Update - Gosnell Trial: Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty on three counts of first degree murder

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 6:28 PM GMT
    I'm surprised this is getting so little press over here.

    "'House of horrors' abortion clinic worker 'was handed a screaming newborn with no eyes or mouth and asked to deal with it'"
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306261/House-horrors-abortion-clinic-worker-handed-screaming-newborn-eyes-mouth-asked-deal-it.html

    I'm not the only one:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

    Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure. Haven't heard about these sickening accusations?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2013 8:50 PM GMT
    The fact it appeared in the Daily Mail (a veritable journalistic 'house of horrors') would account for why I haven't read about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2013 12:47 AM GMT
    The Daily Mail is often written poorly, researched inadequately and it is aimed towards a female readership, but, it is still Britain's most nationally-owned national newspaper, and that is reflected in its content, and this is the appeal.

    Screaming newborn with no mouth? Hmm... icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2013 1:14 AM GMT
    I'm speechless. And annoyed that it doesn't get the slightest coverage in US media. Another example of our media's agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2013 1:26 AM GMT
    How can it scream if it has no mouth?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2013 1:29 AM GMT
    RadRTT saidHow can it scream if it has no mouth?


    I presume it had vocal cords. Probably not compatible with life with major malformations found on ultrasound, which could have been the original reason for the abortion.

    The point is, it's all gruesome and disgusting...but there isn't enough pertinent information reported by this particular article. That's why it's best to leave it to the courts.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3525

    Apr 12, 2013 6:58 AM GMT
    And yet you people keep voting in politicians that keep heterosexuality legal. Only mandatory homosexuality can stop abortions. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2013 5:10 PM GMT
    STILL no coverage by most news media. Infanticide is apparently no big deal with the left. I guess it hasn't occurred to the Obama crowd that babies, as well as older children can be used as props when he signs legislation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 12:39 AM GMT
    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/

    I was aware of this story in 2011 because I live in PA. Simply because the mainstream media isn't interested in how pre-Roe v. Wade abortion looked like and the failure of the PA dept of health to inspect this clinic does not make all abortion providers monsters. If the onus and hurdles of providing abortion were much less, people turning to people like Gosnell for abortions would have never happened. We will probably hear more, not fewer, horror stories as safe abortion is made practically impossible in many states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 2:11 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidSTILL no coverage by most news media. Infanticide is apparently no big deal with the left.


    How did media on the right of the political spectrum cover this story?

    Did they put any focus on the need for safe abortion so that women won't have butchers like this guy as their only option?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 2:33 AM GMT
    He was a doctor, not a back alley fly by night operation. The point of the story is that abortion is murder, but no one wants to admit it because abortion is convenient. The other point is that the left wing media won't cover this story because it casts a very bad light on the subject, and that is counter to their agenda of "choice" to murder the most innocent of life, for mere convenience. In other words, the hypocrisy of the left wing news media abounds. No consistency, double standards abound. This story should be given the same coverage as the Newtown, CT massacre.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 2:44 AM GMT
    Interesting. The OP of this thread wrote

    "I used to be pro life but I've moved towards being pro choice"

    in his other thread on this topic. He presents the horrors above but still says he's moved toward being pro choice.

    I think that pretty much represents the reconciliation that most moderates have come to on the subject of abortion.

    Yeah, IT'S FUCKING HORRIBLE! But I don't know of any anti abortionists who propose to financially support the babies that would be born to the women who can't care for these babies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 5:42 AM GMT
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029214-504083.html
    http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show#
    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806324/pa-employees-fired-in-wake-of-abortion-scandal

    Note the dates on these links.'

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/I can’t speak for big news organizations like CNN and the networks, but let’s think about this question another way: How often do such places devote their energies to covering the massive health disparities and poor outcomes that are wrought by our current system? How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 8:51 AM GMT
    Why is it that 'pro-lifers' are fixated on late-term abortions, when such procedures represent a small fraction of the overall number of abortions?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 11:31 AM GMT
    blazerblue saidInteresting. The OP of this thread wrote

    "I used to be pro life but I've moved towards being pro choice"

    in his other thread on this topic. He presents the horrors above but still says he's moved toward being pro choice.

    I think that pretty much represents the reconciliation that most moderates have come to on the subject of abortion.

    Yeah, IT'S FUCKING HORRIBLE! But I don't know of any anti abortionists who propose to financially support the babies that would be born to the women who can't care for these babies.


    Can we apply the same logic to violent criminals?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 11:34 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029214-504083.html
    http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show#
    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806324/pa-employees-fired-in-wake-of-abortion-scandal

    Note the dates on these links.'

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/I can’t speak for big news organizations like CNN and the networks, but let’s think about this question another way: How often do such places devote their energies to covering the massive health disparities and poor outcomes that are wrought by our current system? How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention.


    The columnist makes it sound like abortion is severely restricted, which it most certainly is not. Only someone bent on the murder of the innocent would see it that way. I guess this has devolved into yet another abortion debate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 1:16 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    blazerblue saidInteresting. The OP of this thread wrote

    "I used to be pro life but I've moved towards being pro choice"

    in his other thread on this topic. He presents the horrors above but still says he's moved toward being pro choice.

    I think that pretty much represents the reconciliation that most moderates have come to on the subject of abortion.

    Yeah, IT'S FUCKING HORRIBLE! But I don't know of any anti abortionists who propose to financially support the babies that would be born to the women who can't care for these babies.


    Can we apply the same logic to violent criminals?



    Sorry. I'm not following your thinking on this one. Care to explain?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 2:43 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    RadRTT saidHow can it scream if it has no mouth?


    I presume it had vocal cords. Probably not compatible with life with major malformations found on ultrasound, which could have been the original reason for the abortion.

    The point is, it's all gruesome and disgusting...but there isn't enough pertinent information reported by this particular article. That's why it's best to leave it to the courts.
    Who is saying that it shouldn't be left to the courts? The issue seems to be more that this isn't being reported on.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

    The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 2:55 PM GMT


    Good grief people. Did no one click on this link and fully read the article and click on the article's links?


    "How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 3:03 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Good grief people. Did no one click on this link and fully read the article and click on the article's links?


    "How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/


    Did anyone claim a coverup? More of a systemic bias is what most other articles point out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 3:05 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said

    Good grief people. Did no one click on this link and fully read the article and click on the article's links?


    "How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/


    Did anyone claim a coverup? More of a systemic bias is what most other articles point out.


    Go back and read it and decide for yourself. The author of this article explains rather clearly why it didn't make major news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 3:29 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said

    Good grief people. Did no one click on this link and fully read the article and click on the article's links?


    "How often are the travails of the women whose vulnerabilities Gosnell exploited — the poor, immigrants and otherwise marginalized people — given wall-to-wall, trial-level coverage? If you’re surprised that in the face of politicized stigma, lack of public funding or good information, and a morass of restrictive laws allegedly meant to protect women, the vacuum was filled by a monster — well, the most generous thing I can say is that you haven’t been paying attention."

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/


    Did anyone claim a coverup? More of a systemic bias is what most other articles point out.

    Read the New York Post...which had not reported on this topic till last week.
    Yup, there certainly is a bias. Nothing can whip up indignant reporting like the right, while reporting by the left (see the 3 links above in 2011) is just mostly ignored. Any issue raised by the right must be given front page news while those raised by the left are quietly ignored.
    E.g. On global warming, no scientists were invited on to the Sunday talk shows in 2012. All of the politicians invited were Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 4:50 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidWhy is it that 'pro-lifers' are fixated on late-term abortions, when such procedures represent a small fraction of the overall number of abortions?


    Abortion was supposed to be legal and rare but it's become a form of birth control which is unacceptable, as well as used for sex selection; you're having a girl and you want a boy so just rip it out of the body and let it die. When you can detect a fetal heartbeat at six weeks that says a lot how far science has come in recent years. I'm not sure how people can take human life so callously.


    Baby Boy A, allegedly killed after being born alive and then having his spinal cord cut at the abortion office of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. (AP)
    baby%20boy%20a_0.jpg?1363820514
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 8:59 PM GMT
    blazerblue said
    Blakes7 said
    blazerblue saidInteresting. The OP of this thread wrote

    "I used to be pro life but I've moved towards being pro choice"

    in his other thread on this topic. He presents the horrors above but still says he's moved toward being pro choice.

    I think that pretty much represents the reconciliation that most moderates have come to on the subject of abortion.

    Yeah, IT'S FUCKING HORRIBLE! But I don't know of any anti abortionists who propose to financially support the babies that would be born to the women who can't care for these babies.


    Can we apply the same logic to violent criminals?



    Sorry. I'm not following your thinking on this one. Care to explain?


    I meant about supporting violent criminals being kept alive in prisons for decades on end. THEY are the ones who should be executed. Not innocent babies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2013 9:22 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    blazerblue said
    Blakes7 said
    blazerblue saidInteresting. The OP of this thread wrote

    "I used to be pro life but I've moved towards being pro choice"

    in his other thread on this topic. He presents the horrors above but still says he's moved toward being pro choice.

    I think that pretty much represents the reconciliation that most moderates have come to on the subject of abortion.

    Yeah, IT'S FUCKING HORRIBLE! But I don't know of any anti abortionists who propose to financially support the babies that would be born to the women who can't care for these babies.


    Can we apply the same logic to violent criminals?



    Sorry. I'm not following your thinking on this one. Care to explain?


    I meant about supporting violent criminals being kept alive in prisons for decades on end. THEY are the ones who should be executed. Not innocent babies.


    That's commendable, so then, let's get down to solutions: A baby tax that everyone pays into. This will become necessary because of the demographics of, for example, teen pregnancies. Here's why.

    Please read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

    "Teen pregnancy cost the United States over $9.1 billion in 2004, including $1.9 billion for health care, $2.3 billion for child welfare, $2.1 billion for incarceration, and $2.9 billion in lower tax revenue.[74]
    There is little evidence to support the common belief that teenage mothers become pregnant to get benefits, welfare, and council housing. Most knew little about housing or financial aid before they got pregnant and what they thought they knew often turned out to be wrong.[49]"

    Now just imagine the numbers without abortions occurring. In 2008, for example, the teen pregnancy rate was 40 out of every 1000 women of all ages. The abortion rate was 17%.

    The good news is over the last decade or two the rates have fallen steadily.