respect for any human life or decency in any way shape or form. It would be like someone killing adults and claiming it was a really late term abortion...... once a human being is born and is viable there is absolutely no debate anymore, they are human, they are alive, and this is murder the worst imaginable.


----------



## granfire (Jan 24, 2011)

Big Don said:


> This guy, killed newborns, as a matter of course. He had cats wandering through the "clinic" had a 15 year old administering IV drugs, reused surgical instruments until they broke, and wasn't investigated and shut down because the government didn't want to stir up the abortion debate.





Bill Mattocks said:


> First of all, I understand your point; the anti-abortion advocates are using this as a wedge issue to put their point across, and the article Big Don cited is definitely using some of that same sort of language they appear to dislike.
> 
> However, there appears to have been crimes committed here; serious ones.
> 
> ...




Yeah, early Monday morning, before the 2nd pot of coffee the cogs run a bit slow. Eventually I did get it.
Would have done the article a whole lot of good if they would have used a more neutral wording though, at least for the opening statement...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> A baby that has been born is a person in it's own right to my mind - is there a legal definition on this do you think?  There surely must be.



There is a federal prohibition on _'partial birth abortions'_ in the USA.  This term, by the way, is itself controversial, because it is not a medical term, but one created by the Congresspersons who drafted the law.  It refers to the practice of abortion of an already-dead (although in some cases, living) fetus from the womb by inducing dilation of the cervix, drawing the fetus through the cervix, and then causing the skull to collapse by inserting a tube and sucking out the brain of the fetus, so that the fetus can be removed vaginally.  I'm sorry, there is no no-gross way to say that.

In the case of abortions of living fetuses, this procedure is most objectionable to many foes of abortion, and even to many who support other forms of abortion, especially when performed in the late terms of pregnancy.

However, although there is a lot of gray area surrounding people's beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person for the purposes of applying legal protection due any living person, I do believe there is no doubt at all; a baby born and breathing, removed from the mother entirely, is in no sense anything but a human being.  Killing the child at that point can never be considered an abortion.

There are no clear lines in the abortion debate.  Not everyone is all pro-life or all pro-choice with regard to whether or not abortions can ever be performed, and among those who have fewer qualms about some kinds of abortion, even those often have lines they find they do not wish to cross.  The so-called _'partial birth'_ abortions of living fetuses is very much a hot-button topic.

I fear that this incident will become for many anti-abortion believers a lightning rod; I already see this being conflated with partial-birth abortions in various web blogs and quasi-news sources.  The pro-choice people, of course, are horrified; this is the kind of thing that drives wedges into groups that would otherwise agree on the legitimacy of abortion.  But as we have both agreed, this incident is not an abortion issue, per se.

I suspect that this will be not unlike the issue of the shooting in Arizona; the heinousness of the crime being used to drive agendas that are not truly related to the issue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> why would or should anyone remain calm over some disgusting piece of filth delivering a baby then using scissors to kill the baby?



I was simply referring to remaining calm and respectful with each other in this thread on this topic.  I share your outrage over this person; if the charges are true, I'd happily see him removed from the realm of the living toot sweet.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 24, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> why would or should anyone remain calm over some disgusting piece of filth delivering a baby then using scissors to kill the baby?
> No screw that calm bullcrap. This guy is a pile of crap serial killer and deserves to be removed from society as soon as possible.
> This is no abortion, this is murder, the most horrible of all murders I can possibly think of.
> Calm has nothing to do with the situation, if you can remain calm after reading this then you have problems.
> ...



Have to agree with luckyboxer (did i just say that? Hehe) Thats not an abortion. 

Theres cases where you might excuse someone from killing a baby after they are born or let them off with a lighter sentence than murder....and that is a mother who suffered from post birth depression or whatever its called.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> a baby born and breathing, removed from the mother entirely, is in no sense anything but a human being.  Killing the child at that point can never be considered an abortion.



I dont know. When my children were being born it was obvious that a human head was coming out. If this guy stuck a pr of scissors in the baby before it was "entirely out" that would be OK?

The whole "when is it human" thing is a slippery slope IMO.


----------



## David43515 (Jan 24, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I dont know. When my children were being born it was obvious that a human head was coming out. If this guy stuck a pr of scissors in the baby before it was "entirely out" that would be OK?
> 
> The whole "when is it human" thing is a slippery slope IMO.


 
I`m almost afraid to comment on this thread because abortion is such an emotional issue for so many people. And it should be because both sides support a fundemental right that in this case clashes with another fundemental right. Namely the right to choose what happens in your own body vs the right of another person to live. I doubt if we`ll ever find common ground the two sides will really agree on. 

If I can, I`d like to suggest that for a short while we don`t sidetrack this thread with questions about too many tangents. What we have here is a news story about one "clinic" where the staff is accused of serious crimes and dangerous incompetance. I for one need a little time to absorb it all before I can discuss all the "what ifs" that come when we discuss a topic like this. At least if we all want to remain civil with each other.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 26, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Take a cop's badge away, and he or she can not fight crime anymore. It is really quite simple. You are or you aren't authorized.
> Sean


 
That's not actually true.

As far as I know, all people in the U.S. have the power to make a private person's arrest.  That would include using reasonable force to apprehend someone.  The only thing that changes is certain regulations, such as being armed, warrants, etc.  

So if you wanted, you could go around making private person's arrests for anyone you see commiting a crime.

This is simplistic, I know, just trying to make a point.  Look at the Guardian Angels for an example.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are exceptions; I am aware that some have been charged with two counts of homicide for killing a pregnant woman near term; but speaking in general I suspect unlicensed abortion would not rise to the definition of murder.


 
And that goes to what I like to call the insanity of our society.  In one case killing a fetus is murder, in another it is not (not including an argument for the mother's self-defense).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 26, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I dont know. When my children were being born it was obvious that a human head was coming out. If this guy stuck a pr of scissors in the baby before it was "entirely out" that would be OK?



I personally don't think abortion is "OK" at all, but that is not the question.  The question is legality.  Typically in a so-called 'partial birth' abortion, the baby is delivered but NOT the head; ie, a breech birth.  I'm not claiming this makes it OK.  Just stating what my understanding of the law is.



> The whole "when is it human" thing is a slippery slope IMO.



Of course it is, and I said that.  My statement was merely that there is NO question about if they baby is alive after it has been born and is breathing on its own.  That's all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 26, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And that goes to what I like to call the insanity of our society.  In one case killing a fetus is murder, in another it is not (not including an argument for the mother's self-defense).



This is another argument entirely.  This goes to the point I was making that this case is being co-opted to reopen the argument against abortion.  This case is not actually about abortion, since the babies were born when killed.  That's not abortion.


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2011)

No disrespect intended, but when you say it isn't about abortion because these babies were born when they were killed, if he had  killed them without bringing them out of the womb, at the point where he did kill them, would there be a difference?  

Not to go to far off topic, if these children survived the an attempt at abortion and were living outside the womb,  should they qualify for life saving measures, since they have cleared the womb and survived?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No disrespect intended, but when you say it isn't about abortion because these babies were born when they were killed, if he had  killed them without bringing them out of the womb, at the point where he did kill them, would there be a difference?



If my aunt had testes, she'd be my uncle.  She doesn't, so she isn't.  All due respect.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If my aunt had testes, she'd be my uncle.  She doesn't, so she isn't.  All due respect.



*snicker*


----------



## billc (Jan 26, 2011)

Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures?  After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.


----------



## granfire (Jan 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures?  After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.



I suppose there are a lot of questions to be answered, from the moral vs legal points.
However, using methods that would get you into trouble dispatching an animal should land you in serious hot water in this case.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures?  After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.



Comedy aside, that has nothing to do with the crimes being discussed.  You're still trying to draw a comparison where there isn't one.  If you have an ax to grind, please do not be sly about it.  Your previous posts don't show any attempt to sucker people into an agenda, but this one does.  State what it is you feel you must state and move on, please.


----------



## billc (Jan 27, 2011)

If I am reading the news articles correctly, the doctor and some of his staff are accused not of performing abortions incorrectly, or of being unlicensed, etc, as such; they are accused of murder. In a least several cases, they are accused of having delivered living babies and then killing post-delivery.
                    Bill Mattocks

My question is still, if delivering a live baby,  all the way clear of the womb, is considered murder in what you have stated above, then, if the baby survives the abortion attempt, is a doctor required to perform life saving measures?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> My question is still, if delivering a live baby,  all the way clear of the womb, is considered murder in what you have stated above, then, if the baby survives the abortion attempt, is a doctor required to perform life saving measures?



That is not a question, that is a lure.  State your point, please.

Seriously, my friend.  I was born at night, but not last night (speaking of birth).  I sometimes recognize an ambush when I see one.

I recognize you have an agenda here.  I recognize you're attempting to lure others into making a statement so that you can pounce and give your opinion.  None of this has anything to do with the crimes the abortion doctor is accused of, but you seem to have an ax regarding abortion that you wish to grind, and you need a willing participant.  I am not that person.  State your agenda and move on, please.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 27, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is not a question, that is a lure. State your point, please.
> 
> Seriously, my friend. I was born at night, but not last night (speaking of birth). I sometimes recognize an ambush when I see one.
> 
> I recognize you have an agenda here. I recognize you're attempting to lure others into making a statement so that you can pounce and give your opinion. None of this has anything to do with the crimes the abortion doctor is accused of, but you seem to have an ax regarding abortion that you wish to grind, and you need a willing participant. I am not that person. State your agenda and move on, please.


 
Actually, it is a legal point that has been debated, , because it happens, and in this context if a perfectly valid question.


----------



## billc (Jan 27, 2011)

Now with a little time. I guess what I see in this are the things that are slightly off kilter. One of the comments talks about the guy in question not being licensed. It is fascinating to me that if he is unlicensed on Monday, and does one of the things he is accused of, it is murder. Having a license would clear him of one of the many horrors he is accused of. If on tuesday he has his license, then it is legal. A piece of paper determines murder, from legal, it is just interesting. 
Another one, that you mention Bill Mattock,


"However, although there is a lot of gray area surrounding people's beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person for the purposes of applying legal protection due any living person, I do believe there is no doubt at all; a baby born and breathing, removed from the mother entirely, is in no sense anything but a human being. Killing the child at that point can never be considered an abortion.

If this guy had done the killing, while the baby had been in the womb, it would possibly be considered a third trimester abortion, which some people say is controversial, but is a gray area. The seperation of, would it be a distance measurement, as in the distance of the abdominal cavity to the outside world, or a time measurement, how long outside the womb that changes a legal procedure to murder. It is interesting to me think about. If he had killed the same baby that you discuss above, in the womb, that would be another legal problem he could possibly avoid.

that in this story of horrors, that the fact he didn't have a license is mentioned, possibly, I would need to go back and look at the story again, seems funny to me. It would be like reading a story about a guy who steals a car, drives through a crowd and killing a whole bunch of people, while he is firing an automatic weapon at more innocent people. When he is stopped you find he had human remains in the car and then among these horrors, the reporter states that on top of all this, it was discovered that the man did not possess a current drivers license.

Bill Mattock, In your posts you do a good job of sticking to the details, in a clinical or analytical way. That is your style and it is a good way to be. It isn't mine, I get a lot of grief sometimes, that's the way it goes. If I see something I think is "off kilter" I like to ask questions. One question would be, with your definition of life, above, would a baby that survives an abortion, to your definition, be required to recieve life saving measures? I personally think it fits in with the story about this ghoul, since he murdered fully formed babies outside the womb. that's all.

It would in fact be another crime, if he failed to provide life saving measures to a fully born but injured baby, wouldn't it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It would in fact be another crime, if he failed to provide life saving measures to a fully born but injured baby, wouldn't it?



Just not going to let that go, are you?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Actually, it is a legal point that has been debated, , because it happens, and in this context if a perfectly valid question.



It's *not* a valid question when it's a *bear trap*.  The point here is that he wants someone to make a statement _'yes' or no'_ and then he can drag out his agenda, an agenda that is about abortion and not about an unlicensed abortion doctor who is alleged to have killed live babies.

What you're saying is that it is a _"perfectly valid question"_ because you would also like to have a debate about abortion, yes?

Like I said, I was born at night, but not last night.  I've been subjected to the _'innocent question'_ from experts, from religious whackadoos to political hacks of all persuasions, and it always starts by asking an opinion on a specific question of this type, followed by an "ah-hah!" and then a pounce on the victim.  The point is not to ask what I think, Bilichak doesn't give two figs what I think.  The point is to open the floor for him to vent his spleen about what he thinks, in this case about abortion and not about the topic.

I've never cared for that approach.  If a person has a monster agenda that they are just bursting to vomit all over the forum, let them do what they have to do, but leave me out of those little plans.


----------



## billc (Jan 28, 2011)

If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum.  I have already given my beliefs on abortion elsewhere, but didn't think that that would be the point here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum.  I have already given my beliefs on abortion elsewhere, but didn't think that that would be the point here.



Sorry to spoil your fun, but I don't agree.  It was and is a setup, IMHO.  I have fallen for many a setup, but not today.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum





except me though. I dont get annoyed. My reaction is like giggle and say there goes ole bill again hehehe 

I wouldnt mind a good ole abortion debate but this aint a thread about abortion really.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 28, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the *annoyance of many* on this forum. I have already given my beliefs on abortion elsewhere, but didn't think that that would be the point here.


 
Now you may think it's annoyance but trust me it's boredom. 
Bill M is correct, it will turn into the bad left v the good right abortion 'statement', with comments about socialism killing millions, left wing people and liberals being atheist, violent baby killers. He's said before he doesn't care if threads go off topic, the subject here is a specific doctor charged with specific crimes. It's a discuss the subject or leave it sort of thing, my knowledge of American law is scarce so I will leave it alone but if Billcihak continues I'm laying odds it will turn out as I and Bill M have predicted. I'm not attacking Billcihak but very definitely his message of intolerance.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's *not* a valid question when it's a *bear trap*. The point here is that he wants someone to make a statement _'yes' or no'_ and then he can drag out his agenda, an agenda that is about abortion and not about an unlicensed abortion doctor who is alleged to have killed live babies.


 
Oh, I see.  So we should have just looked at the OP and gone, "What a terrible man" and then left it alone with no discussion.  Asking about the legal requirements of doctors in terms related to the OP, ie, the legal and medical status / requirements of a  baby outside of the womb is perfectly valid. 



> What you're saying is that it is a _"perfectly valid question"_ because you would also like to have a debate about abortion, yes?


 
Is that a question or a statement?

And no, I don't care to have abortion debates anymore.  I find that most people cannot remain logically consistent in their arguments and then make up excuses for such inconsistencies to be boring and frustrating.  So no, I don't care to be involved in such a debate, but I don't begrudge others from being able to do so.



> Like I said, I was born at night, but not last night. I've been subjected to the _'innocent question'_ from experts, from religious whackadoos to political hacks of all persuasions, and it always starts by asking an opinion on a specific question of this type, followed by an "ah-hah!" and then a pounce on the victim. The point is not to ask what I think, Bilichak doesn't give two figs what I think. The point is to open the floor for him to vent his spleen about what he thinks, in this case about abortion and not about the topic.


 
As Bilichack said, he has never shown a hesitancy to express himself as he sees fit, so I don't think that he needs an excuse now to do so.

And he can only have an "ah-ha" moment if he's right, and the other person is wrong.  So what if he "traps" a person based on their own arguments.  Sometimes it's an effective way to prove a point.



> I've never cared for that approach. If a person has a monster agenda that they are just bursting to vomit all over the forum, let them do what they have to do, but leave me out of those little plans.


 
If you don't care for such an approach, then leave it alone.  Just don't say anything.  But it doesn't mean that somehow such an approach is demeaning or wrong.  The usual problem, as I have seen it, is that people don't like the feeling of being caught in an "ah-ha" moment, so they get resentful and pissy about it.

Too bad.  It is a perfectly acceptable debate strategy.

But whatever...


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Bill mattocks, think of it as a reverse-bear trap, and the key to the device is sewn into the stomach lining of the man laying on the ground behind you.  Live or die, bill, make your choice.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Oh, I see. So we should have just looked at the OP and gone, "What a terrible man" and then left it alone with no discussion. Asking about the legal requirements of doctors in terms related to the OP, ie, *the legal and medical status */ *requirements of a baby outside of the womb is perfectly valid.*


 
Medically and _mostly_ legally, it's not "a baby" _inside_ the womb, or even in the birth canal.

Note that I didn't say "morally," and said "mostly legally"-it's a question of the _mother's_ intent-especially during the first two trimesters.......after that, it get's pretty _icky_......in short, if a six month fetus is aborted in an "intact D&E" procedure, the so-called "partial birth," a doctor is under no legal obligation to attempt to save it, whatever the state of viability is or appears to be.

Here's a story about an abortion at 6 months.


Of  course, what this so-called Dr. in the OP has done is reprehensible, and _maybe_ he'll be punished. That he got away with it for so long is because of the slippery slope that comes from making these procedures available.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

Thank you elder 999 for your answer, and now about abortion, and socialists...


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Thank you elder 999 for your answer, and now about abortion, *and socialists...*



and there goes ole bill again


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jan 29, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Medically and _mostly_ legally, it's not "a baby" _inside_ the womb, or even in the birth canal.
> 
> Note that I didn't say "morally," and said "mostly legally"-it's a question of the _mother's_ intent-especially during the first two trimesters.......after that, it get's pretty _icky_......in short, if a six month fetus is aborted in an "intact D&E" procedure, the so-called "partial birth," a doctor is under no legal obligation to attempt to save it, whatever the state of viability is or appears to be.
> 
> ...


 
And hence, why the question is perfectly valid in relation to this thread.


----------



## billc (Jan 29, 2011)

If you look around, there is a story about a baby born 4 months premature who has celebrated their first birthday.  The issues of viablity are not going to get any easier as science progresses.  If this guy is not breaking a sweat at killing live viable babies, I am sure babies at five month's were getting killed as well.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you look around, there is a story about a baby born 4 months premature who has celebrated their first birthday. The issues of viablity are not going to get any easier as science progresses. If this guy is not breaking a sweat at killing live viable babies, I am sure babies at five month's were getting killed as well.


 
James Elgin Gill, 128 days premature. 

Viability isn't an issue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 29, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Oh, I see.  So we should have just looked at the OP and gone, "What a terrible man" and then left it alone with no discussion.  Asking about the legal requirements of doctors in terms related to the OP, ie, the legal and medical status / requirements of a  baby outside of the womb is perfectly valid.



When the discussion is about the weather, and a person insists on asking your opinion about sports cars, you suspect it's because he has an issue with sports cars that he wants to trot out.  The issue was an unlicensed doctor killing infants.  Not about abortion.  Billichak wants to talk about abortion, though.  Worse, he wants someone to commit to an opinion on his question, so he can pounce and disgorge his little pet nugget.

Not about the thread, per se.  Not even about abortion.  About people with agendas who like to ambush and not come at it straight on.  If you got something to say, say it.  Asking the 'innocent question' so you can use it as your wedge to get your spleen out onto the table is really not cool.  Especially when you get caught at it, which Billichak did.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 29, 2011)

I don't know. I think that the OP begs the question.

Kill it in the womb= Medical procedure, "fetus", legal.

Kill it out of the womb=Monster

Seems inconsistent on a moral basis at its root IMO.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I don't know. I think that the OP begs the question.
> 
> Kill it in the womb= Medical procedure, "fetus", legal.
> 
> ...


 
It *is *inconsistent on a moral basis.

Moral basises are inconsistent by their very nature, from one person to the next.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 29, 2011)

elder999 said:


> It *is *inconsistent on a moral basis.
> 
> Moral basises are inconsistent by their very nature, from one person to the next.



So killing a baby doesn't have a moral consistency in our society? Who are we to judge??


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So killing a baby doesn't have a moral consistency in our society? Who are we to judge??


 
"Killing a baby" doesn't have a legal or medical consistency-therefore it lacks moral consistency, because there are those individuals who will do something simply because it is permitted.....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 30, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So killing a baby doesn't have a moral consistency in our society? Who are we to judge??


 
"_Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth* babies' heads* against the stones."_
Psalm 137:9


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2011)

elder999 said:


> "_Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth* babies' heads* against the stones."_
> Psalm 137:9



digging up my bible (yeah, I do own a couple...)


----------



## elder999 (Jan 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> digging up my bible (yeah, I do own a couple...)


 
I own a couple myself, but you have just about all of them at your fingertips....

Bible Gateway


The original Hebrew for verse nine actually translates something like, _O the happiness of him who doth seize, and hath dashed thy* sucklings* on the rock! _...while the KJV leaves it at "little ones," but you get the idea.....


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I own a couple myself, but you have just about all of them at your fingertips....
> 
> Bible Gateway
> 
> ...



thanks. 

I suppose they were praising the genocide of the chosen people under Joshua tho?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> I suppose they were praising the genocide of the chosen people under Joshua tho?


 
The Hebrews had been carried captive to Babylon, and, adding insult to injury, their captors required that they sing and make merry  with songs of praise for God, and the Hebrews are bewailig their captivity and cursing Babylon, saying that the man who smashes their babies' heads on the rocks will be very happy, and blessed.

Gross, huh?

Years ago my dad did a really good sermon on this psalm, saying that "little Babylonians grow to be big Babylonians," and using it as a metaphor for _sin_. It was for a youth group, and he totally had their attention:_Kids, know what the grossest verse in the Bible is?*Blessed is the man who smashes the heads of his enemies' babies against the rocks!*_*

My dad was a pip.*


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2011)

elder999 said:


> The Hebrews had been carried captive to Babylon, and, adding insult to injury, their captors required that they sing and make merry  with songs of praise for God, and the Hebrews are bewailig their captivity and cursing Babylon, saying that the man who smashes their babies' heads on the rocks will be very happy, and blessed.
> 
> Gross, huh?
> 
> ...


*

roflmao!
a second close in favorites, at least for the guys is the high songs, eh?

(yet another example how you can simply justify everything with the good book...)*


----------

