Think there's no "back alley abortions"? Think again

Not much news shocks me anymore. This does. My husband and I saw it on the news last night and sat there in silence. SAD and horrid.

I didn't read the article you posted Heidi. I just didn't want to see more of it.

The doctor sounds like a sadist to me, and if there is a call for the death penalty, he deserves it. I too am pro-choice, but this is just way to far away from humane and ethical boundaries.

Yeah I completely agree with this. I am also pro-choice but that is sickening what he did was murder he had to physically kill and here's hoping they ship him to a state that has the death penalty

When I saw this thread I knew it was about the Philadelphia doctor. By coincidence, 2 weeks or so ago I saw a documentary on public television about this exact subject. Something about if the baby's head is still in the mother, then LEGALLY it's "not a person" or something, I can't remember. But that's when the scissors thing happens, when the neck is out but the head is still in. The show said a baby will shake from the pain before it dies. They said other stuff but I was in a state of shock so I can't remember everything. So I am guessing this Philadelphia doctor researched the legalities and he proceeded according to what would protect him under the law while still making money. When I heard the baby shakes, it took me to another place mentally, so whatever else was said on the show became just sounds because at that point I wasn't listening anymore. I had my hand over my mouth. My eyes were half-shut. I do remember changing the channel. I was surprised this was on public television because generally speaking they are pro-choice. At least that's my perception of public television in this region of the country.

Just disgusting, especially at that late stage, it infuriates me really badly. x

that is so awful no, it's beyond awful. I am so saddened by this, those poor women and those poor babies

It is confusing since one deals with both federal and state laws. In the 70s, the feds enacted law protecting choice during the first trimester, after that each state has the freedom to enact their own restrictions. Many state laws were not changed, but are simply not enforced and overruled by federal law, and naturally state law varies. States do this a lot, as an Atheist cannot hold public office per the Texas constitution, but it is overruled by the US constitution.

I believe what you are referencing is a surgical procedure called intact dilation and extraction, where the fetus is removed intact through the cervix. This doesn't change limits on abortion terms though and is thus moot, and AFAIK is only really used when a deceased fetus is too large to be removed safely by other means (or when a politician wants to make a name for themselves by preying on the emotions of a public naturally not fully versed on the specifics).

The problem of course is how to decide when "life begins", and I don't think that will ever be answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Consensus amongst pro-choicers appears to be the 'I think therefor I am' argument for deciding whether a fetus or injured adult is developed or functioning enough to be considered a "person" that must be protected by the state.

The concept being that if the brain isn't functioning enough to reasonably be believed to have even the most fundamental of thoughts or perceptions, either due to lack of time for development in a fetus or severe non-recoverable brain trauma for an adult, then there is no consciousness, personality, memories, etc present to be lost even if the tissue can be sustained indefinitely. This will still be a gray area though, due to limitations in scientific understanding, and so the law generally errs on the side of caution.

The majority of the population are religious though, and pro-life advocates are generally the Christian majority which are taught that ensoulment occurs at conception, even as a zygote long before any brain development, and so the more harsh the anti-abortion measures the more lives are saved. Similar opinions regarding brain-damaged adults such as the controversial Terri Schiavo case.

Definitely a touchy subject with understandable concerns from both sides when considering the different belief systems.

Oh, my stance on this guy too though, is that if the allegations are true (and with that much evidence I don't see how they can't be), they definitely need to throw the book at him.

I'm firmly pro-life....there is a special place in hell for people like this.

I doubt it's that (in blue) because the documentary *I saw* specifically said the baby is alive and specifically mentioned scissors in the back of the neck, head still inside, convulsion before dying, all performed under protective legal lingo (probably state law as you said). Sadly, this tells us Dr. Gosnell was not the first person in the world to do this. So yes it's confusing and disturbing. To any of our forum members in the New York City area, the documentary was on WLIW (IIRC) which is a Long Island public television station accessible here in NYC.

I've seen the write up on it

In the end though, it is just a surgical procedure, a method/technique of abortion, and wouldn't change laws one way or another on late term abortion legality.

So thats all I was saying was the real question is not how its performed but IF late term abortions should be legal, and I'm not versed on every state's laws in that regard. Any procedure for a late term abortion is bound to be very unpleasant to say the least IMO, and should only be performed if the fetus is very malformed and isn't likely to survive (or with horrific quality of life if it did), would carry serious risks to the mother's life, or obviously if it didn't survive for some reason (vehicle accident, etc).

But in any case, what this supposed "doctor" was doing was highly illegal in many different ways from how they describe it.

im pro-choice, but, contrary to popular belief, that doesnt always mean pro-abortion. i dont think late term abortions should be allowed under any circumstance, because like you said, if in the first 3 months you cant decide...then give it up for adoption when you do finally decide.

Exactly! I have triplet granddaughters that were born at 28 weeks gestation. You can't tell me they were anything but human babies at that stage of development. And I can't even imagine anyone claiming to be a PHYSICIAN intentionally killing while they were being born.

Im not crazy about the idea of abortion at any stage, but once they've reached developmental viability, it is definitely murder. Bear the child and give it up for adoption, anything else is murder.

Under any circumstances? Suppose the mother's life were in definite danger? This recent article really gave me pause:
Abortion: Easy Access, Complex Everything Else

I had not one, but two family members in whom (breast/face) cancer recurred during pregnancy. Neither one aborted, both had to forego aggressive treatment and died. Maybe they would have died anyway, but their deaths prevent me from saying "under any circumstances".

I stand corrected. I do think that in that case the mothers life should be priority.

Somehow I think the 41 yr. old as stated above would forego aggressive treatment until the baby reached a viable age (now usually accepted to be 25 weeks). If I was this woman, I believe that would be my decision. Though in reality I don't believe I would be trying to get pregnant at that age. In any event I believe it is a very rare circumstance where continuing with a late term pregnancy would endanger the mother's life.