Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I mean, they are capital murder charges. I seldom think the state should take the option; but I'm not wholly opposed either, and this seems a prime case to me.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pro-choice, and I think that people like him will be the standard if the pro-life crowd gets what they want.

Exalt.

Any and all legislation against abortion will not halt abortion in the United States. It will simply force it underground.

Cheap, available and early abortion, without stigma for the woman seeking the operation, with federal regulation and federal monitoring, nationwide. I would far rather pay tax to have this done swiftly and with minimum fuss then spend a lifetimes worth of social services, education, welfare and prison rates for the potential unwanted person to grow up into.

Far cheaper for the nation, far safer for the woman, far more humane as a society.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pro-choice, and I think that people like him will be the standard if the pro-life crowd gets what they want.

Thats a non sensical argument and could equaly be changed to "Well, this is the natural progression of pro-choice" both of which are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Any and all legislation against abortion will not halt abortion in the United States. It will simply force it underground.

Cheap, available and early abortion, without stigma for the woman seeking the operation, with federal regulation and federal monitoring, nationwide. I would far rather pay tax to have this done swiftly and with minimum fuss then spend a lifetimes worth of social services, education, welfare and prison rates for the potential unwanted person to grow up into.

Far cheaper for the nation, far safer for the woman, far more humane as a society.

What your saying is that an unwanted child dose not have the right to make those choices and that any unwanted child is worthless and is garenteed to be a drain on society? I think there are many millions of people who are adoped who would disagree with you.

What you need to stop children suffering abuse that leads to problems in later life as strong and robust child protection laws.

d-usa wrote:He has (or had at the time) a license.

So if you are going to be all hyperbole in this thread, and least get the facts of the case straight.

No. He had a license to practice medicine, and very likely completed med school, but you cannot call that man a doctor. Doctors abide by their Hippocratic oath and work to heal people.

While my language may have been based in hyperbole and metaphor, I stand by it, though I do apologize if I somehow managed to obfuscate the case for you.

What a terrible story. I hope that man gets what he deserves. However, this story doesn't surprise or horrify me in the least.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What a terrible story. I hope that man gets what he deserves. However, this story doesn't surprise or horrify me in the least.

He'll probably get the remaining years of his life in solitary. I doubt his prison mates will be to understanding of why he's there.

This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion. In order to sentence a criminal to death, we have to go through a trial, verdict, sentencing, appeal after appeal, and finally - 20 years later - we either see the person die or get his sentence reduced to life imprisonment. Killing an unborn baby is called a civil right and anyone claiming otherwise gets tarred and feathered in the media. Even in this situation, the "doctor" had (and still has) his defenders.

 Breotan wrote:
This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion. In order to sentence a criminal to death, we have to go through a trial, verdict, sentencing, appeal after appeal, and finally - 20 years later - we either see the person die or get his sentence reduced to life imprisonment. Killing an unborn baby is called a civil right and anyone claiming otherwise gets tarred and feathered in the media. Even in this situation, the "doctor" had (and still has) his defenders.

While I agree... this isn't the place to start this fight. Lets just be glad a murderer is going away, and not muddy the waters with other stuff.

 Breotan wrote:
This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion.

Why would we compare and contrast the differences between the rights possessed by a thinking, reasoning person who willingly breaks the law, and a non-sentient clump of cells the size of an prune?

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion.

Why would we compare and contrast the differences between the rights possessed by a thinking, reasoning person who willingly breaks the law, and a non-sentient clump of cells the size of an prune?

Yeah, it's about as comparable as cars and guns or apples and oranges.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:He has (or had at the time) a license.

So if you are going to be all hyperbole in this thread, and least get the facts of the case straight.

No. He had a license to practice medicine, and very likely completed med school, but you cannot call that man a doctor. Doctors abide by their Hippocratic oath and work to heal people.

While my language may have been based in hyperbole and metaphor, I stand by it, though I do apologize if I somehow managed to obfuscate the case for you.

I was responding to the reply below yours:

 Lone Cat wrote:
^ He can't call himself doctor because he has no license of profession. Every nation on earth mutually agreed that doctors need license of profession, even without any deaths incurred to the treatments, he, along with his crew, is a quack.

Which is false, he was a physician that was licensed. That doesn't mean he is a despicable excuse for a human being, but he was a licensed physician.

Steve steveson wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Any and all legislation against abortion will not halt abortion in the United States. It will simply force it underground.
Cheap, available and early abortion, without stigma for the woman seeking the operation, with federal regulation and federal monitoring, nationwide. I would far rather pay tax to have this done swiftly and with minimum fuss then spend a lifetimes worth of social services, education, welfare and prison rates for the potential unwanted person to grow up into.
Far cheaper for the nation, far safer for the woman, far more humane as a society.

What your saying is that an unwanted child dose not have the right to make those choices and that any unwanted child is worthless and is garenteed to be a drain on society? I think there are many millions of people who are adoped who would disagree with you.

What you need to stop children suffering abuse that leads to problems in later life as strong and robust child protection laws.

All children are a drain on society, we spend money on them as an investment for the future. Those who are unwanted then have a sizable chance of being raised either with a sense of resentment and likelihood of neglect or raised by the state in institutions. I don't want to pay for other people's mistakes, I am therefore far more willing for a far smaller amount of my taxes to go towards removing the issue, rather than pay for it for 70 years.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion.

Why would we compare and contrast the differences between the rights possessed by a thinking, reasoning person who willingly breaks the law, and a non-sentient clump of cells the size of an prune?

These were babies, not cells the size of a prune, and partial birth abortion has more than it's fair share of advocates.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

At twenty weeks, this could hardly be called just a clump of cells:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=v70cQzwRxfI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dv70cQzwRxfI

Relapse wrote:
These were babies, not cells the size of a prune, and partial birth abortion has more than it's fair share of advocates.

And you missed the important part: you're quoting a comment about EARLY abortion. Make abortion easily available early and people will use it. Few women are going to want to carry an unwanted child any longer than they have to, so if you remove the obstacles to getting an abortion as early as possible you mostly limit the later and more ethically uncertain abortions to ones done because of serious medical problems.

Also, very few people support partial birth abortion for anything other than serious medical problems (where the baby will crippled for life, if it doesn't just die after a very short and painful "life", if it isn't aborted). In the absence of anti-abortion laws that prevent a woman from getting an abortion earlier partial birth abortions for "changed my mind, I don't want a baby" reasons would be so rare that they aren't even relevant.

And of course nobody supports things like this "doctor".

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
This is the problem when you minimize the value of human life. Look at the death penalty versus abortion.

Why would we compare and contrast the differences between the rights possessed by a thinking, reasoning person who willingly breaks the law, and a non-sentient clump of cells the size of an prune?

These were babies, not cells the size of a prune, and partial birth abortion has more than it's fair share of advocates.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

At twenty weeks, this could hardly be called just a clump of cells:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=v70cQzwRxfI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dv70cQzwRxfI

Your response is strawmaning Ouze's response. Breotan had said 'Abortion', not 'late term Abortion'.

Please leave the attempts to lump all abortion in with this sickening crime, just as I, somehow, manage to not lump all US troops operating abroad with Abu Ghraib, or all people calling for smaller government with Timothy McVey. Thanks.

Looks like no death penalty:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider found guilty of first-degree murder has agreed give up his right to appeal in exchange for avoiding a possible death sentence, Philadelphia's district attorney's office announced Tuesday.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted Monday on three counts of murder for killing babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors.

The next step in the case was to have been the penalty phase, when jurors would have weighed whether to give Gosnell a death sentence.

The arrangement erases a need for that phase.
...
According to a statement from the office of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Gosnell "agreed to waive all of his appellate rights in exchange for life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty." He was "immediately sentenced" for the deaths of two babies.

He will be sentenced on remaining charges, including the death of the third baby, on Wednesday, the statement said.

Looks like he'll die in jail then

Yep. Dead either way. I doubt the majority of the GP would be particularly friendly to him either.

They'll probably show him more mercy then he shown those that he killed

God, this case. Everyone is using in to fuel their own agenda.
Pro-lifers say this is typical of abortionists and so forth. Choicers are saying "This is what it was like before ROE v. Wade.

It's a really ugly, miserable case.

There is certainly a solid case for improved regulation - no doctor should be able to operate in such a dreadful way, whether his specialty is abortion or anything else. Of course, that's made problematic by the political realities of the issue, where any proposed regulation will be perceived by many as a wedge to drive a ban on abortion or something pretty close to that.

In that sense it reminds me a lot of the recent gun control debate. Not only in the fear of reform, but in many of the arguments... except of course this time the sides are reversed so the arguments made by each side are neatly swapped over.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
God, this case. Everyone is using in to fuel their own agenda.
Pro-lifers say this is typical of abortionists and so forth. Choicers are saying "This is what it was like before ROE v. Wade.

That's an awful broad brush you're using there

I suppose poor word, how about "Quite a few"

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
These were babies, not cells the size of a prune, and partial birth abortion has more than it's fair share of advocates.

And you missed the important part: you're quoting a comment about EARLY abortion. Make abortion easily available early and people will use it. Few women are going to want to carry an unwanted child any longer than they have to, so if you remove the obstacles to getting an abortion as early as possible you mostly limit the later and more ethically uncertain abortions to ones done because of serious medical problems.

Also, very few people support partial birth abortion for anything other than serious medical problems (where the baby will crippled for life, if it doesn't just die after a very short and painful "life", if it isn't aborted). In the absence of anti-abortion laws that prevent a woman from getting an abortion earlier partial birth abortions for "changed my mind, I don't want a baby" reasons would be so rare that they aren't even relevant.

And of course nobody supports things like this "doctor".

The comment made it seem like the only early abortions are being done. Everybody here seems rightly appalled at what this maniac was doing, but there are abortions of children between the stages of conglomerations of cells and full term babies going on that are considered legal. A fetus can be up to 24 weeks old in some states and be aborted. I'll have to agree with what Breotan said earlier.

Relapse wrote:
Everybody here seems rightly appalled at what this maniac was doing, but there are abortions of children between the stages of conglomerations of cells and full term babies going on that are considered legal.

But the point is that most of those later abortions are happening because either:

1) The woman was unable to get an abortion earlier (often because conservatives have a goal of making as many restrictions as possible so that fewer women can jump through all the hoops before time runs out), and had no choice. Since I seriously doubt very many people would enjoy being pregnant any longer than they have to if they don't want a baby it's safe to assume that the vast majority of these cases would not longer exist if abortion at an earlier point was easily available.

or

2) The fetus has severe problems that were not discovered earlier and leave it little or no chance at a normal life. These are really unfortunate cases and it would be nice if the baby could be saved (and most of the heartbroken parents would agree), but aborting a fatally deformed fetus that will, if it even survives that long, die painfully as soon as it is born (at non-trivial risk to the mother) can't very plausibly be called a case of murder.

A fetus can be up to 24 weeks old in some states and be aborted. I'll have to agree with what Breotan said earlier.

And as an upper limit (which most people won't willingly reach) that's fine. Brain development isn't really getting anywhere before that point, so you're still killing a blob of cells with no more "personhood" than the cockroaches you have no problem squishing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I suppose poor word, how about "Quite a few"

Thank you

 d-usa wrote:
Looks like no death penalty:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Philadelphia (CNN) -- A Philadelphia abortion provider found guilty of first-degree murder has agreed give up his right to appeal in exchange for avoiding a possible death sentence, Philadelphia's district attorney's office announced Tuesday.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted Monday on three counts of murder for killing babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors.

The next step in the case was to have been the penalty phase, when jurors would have weighed whether to give Gosnell a death sentence.

The arrangement erases a need for that phase.
...
According to a statement from the office of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, Gosnell "agreed to waive all of his appellate rights in exchange for life in prison without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty." He was "immediately sentenced" for the deaths of two babies.

He will be sentenced on remaining charges, including the death of the third baby, on Wednesday, the statement said.

so judge found out that a dose of poison waste a budget to henk a man who already had his days numbered and therefore he will die in a cell.

What about his aide?

 d-usa wrote:
I'm pro-choice, and I think that people like him will be the standard if the pro-life crowd gets what they want.

But he is a killer, pure and simple. He didn't follow any of the laws, about anything. The truth really is that this is not a case about pro-abortion or anti-abortion, it's a man with zero morals violating every law he can.

Yup. Pretty much covers everything in my opinions to. idiots like that man hold societies back from progress more than anyone else does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325786/Douglas-Karpen-Second-house-horrors-abortion-clinic-investigated-Texas.html

A new one...

This time in Texas. He'll get the needle.

Edit: Don't click the link if your squeemish.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This man isn't a doctor; he's a serial killer with a clever setup. This case had nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice.

exactly, politics has nothing to do with this

what scares me is that he obviously wasnt acting alone, and that multiple women/kids had to go through this before it got caught.