Serial killer abortionist...coverage on Fox...

[billc]

Here is one journalist pointing out 14 potential reasons this story wasn't covered...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-case-didnt-get-more-media-attention/274966/

7) Journalists Live in a Pro-Choice Bubble

As articulated by Dave Weigel of Slate, political journalists "are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I've caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense. There is a bubble. Horror stories of abortionists are less likely to permeate that bubble than, say, a story about a right-wing pundit attacking an abortionist who then claims to have gotten death threats ... a reporter in the bubble is less likely to be compelled by the news of an arrested abortionist."

Says Erick Erickson, "networks focus on the things people along the coast are interested in and not what people along the American river valleys are talking about. In churches, local restaurants, and small town hair salons a lot of people across the country are talking about the terrible trial of Kermit Gosnell in Pennsylvania. It's just not the people who interact with those who produce the news in New York City."

9) Pro-Choice Journalists Are Willfully Ignoring the Story to Avoid Giving an Advantage to Pro-Lifers

Folksin the pro-life community earnestly believe this theory. My interactions with journalists have never given me reason to think that any significant number would ignore what they knew to be a newsworthy story for blatantly political reasons. Admittedly, I've interacted with a small subset of all journalists, and the very nature of this theory is that it cannot be definitively proven or disproved. But it seems to me that, for example, David Shaw's "Abortion Bias Seeps Into The News" offers a much more plausible account of how ideological bias might creep into newsroom behavior. I do not know if his account was correct in 1990 when published or if it is correct now

.

 

[Flying Crane]

As long as it's "legal and careful" it's Ok. As long as you don't wait too long and it gets out.....there are many late term abortion supporters. The philosophy is "its not a baby till its out". Whats the big deal over a couple of minutes?

It's an unresolved discussion because if she admits that a baby who survives an abortion attempt is now a life worth saving her entire schema starts to unravel.

well, I'd say just about every issue has elements that we could find disagreeable. Perhaps there is room to improve those elements. But for me, it doesn't change my position that the option of abortion is important. Yes, it should be a rare thing, and the decision should not be made lightly and it certainly should not be used as a first line of birth control. But the option should still remain.

hey, plenty of people abuse guns. But I know a whole lot of people don't see that as a good enough reason to place controls or limits on them. That's yet another issue that doesn't really belong in this thread. But we've all got our causes that we support.

 

[billc]

And another look at why democrat journalists have ignored this story...

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-me-shaw01jul01,0,5601598.story

A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.

Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:

* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

 

[Flying Crane]

so...has the "conservative" media overwhelmingly covered this story?

 

[Tgace]

well, I'd say just about every issue has elements that we could find disagreeable. Perhaps there is room to improve those elements. But for me, it doesn't change my position that the option of abortion is important. Yes, it should be a rare thing, and the decision should not be made lightly and it certainly should not be used as a first line of birth control. But the option should still remain.

hey, plenty of people abuse guns. But I know a whole lot of people don't see that as a good enough reason to place controls or limits on them. That's yet another issue that doesn't really belong in this thread. But we've all got our causes that we support.

Now now, there are plenty of controls on guns. A teenage girl cant legally buy a gun at a gun store w/o parental permission...but she can get an abortion and the parents can't be told.

The fact is we wont place a definite point on when our lives have value.

 

[billc]

Here are some numbers on how often babies are killed at the three and a half month mark...

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact8.html

There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4 1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary reporting to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1993, over 17,000 abortions were performed at 21 weeks and later-- and the CDC acknowledges that the reports that it receives are incomplete.)

 

[Cyriacus]

Equating human life with that of an ant isn't too far over the horizon I guess....

That isnt exactly what i was doing - I was referring to how we place such a high value on human life, then go off killing things.
I could have been a bit more cruel, and asked what would happen if the child grew up being a resented accident instead of being aborted, and what the hazards are of backyard abortions.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...at kermit's clinic the risks are pretty grave...and he was a legal abortionist who was consistently ignored by the people who were supposed to be monitoring those clinics...

Human life is not animal life...

 

[Tgace]

That isnt exactly what i was doing - I was referring to how we place such a high value on human life, then go off killing things.
I could have been a bit more cruel, and asked what would happen if the child grew up being a resented accident instead of being aborted, and what the hazards are of backyard abortions.

Because human life is of more value.

 

[Cyriacus]

Because human life is of more value.

Yes, it is. I didnt say otherwise.
And yet, we deliberately kill each other (see how ive changed the subject of the topic, now that weve established how valuable human life is?). The value of the life of an ant is your choice to make. Same goes for people, really. I.e. tell what you just said to a serial killer. Now tell it to an abortionist. Now tell it to a soldier. And so forth. Apparently killing humans is quite alright, when we feel all justified in doing it. No matter how valuable human life is.

 

[billc]

A serial killer and an abortionist kill an innocent human being, which is murder...a soldier of a democratic nation may end up killing an innocent but they are not the intended targets and I know our soldiers go to great lengths to spare innocent non-combatants. To compare serial killers and abortionists to soldiers, at least of western democracies, is just silly.

 

[Cyriacus]

A serial killer and an abortionist kill an innocent human being, which is murder...a soldier of a democratic nation may end up killing an innocent but they are not the intended targets and I know our soldiers go to great lengths to spare innocent non-combatants. To compare serial killers and abortionists to soldiers, at least of western democracies, is just silly.

But human life is valuable. Or so im told.

Thats sorta my point. A soldier can justify it - But what about all the people who think that soldiers are murderers? I guess theyre just wrong, because *we* can justify the killing they do. Its comparable to determining whether or not abortion is murder. Its about how *you* define murder, and how you feel about what theyre doing. You dont have to like what theyre doing, you dont have to accept it, but i for one would (knowing full well how irrelevant my opinion is) prefer it if people objected based on that, rather than trying to turn it into the same thing as murder. Thatd be like calling homosexuals wrong, because you dont approve of homosexuality. Along with all the people calling homosexuality acceptable, because they either approve or dont really care. Right and wrong is very opinionated. (To clarify, such a statement would be 'homosexuality = sodomy'. Abortion = murder. Soldiers = murderers. Murder = killing people when we dont say its ok)

 

[billc]

Serial killer...takes the life of an innocent human being for personal satisfaction.

Abortionist...takes the life of an innocent human being...murder when the reason is not to save the life of the mother.

Soldier...takes the life of an innocent human being as a consequence of combat but without the intent to intentioally end the life of an innocent.

Big differences in how a life is ended and how murder is taking the life of an innocent...

 

[Drasken]

I think at the earliest terms, abortion is not murder because the cells haven't formed into a child. It is aborting a process. However late term abortions I definitely view as murder. Especially when the child is capable of living, even with assistance, without the mother.

That being said, I think the problem is we don't take responsibility for our own actions. Birth control, including the morning after pill which is just secondary birth control, should be readily available. Then people can and should take all precautions and abortion wouldn't be needed. At that point, if you didn't take precautions then deal with the consequences.

Back to the OP however. I personally read and watch all news I can. Liberal, Conservative. I watch both because the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. And I have to say, the conservative media has reported more on this than the liberal media. But both are guilty of not covering it as much as they should.
I think that the fact that this doctor was licensed, is being used as a broad attack on all abortion doctors. Now I don't mean you have to agree with them, or condone what they do. But this makes more of a statement about this ONE immoral waste of life doctor than the practice as a whole.
Also, it says a lot about the regulations and the departments charged with reinforcing those regulations. So my question is this....

WHY are we not charging the people tasked with monitoring these clinics!? This should have been stopped long ago. This guy should be behind bars. And the negligent idiots that should have caught the illegal activity during the supposed regular inspections should be fired and possibly brought up on charges as well. The whole thing is insane.

 

[Cyriacus]

Serial killer...takes the life of an innocent human being for personal satisfaction.

Abortionist...takes the life of an innocent human being...murder when the reason is not to save the life of the mother.

Soldier...takes the life of an innocent human being as a consequence of combat but without the intent to intentioally end the life of an innocent.

Big differences in how a life is ended and how murder is taking the life of an innocent...

And its all killing. What you just listed is how we judge these people, either in their favor or against them. For a long time, homosexuality was unspeakable. The fact that we find it acceptable now is proof of, if nothing else, the fact that its about how we look at it. And some people still oppose it.

 

[billc]

WHY are we not charging the people tasked with monitoring these clinics!? This should have been stopped long ago. This guy should be behind bars. And the negligent idiots that should have caught the illegal activity during the supposed regular inspections should be fired and possibly brought up on charges as well. The whole thing is insane.

Because he was providing abortions...it's that simple. The abortion lobby is very powerful and they intimidate politicians and pencil pushers at all levels of government...this isn't the only problem clinic out there...look through the web and you'll see some others getting closed down...

 

[billc]

 

[Flying Crane]

Now now, there are plenty of controls on guns. A teenage girl cant legally buy a gun at a gun store w/o parental permission...but she can get an abortion and the parents can't be told.

The fact is we wont place a definite point on when our lives have value.

ok, but I still support a woman's right to choose an abortion, including the teenage girl's. for what it's worth.

 

[Drasken]

Because he was providing abortions...it's that simple. The abortion lobby is very powerful and they intimidate politicians and pencil pushers at all levels of government...this isn't the only problem clinic out there...look through the web and you'll see some others getting closed down...

But that's the thing. He was performing ILLEGAL abortions. Once a child is at the late stages and can survive on its own, or could be put on a ventilator until able to breathe on their own, it is illegal to abort that child. At that point it is murder. So while I support early term abortions as a possible choice. While I don't see that as murder. I do see murdering children who could survive without the mother's womb as murder. And so esdoes the law. At least on paper.
Meaning the officials sent to do inspections didn't do their job properly. And all, including the doctor, should be held responsible.

 

[billc]

There may have to be an extensive examination of the abortion providing industry...an undercover video camera interview with abortion providers...and what they say to these women...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/28/video-was-gosnell-an-aberration-in-late-term-abortions/

What happens, the young woman asks, if the baby is moving and breathing when it comes out? No worries, says the abortion-clinic saleswoman — the toxic solution will make it “automatically stop.” If the baby spontaneously delivers, she advises the mother to “Flush it!” Or, failing that, stick the baby in a plastic bag and bring him or her to the clinic for the toxic solution. Don’t go to the hospital, she warns, because the hospital might actually try to save the baby.

The employee assigned to take note of medical history reassured the woman, “We never had that for ages” (a seeming admission that a baby did survive abortion at the clinic at least once) but that should “it” “survive this,” “They would still have to put it in like a jar, a container, with solution, and send it to the lab. . . . We don’t just throw it out in the garbage.”
Oh, and this innocuous-sounding “solution” was, of course, a toxic substance suitable for killing an infant.
“Like, what if it was twitching?” asked the pregnant woman.
“The solution will make it stop,” said the clinic employee. “That’s the whole purpose of the solution . . . It will automatically stop. It won’t be able to breathe anymore.”
As for any qualms a woman might have about seeing her newborn child being poisoned and drowned in a jar, the employee advised her “patient” not to worry: She’d be under sedation, and the murder would take place in another room anyway.
The employee said, humorously, that “the doctor” is “not gonna wake you up and be like, ‘Hey, excuse me, you have—’ ”
The sentence was left unfinished, too unthinkable even for a euphemism. There’s no polite way to say, “You have just given birth, but we will murder the child.”


​