The Philadelphia Horror: How mass murder gets a pass

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Blade96]

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

and there goes ole bill again

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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.

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

 

[billc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

It is inconsistent on a moral basis.

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

 

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.....

thanks.

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

 

[elder999]

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]

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.

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...)