Kermit Gosnell’s “bizarre” collection of baby feet
In my previous post I called Kermit Gosnell the “Jeffrey Dahmer of abortionists.” I described a man who allegedly slit the necks, severed the spinal cords, and suctioned the brains of hundreds of born, living, viable babies, sometimes joking along the way.
But Gosnell did more to liken himself to Dahmer. From the Grand Jury Report (WARNING: Graphic)…
[Page 251] One of the most bizarre things about this case is Dr. Gosnell’s fetal foot collection. He cut the feet off the fetuses he aborted and kept them in a row of jars. No civilized society can accept such an abomination, whether the fetuses in question were viable or not...
[Page 74] Another of the doctor’s practices that defies explanation was his habit of cutting the feet off of aborted fetuses and saving them in specimen jars in the clinic. Kareema Cross showed the Grand Jury photographs she had taken in 2008 of a closet where Gosnell stored jars containing severed feet. During the February 2010 raid, investigators were shocked to see a row of jars on a clinic shelf containing fetal parts. Ashley Baldwin testified that she saw about 30 such jars [click to enlarge]…
None of the medical experts who testified before the Grand Jury had ever heard of such a disturbing practice, nor could they come up with an explanation for it. The medical expert on abortions testified that cutting off the feet “is bizarre and off the wall.” The experts uniformly rejected out of hand Gosnell’s supposed explanation that he was preserving the feet for DNA purposes should paternity ever become an issue. A small tissue sample would suffice to collect DNA. None of the staff knew of any instance in which fetal feet were ever used for this purpose.
[Page 237] The following severed feet and a fetus without feet were discovered in the 2010 raid:
• The feet of a 22-week fetus…. Each foot was in a separate container….
• A 21-week fetus, gender indeterminate, found in a plastic bleach bottle, wrapped in red biohazard bag 3F. The medical examiner discovered that “Both feet have been severed at the level of the distal leg and are not present in the container.”
• The left foot of a 19-week fetus in specimen container 4B….
• The feet of a 19-week fetus in specimen containers 5B-1 and 5B….
Also read, “Breaking: Abortionist arrested on 8 counts of murder, 7 for killing aborted alive newborns.”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
CC,
You following this?
These are the markings of a ‘sociopath’.
She/he keeps souvenirs from his/her victims.
*shudders*
I do not want to know what is going on in this man’s head.
I just can’t understand why EVERYONE seems to be disgusted by this, and YET MANY OF THESE CASES WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL.
@xalisae Ditto
Good point about the legality of late term abortions, X.
The timing of this horror couldn’t be more poignant, what with the anniversary of Roe, that allowed for this.
Pro-aborts will have considerable rain on their parade this year, thanks to one of their own ‘heroes’ exposing what they support.
@xalisae: Exactly. If this had happened in a state that did not ban “late-term” abortions, the pro-aborts would be defending it. Probably even would buy that lame line about DNA preservation. As far as I’m concerned, the reason he kept the feet is obvious.
He’s a serial killer. Collecting trophies or souvenirs, sometimes gruesome ones, is a common hallmark of serial killers, and saving feet was part of Gosnell’s signature.
Kermit Gosnell and the silencing of the lambs.
Why?? :(
I resent the number of “viewer discretion” warnings surrounding these pictures.
They should be put in every high school in America.
They should be put on billboards around every pro-abort rally.
President Obama should find one on his teleprompter when he tries to explain why he voted against protecting newborns’ lives.
Everyone who still considers themselves “pro-choice” should face the foul horror of what their precious choice means for the least of these. Then maybe these viewers will have some discretion about what they support.
Horrifying. Absolutely satanic.
Pray. Pray hard. Pray always.
I’m going to go throw up now.
Thank you, Clarice. I agree wholeheartedly.
I try to understand the absurdity:
He should have been shut down a long time ago because he was gauche, sloppy, and didn’t kill the babies in the exact manner prescribed (an injection to the heart with a deadly drug BEFORE being delivered instead of with scissors afterwards).
Shame on him for embarrassing “serious” “professional” abortionists and for providing women with only “safe, legal and rare” *COAT HANGER* level of service in their dedicated effort to be able to hire assassins to kill the offspring they consider parasitic.
a modern day Molech
further proof that abortion is demonic
All you pro-choicers out there: CC, Hal, Doug, etc this is the reality of legal abortion, the back-alley providers of yesterday have become the front-door providers of today. There is an ongoing pattern of shoddy abortion providers and not just “a few bad apples,” furthermore the supposed professional organizations which are supposed to over see these clinics, turn a blind eye to these atrocities and the clinics often aren’t caught until a patient suffers serious injury or death. What do you have to say for yourselves?
Gosnell just took it to an extreme. In “Lime 5” we cited all kinds of instances of bizarre behavior with aborted fetuses and/or their body parts, including a doctor who stuck an aborted fetus in a rubber glove and stood around just tossing it up and catching it like a ball, a clinic staffer who stuck a fetal head in a milk carton labeled, “Hi! Do you remember me!” and stuck it in the lunchroom fridge as a prank on another staffer, and one whose clinic bathroom was full to overflowing with aborted fetuses stored in urine specimen jars.
But… what this guy was doing was NOT perfectly legal. There actually is a huge difference between delivering fetuses by inducing labor and then mutilating them as opposed to legal 3rd trimester abortions (prior to 24 weeks), as opposed to early 1st trimester abortions. Everyone is horrified because this guy was a FREAK. Late term abortions does not cover where this guy was at. He was practicing well beyond the fringe.
I don’t understand how he kept his license as long as he did. Is the Health Department really that overloaded? Is this like those horrible cases where social workers knew of child abuse and then the child ends up horrifically murdered, and everyone wonders, how could this have been missed?
There actually is a huge difference between delivering fetuses by inducing labor and then mutilating them as opposed to legal 3rd trimester abortions (prior to 24 weeks), as opposed to early 1st trimester abortions.
So… it is what I thought, then. You’d be ok with it if he’d mutilated them BEFORE they exited the womb. Still alive, but WITHIN the womb. That makes a difference?
Early 1st trimester abortions. Hmm. Have you ever seen a 10 week ultrasound? http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images.php?thum_id=160
There actually is a huge difference between delivering fetuses by inducing labor and then mutilating them as opposed to legal 3rd trimester abortions (prior to 24 weeks), as opposed to early 1st trimester abortions.
Ann:
I’m interested. Please explain to me in detail, what the difference is. Here’s your opportunity…………..
The painting of Dante’s Inferno comes to mind whenever I read about the abortion mills and their efforts to keep themselves aloof and strangely, even ‘righteous’, so as to ignore just exactly what they know they are doing, which is murder and death for a child.
One day, no one will be able to ignore what is happening here in our country and all over the world through abortion. And every doctor who has ever performed an abortion will not be able to numb his own heart and mind from the reality of destroying his own kind any longer.
What does the nurse do who has to put the pieces of the baby together to make sure they are all accounted for as required–to make sure there would not be an infection from any parts of the dead baby’s body left in the womb. What false reality does she have to place herself in to be able to participate in such an awful crime against nature, against God?
….the womb, which should be the safest place in the world for an innocent fragile child but for over 30 years in our country, the womb is the most dangerous place for a baby. What shame is falling upon us, this one nation with freedom and liberty for all but for the unborn in the womb. One day, there will be much wailing and tears from the chastisement surely due from abortion alone.
And what right does our country’s president have to take advantage of political unrest in a third world country to slip in an abortion clinic.. A far cry from what our country’s great Peace Corps has been doing for people in other countries for decades.
God have mercy on us all. Our Lady of Guadalupe change hearts.
All you pro-choicers out there: CC, Hal, Doug, etc this is the reality of legal abortion, the back-alley providers of yesterday have become the front-door providers of today. There is an ongoing pattern of shoddy abortion providers and not just “a few bad apples,”
Rachael, the guy is a goof, no doubt, but you are still generalizing from the particular. You could as well google “gynecologist convicted of rape” and you’ll probably get a multitude of hits – by your logic you could as well say that people who deliver babies are bad, etc….
Same for Scoutmasters (Boy Scouts) – there was a time in the 1970’s when one was being kicked out every two days for abuse – or priests, ministers, etc.
Tell me, Doug. If your wife goes in for a obgyn appt, is it guaranteed that she will be raped? If your son joins a scout troop, is it guaranteed he will be molested? Let me share this with you, because this hits home for me, my son is 2 weeks old tomorrow. I saw my son at my wife’s 10 week appt. on an ultrasound machine. He had a head, with a brain, two arms, two legs, a functioning heart with all four chambers, and most importantly, he had a functioning circulatory system. Blood, in his veins. You know, that sounds an awful lot like a “real” person. My wife’s doctor saw a spot on the ultrasound, he said it was probably a glitch on the machine, but there was a 5% chance that it could have been a defect, and we should abort this baby. I will have you know my son is alive and well, not a spot or blemish on him, he’s perfect. But if I had listened to my wife’s doctor, he would not be alive today. How’s that for generalizing?
Doug,
This guy if a GOOF??? A GOOF??? Come on, man.
He is a serial killer and you know it!!
Doug,
why is the guy a goof? He’s pro-choice just like you. If he slit the baby’s neck while the baby was inside the womb, I’m sure Doug would not object.
Really? A particular case? Well geez, veternary clinics have better regulations than most abortion clinics. Most pro-choice organizations oppose and fight against basic health and safety regulations as well as regular inspections(calling them TRAP laws), in th name of protecting abortion access (putting abortion rights over women’s safety) and defending abortion providers. You can bet if this were any other field of medicine this wouldn’t of been tolerated and this guy would of lost his license much sooner and faster than you can say “malpractice” Instead pro-choice organizations and individuals turn a blind eye or come to the defense of guys like these, why yesterday (or was it the day before, oh well) pro-choice activists were praising this guy as a hero on Twitter and most pro-choice columnists commenting on this, stop short of condeming him or his actions, instead making excuses for him and his behavior. They’re indirect contributors. There isn’t enough consequences for abortion providers and they often feel they are somehow above the law and pro-choicers defending him and making excuses for him and other abortion providers only adds to this mindset, not doing their vulnerable, at-risk female patients any favors. In regards to a “goof” why, I also believe Christina at Real Choice has other gleaming examples of NAF members.
PSYCHOPATH MURDERER .. ITS ALL I CAN SAY. :(((
In a radio interview, Obama ENDORSED the killing of born-alive babies — at the doctor’s sole discretion.
This guy’s a “goof”? Wow, Doug. That was so profound. Good grief. I will pray for you because even if you don’t want it you really need it. Excuse me while I go to cry, pray and to puke.
My first thought was to wonder if he keeps the babies’ feet as a slap to pro-lifers.
We wear lapel pins modelled after tiny preborn feet of 10 weeks gestation.
He kills real babies and keeps their real feet like a serial killer collecting trophies.
Is he making a sick joke, or does he do it to remind himself of how much power he has over others’ lives?
This is probably more than a little mean spirited but I’m really hoping in the future that anyone who understands the evils of abortion and continues to advocate for it experiences word abortion like whenever they get up to give a speech and start putting their lies into the atmosphere that there own words will choke them. Of course I hope they live, I just hope that in the future when they wax eloquent that they will be too busy choking to really get to say much of anything. And that basically sums up my prayer to my God who still believes in life.
<……hears crickets chirping where Ann should be explaining the difference…….>
Curious also about why all of a sudden the media blackout on this story. Drudge and Fox had it on their sites a couple days ago, now, nothing. What gives with your friend Matt, Jill? Can you find out for us why?
“The guy is a goof…”
By this thinking maybe thats all Jared Loughner is too. C’mon Doug–horrific murder is horrific murder. Please do not try to minimalize it because you want to protect the idea of abortion.
why is the guy a goof? He’s pro-choice just like you. If he slit the baby’s neck while the baby was inside the womb, I’m sure Doug would not object.
Jasper, you too are generalizing beyond the point where your statement is true. I’m saying the guy is a goof because of the foot collection. This is regardless of the debate on abortion.
(Daniel): Tell me, Doug. If your wife goes in for a obgyn appt, is it guaranteed that she will be raped? If your son joins a scout troop, is it guaranteed he will be molested?
No, of course not, Daniel, and similarly, the vast majority of abortion clinics don’t feature the illegal things associated with Kermit Gosnell.
_____]
Let me share this with you, because this hits home for me, my son is 2 weeks old tomorrow. I saw my son at my wife’s 10 week appt. on an ultrasound machine. He had a head, with a brain, two arms, two legs, a functioning heart with all four chambers, and most importantly, he had a functioning circulatory system. Blood, in his veins. You know, that sounds an awful lot like a “real” person.
It sounds like a human being, like a human organism. Personhood is a different deal. You may not see a distinction – I take it from your post that you do not – but at the least it is a valid point of debate, as opposed to the factual, physical reality of the unborn.
_____
My wife’s doctor saw a spot on the ultrasound, he said it was probably a glitch on the machine, but there was a 5% chance that it could have been a defect, and we should abort this baby. I will have you know my son is alive and well, not a spot or blemish on him, he’s perfect. But if I had listened to my wife’s doctor, he would not be alive today. How’s that for generalizing?
Quite poor. Your description of the doctor saying, in essence, “It’s probably a machine glitch, but still – we should abort this baby,” sounds quite far-fetched. Nevertheless, even setting that aside – it’s one situation and one family, and nobody is here telling you that you should have done other than what you wanted. Even if there was a 100% chance of a defect, and you wanted to go ahead and continue the pregnancy, that’s fine with me.
I think you are in the minority of pro-lifers here, but when there indeed is a much higher chance or a certainly of defects, as with Down’s Syndrome, then many, even most people, pro-lifers included, often choose to end the pregnancy. Let’s assume that the population is roughly 50/50 pro-life and pro-choice. We’re having about 90% of Down’s pregnancies ended, so that means that about 80% of pro-lifers are choosing that route.
Based on the one post of yours that I’ve read, I think you are probably in the 20% of pro-lifers that would not end a Down’s pregnancy. The other 80%, however, sees that in their situation, regardless of all they’ve said and thought in the past, it’s best to end the pregnancy. As a pro-choicer, that’s all I want to preserve – their legal right to do so.
Doug,
So you are okay with the “doctor” slitting the throats of these born babies then?
MaryRose, no – if the baby is born, then the pregnancy is already ended, and if the baby is alive and viable then not only is it protected by law, it’s also expected to survive.
Let’s assume that the population is roughly 50/50 pro-life and pro-choice. We’re having about 90% of Down’s pregnancies ended, so that means that about 80% of pro-lifers are choosing that route.
Based on the one post of yours that I’ve read, I think you are probably in the 20% of pro-lifers that would not end a Down’s pregnancy. The other 80%, however, sees that in their situation, regardless of all they’ve said and thought in the past, it’s best to end the pregnancy. As a pro-choicer, that’s all I want to preserve – their legal right to do so.
Doug,
Eighty-percent of pro-lifers are choosing to abort children with Down’s Syndrome? I doubt it very much. Where are you getting your numbers? I saw TWO adorable children with DS yesterday at mass. Coincidence?
In that case, Doug, you’re deflecting.
So what makes that child’s life inherently disposable one moment yet deserving of protection the next? What makes it wrong for Kermit Gosnell to deliver living children and *then* kill them, yet acceptable for him to kill them and then deliver them? Are you honestly so clueless as to believe that babies who are alive and viable are all protected by law?
As for the Down’s Syndrome subject, I have to say that those who choose abortion based on a Down’s diagnosis are sincerely depriving themselves of a great joy. It pains me to think of my life without those mentally disabled individuals I’ve known. My younger sister is disabled and has never been anything but a blessing to our family. It is an elitist and frankly foolish and inexperienced person who chooses abortion because of Down’s.
Janet,
At our church, we have quite a few parents with Down’s babies. I do attend a rather conservative RC parish, though. Doug’s stats are indeed wrong because there is an 80% decision rate to abort Down’s babies total for the entire population.
Eighty-percent of pro-lifers are choosing to abort children with Down’s Syndrome? I doubt it very much. Where are you getting your numbers?”
Janet, in the past few months, I’ve seen the figure several times – that roughly 90% of Down’s pregnancies are being ended, rather than willingly continued.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803
There’s one link, anyway. It seems really easy to figure it, to me – if we assume a 50/50 mix of pro-lifers and pro-choices (and the same mix for Down’s pregnancies among the groups), and even if all the pro-choicers are ending Down’s pregnancies, then what is left? To get to 90%, then 80% of pro-lifers would have to be ending the pregnancies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836?dopt=AbstractPlus — another finding that the rate was around 90%
In that case, Doug, you’re deflecting.
MaryRose, you rascal, what makes you think I’m deflecting? ; )
____
So what makes that child’s life inherently disposable one moment yet deserving of protection the next? What makes it wrong for Kermit Gosnell to deliver living children and *then* kill them, yet acceptable for him to kill them and then deliver them? Are you honestly so clueless as to believe that babies who are alive and viable are all protected by law?
There is no “inherent” anything, there. Regardless of the degree to which one agrees with it or not, we have the Birth Standard and we’ve had it for thousands of years, around the world. A born, living baby is as protected by the law as you and I are – they’re a citizen, for example, in the US. I certainly realize that in practice a given individual may not be protected enough to keep them alive – this happens all the time to adults, and in no way am I saying that what Gosnell did is all okay.
Viability or not, and the development of the baby does make a difference to me, but in just looking at the “in” or “out” of it, that too makes a difference. If Joe Blow is walking down the street, that is one thing. If Joe Blow would be inside me, it’s a different deal. I’m going to be saying, “Joe, we gotta talk about this….”
____
As for the Down’s Syndrome subject, I have to say that those who choose abortion based on a Down’s diagnosis are sincerely depriving themselves of a great joy. It pains me to think of my life without those mentally disabled individuals I’ve known. My younger sister is disabled and has never been anything but a blessing to our family. It is an elitist and frankly foolish and inexperienced person who chooses abortion because of Down’s.
Okay, and I wasn’t making any pronouncements about the rightness or wrongness of it – I’m just noting that a very large portion of those who would previously or currently describe themselves as pro-life find that the given situation makes a difference to them.
Its sad that people are choosing to abort those diagnosed with Down’s. I guess there is a ‘gene’ that when tested can detect if your child with have mental illness such as Bi-Polar or even Adhd. I couldn’t imagine if my mom had tested for this gene because as an adult I opted to see what this test was all about. I took the blood test along with the brain scan (those with mental illness has less ‘fat’ between their left lobe and right lobes of their brain according to research) and I had tested positive for a great chance of mental illness. Now I am bi-polar and I’m sure growing up I gave my mom more emotional grief than anyone with a physcial ailment.
All I’m saying is that parents shouldn’t be picky about perfect babies, we all have our faults and if there was a test for every little ‘defect’ of a person then I’m sure the abortion rate would be pushed higher. With every single one of my children I was told to abort by many people just based on my age, heartbreaking.
My oldest is adhd, pdd and IED (google them if you don’t know what that means) and that makes my life difficult at times but I’m SO glad I chose not to abort him when I was pregnant. Raising a child with a mental illness is the greatest and most challenging part of parenthood I think.
Doug,
My comment on deflecting is due to the fact that you call the abortionist clearly a “goof” in response to the horror & outrage expressed on Jill’s blog, yet when asked about condemning him, you condemn only his psychopathic foot collection. “Goofy” it is not. Evil and vile, yes.
Just to get you straight, your argument boils down to, essentially, ‘regardless of moral culpability/right or wrong, this is the way that we have been determining worth & value, and therefore this is the way that we should be determining worth & value in the future.” And then you proceed to argue that women carrying babies with trisomy 21 and other disabilities should be able to abort based on a bias against the mentally disabled not because it’s right but because a large percentage of the population is evidenced as doing so at this time.
Is that correct?
Your Down’s statistic (I’ve always heard 80% total but I’ll willingly concede that I’m outdated there. Oh, well…) doesn’t take into account percentage of women who are post-abortive. I wonder if that would change our pro-life vs. pro-choice stat at all… Just a curiosity.
All I’m saying is that parents shouldn’t be picky about perfect babies
THANK YOU!
This is what I’m constantly saying! It is such a ridiculous and foolish notion to think that we can “select” for the “perfect” child. “Perfect” in my experience is much more an attitude than a trait. Open your heart, open your eyes, open your life!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I wasn’t expecting what I got with either of my sons, but they are each, individually and together, exactly what I need & needed. They have enriched my life and helped me to mature greatly, and I have no regrets about choosing life! :-D
Obviously Doug has no intention of even considering anything a prolife person says as having any sort of credibility. He tries to make you run in circles with his comments in defense of abortion aka defense of Gosnell the chopper. To defend childkilling is to defend the killer and dont say it isnt a child every woman that has ever been pregnant knows she has a child inside of her, and that her friends arent going to give her a fetus shower. My suggestion to those who are intent on convincing Doug, dont. He doesnt want truth he’d rather live the lie.
mary,
I enjoy the written sparring with Doug. As far as the pro-aborts on this blog go, he is relatively pleasant and I have no problem discussing abortion with him.
The lie is an easy one to live. Don’t dismiss so easily all those who choose it.
“My comment on deflecting is due to the fact that you call the abortionist clearly a “goof” in response to the horror & outrage expressed on Jill’s blog, yet when asked about condemning him, you condemn only his psychopathic foot collection. “Goofy” it is not. Evil and vile, yes.”
MaryRose, I’m not saying Gosnell isn’t vile or evil – I don’t know the whole story but I’m not for elective abortion as late in gestation as when he apparently did perform some abortions, and he may have even been somewhat sadistic in his actions. I do think he’s a goof – he should know better than to go so far outside accepted practices. I’d be interested to hear his explanation. If he said, “Because I am one crazy ******-******….” I would agree with him.
_____
“Just to get you straight, your argument boils down to, essentially, ‘regardless of moral culpability/right or wrong, this is the way that we have been determining worth & value, and therefore this is the way that we should be determining worth & value in the future.” And then you proceed to argue that women carrying babies with trisomy 21 and other disabilities should be able to abort based on a bias against the mentally disabled not because it’s right but because a large percentage of the population is evidenced as doing so at this time. Is that correct?”
No – to a point in gestation I’m for abortion being legal, regardless of the reason that a given woman or couple would choose to end the pregnancy. I’ve never distinguished between Down’s pregnancies and non-Down’s ones, there. It is the woman or couple who determines the right/wrong of it, there. And the same for late-term pregnancies – past a point I’m not for elective abortion, whether or not Down’s Syndrome is present.
_____
“Your Down’s statistic (I’ve always heard 80% total but I’ll willingly concede that I’m outdated there. Oh, well…) doesn’t take into account percentage of women who are post-abortive. I wonder if that would change our pro-life vs. pro-choice stat at all… Just a curiosity.”
I’m not sure what you mean there, MaryRose. Okay, a given woman had an abortion and regrets it, has some post-traumatic stress symptoms, etc., – I figure this is what you are presuming. I don’t see this as affecting the numbers. If we say that there are equal numbers of pro-lifers and pro-choicers who have Down’s pregnancies – and I think it’s reasonable to do so since there’s usually close to a 50/50 split in the population – then if all pro-choicers elect to end those pregnancies, the pro-lifers would be an equal number of percentage points on the other side of the average – which I’ve seen being roughly 90% lately.
Thus, 100% pro-choicers, 90% average, pro-lifers would have to be at 80%. If the overall figure was 80%, it would still be 60% pro-lifers, then.
Some things would have an effect of a few percentage points, perhaps – not every pro-choicer is automatically going to end a Down’s pregnancy, and thus any reduction in the pro-choice side would have to have a corresponding increase in the pro-life number. Any deviation from the 50/50 proposed split in the population between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, more pregnancies per capita in one group versus the other, etc. – these type of things could sway the results slightly.
I don’t think the exact number matters, really. My point is that among people who would describe themselves as “pro-life” beforehand, a majority, very probably a large majority, find that in the given situation they do think that it’s best and right to end the pregnancy. Okay, I’m for it being legal for them to do so, to a point in gestation, just as I am for pro-choicers.
(mary): “Obviously Doug has no intention of even considering anything a prolife person says as having any sort of credibility. He tries to make you run in circles with his comments in defense of abortion aka defense of Gosnell the chopper. To defend childkilling is to defend the killer and dont say it isnt a child every woman that has ever been pregnant knows she has a child inside of her….”
With all due respect, this was a silly post. I haven’t defended Gosnell. There is the debate on abortion, and then there is a good bit of stuff that he did that few if any people support. I’m not defending him for the violations of the law that he apparently is responsible for, nor for bad conditions in his facilities.. His foot collection, whether legal or not, is creepy to me and I think he’s at least a little bit nuts.
“Child” is subjective, and not a meaningful argument in the abortion debate. You can call it anything, but to project your own opinion onto other people is a weak way to argue. The zygote is *one cell* and to call it “a child” is crazy to me. My opinion. I’m not saying anybody else should base their decision on continuing or ending a pregnancy on my opinion, there.
Doug, I’ll be responding soon. I know it’s hard to wait ;) but alas! tonight is a busy one.
The zygote is *one cell* and to call it “a child” is crazy to me. My opinion.
The zygote is the unique human offspring – a result of the sexual union of a woman and a man. What else would you call it? A “potential child?” As if that is somehow scientific and not arbitrary? By definition, the offspring is the child of his/her parents.
No – to a point in gestation I’m for abortion being legal… past a point I’m not for elective abortion.
What is that point, and why not?
I’m going to jump around a little here for flow. Forgive me.
I do think he’s a goof – he should know better than to go so far outside accepted practices. I’d be interested to hear his explanation.
What explanation would make his actions acceptable?
And the same for late-term pregnancies – past a point I’m not for elective abortion.
Are you aware that the “health and wellfare of the mother” concept is largely overplayed? Do you believe that women simply died carrying their children pre-Roe v. Wade because they weren’t allowed the necessary medical treatment? What, exactly, do you believe we would do, legally speaking, with a woman who seriously needed medical help that could harm her developing baby at any stage in her pregnancy?
to a point in gestation I’m for abortion being legal, regardless of the reason that a given woman or couple would choose to end the pregnancy.
I believe we’ve talked about this a little, but I never got a real solid “point in gestation” from you. When, exactly, during gestation would you place as a cutoff and why?
I’m not sure what you mean there, MaryRose.
I don’t think the exact number matters, really. My point is that among people who would describe themselves as “pro-life” beforehand, a majority, very probably a large majority, find that in the given situation they do think that it’s best and right to end the pregnancy.
Yeah, honestly, I don’t really know for sure where I was going with that. It seemed to make sense in the moment…something about repeatedly aborting down’s babies… but it doesn’t gel now that I’m a little less groggy. I apologize for trying to debate on a poor night’s sleep ;)
What I do want to know is if these statistics are only for parents who have the amnio or not. Because I know at least 3 women personally (I have 3 names that jump to mind) who all refused testing for genetic abnormalities because it didn’t matter. If your statistics take into account only the parents who knew they were carrying Down’s babies, then your statistics take into account only the parents who opted for genetic testing. I would be willing to bet that there are more pro-aborts who opt for genetic testing than pro-lifers.
“Child” is subjective, and not a meaningful argument in the abortion debate. You can call it anything, but to project your own opinion onto other people is a weak way to argue.
From Merriam-webster:
Child:
1a. an unborn or recently born person
4a. a son or daughter of human parents
…
Examples of child:
She’s pregnant with their first child.
There you are, Doug. An objective definition of child. Evidently, the English language and you do not agree.
Doug,
Bluntly, your opinion sucks, and I have not one iota of respect for it at all.
Zygote, blastula or in whatever stage, fertilized human ova are new human life and nothing else, which even early in development are referred to and defined by human parents as a child, period. You can split hairs all you want and call them fetuses, non-viable parasitic growths, biomass, Cadillacs, or whatever you want, but that cunning rhetorical sophistry does not alter the fact that fertilized human ova are in fact human, and therefore, children.
That said, I am a godless hard atheist who thinks abortion is murder, and that the butchering malevolent freak Kermit Gosnell should be thrown headfirst, live, into a crucible filled with molten steel. If you don’t like that, tough.
The zygote is the unique human offspring – a result of the sexual union of a woman and a man. What else would you call it? A “potential child?” As if that is somehow scientific and not arbitrary? By definition, the offspring is the child of his/her parents.
Kel, the unborn have not “sprung off” from the pregnant woman yet, in the first place. “Child” or not isn’t scientific in the first place. There are also different senses of the word. You can say that Joe Blow will always be his parents’ child, but when Joe’s an adult, then he’s not a child anymore. Personally, I would agree that most pregnancies, if continued, would eventually produce a child.
I’m for abortion being unrestricted to around 22 weeks. Once the baby is viable, then abortion is not the only way the pregnancy can be ended, if that’s what’s desired.
Conway193: Zygote, blastula or in whatever stage, fertilized human ova are new human life and nothing else, which even early in development are referred to and defined by human parents as a child, period.
Yeah, new human life, but you’re mistaken in pretending that that is at argument. A living human organism, no doubt about it, but in no way do all parents refer to the unborn, especially earlier in gestation, as a “child.”
On being an atheist – I have never seen the sense in it. How can one maintain what is unprovable, i.e. that there are no gods?
MaryRose, definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s also correct to say, “She’s going to have a child,” or “I became a parent today” – today being the birth of the baby. I’m fine with “unborn baby,” in general, with respect to the unborn, but as with “child,” early enough in gestation and I see it as silly – is the blastocyst really a “baby”? To me, it needs to look like a baby, first and foremost, though of course that too is subjective.
At dictionary.com, there are plenty of definitions for “child” that are “a person between birth and full growth” and the like.
“Are you aware that the “health and wellfare of the mother” concept is largely overplayed? Do you believe that women simply died carrying their children pre-Roe v. Wade because they weren’t allowed the necessary medical treatment? What, exactly, do you believe we would do, legally speaking, with a woman who seriously needed medical help that could harm her developing baby at any stage in her pregnancy?”
I do think there would be exceptions for the health of the mother, and I realize it is quite a rare thing for being pregnant to be such a risk to the woman that abortion is strongly indicated.
“What I do want to know is if these statistics are only for parents who have the amnio or not. Because I know at least 3 women personally (I have 3 names that jump to mind) who all refused testing for genetic abnormalities because it didn’t matter. If your statistics take into account only the parents who knew they were carrying Down’s babies, then your statistics take into account only the parents who opted for genetic testing. I would be willing to bet that there are more pro-aborts who opt for genetic testing than pro-lifers.”
What I’ve read is that 90% of all Down’s pregnancies are willingly ended by the couple or woman. I guess that would have to be the ones that are known, via genetic testing. Agreed that more pro-choicers would test, versus pro-lifers.
However – the point still stands, even if we qualify it to “pregnancies where it is known that Down’s Syndrome is involved” – (in the US, the vast majority of pregnancies are screened for Down’s Syndrome) most people that heretofore would have called themselves pro-life find that in the actual, given situation, they are finding it best to end the pregnancy.
Just because certain things are legal does not mean they are right!
what he did along with thousands of others including mothers if thats what they should be called do is evil! regardless how you want to sugar coat it abortion is murder…. To determine if someone is dead no longer living his by its heart stopping a “fetus” BABY has a heart beat and ending it will mean killing it which is murder!