Pro-choice poet: Women in Medieval times had it better
by Carder
I started writing poems with an intentionally flippant treatment of abortion around that scary time before Obama’s second election when Todd Akin was talking about legitimate rape. I was still working on them when Hobby Lobby denied its employees birth control coverage and when Texas Senator Wendy Davis heroically opposed a Republican attack on women’s health clinics.
You know. The horror of it all continues to our current moment. Everyone likes to compare this right wing faux religious extremist push to medieval times, but I wonder if Medieval times were not better for women….
It’s a fundamental human good for a civilization that depends on women in the workforce and as managers of households (which are micro-economies) and agents of their own sexuality have access to safe, medical abortions. If we claim to be a sexually egalitarian society, then duh.
~ Poet Monica McClure, describing how she feels Medieval times were better for women than they are now, in an interview with the Huffington Post, April 16
[Photo via thethepoetry.com]
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.
That is a sad use of a college education.
Abortion is the unnatural interruption of a natural process. An ideal society is one in which abortion is unthinkable because mothers and fathers equally value the life of their child.
Well there’s some ridiculous hyperbole.
*SMH*. Yes, they did know of abortifacients in the Middle Ages, but given that they were not very knowledgeable about concentration of drugs, or how much of a drug they needed to abort, those abortions were not necessarily effective. Besides, if something went wrong, like not all of the pregnancy tissue was aborted, they could suffer an infection and die.
Oh yeah. Women had it SO much better in the Middle Ages. *eyeroll*.
I would just love to watch this whiner working dawn to dusk, carrying water in buckets, hauling waste, preparing meals from basic ingredients, pounding her laundry over a rock or washboard, maybe taking a bath once a month, enduring hunger, sickness, infections, body and head lice, childbirth along with its complications, loss of children, intense heat and cold. No climate controlled comfort in those days little girl. You hauled wood and burned straw and dung to keep from freezing, and if it got real hot, well you just sweated it out.
Geez, it kind of sounds like how some third world women live today. Go tell these women your tale of woe you over indulged crybaby.
My son and I would have died in childbirth as recently as 100 years ago. But yeah, things are soooooo much worse for women now. *eyeroll*
“The horror of it all continues to our current moment. … I wonder if Medieval times were not better for women….”
Ms McClure does no favors to pro-choicers who are trying to appear educated and in touch with reality.
“Ms McClure does no favors to pro-choicers who are trying to appear educated and in touch with reality.”
In fact, compared to her Todd Akin appears educated and in touch with reality.
Not arguing too hard with the above comments, but here is what she said:
Everyone likes to compare this right wing faux religious extremist push to medieval times, but I wonder if Medieval times were not better for women. Even though the feudal system was terrible in that it reduced the life of the serf to mere survival, essentially unpaid labor by men and women serfs on their little plot of land was shared, and within the peasant family and community structure men and women were considered equal based on the value of their different but mutually valuable skills. I’m not a Medievalist, but this is generally what the scholarship describes.
Women kept gardens and grew herbs that helped with reproductive health, and sex education involved the belief that a child could only be conceived if both partners orgasmed. During the slow transition to capitalism, the Catholic Church helped the powerful landowners conduct witch hunts so these secrets went way underground and were eventually lost to medicine.
She realizes that things were much tougher back then for many people, i.e. life for the serf was “mere survival.” There is hyperbole, yes, and it is intentional on her part. She may also be speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek, referring to the more extreme elements she perceives as being unfriendly to women currently, i.e. those who would come up with stuff like the “legitimate rape” comment.
She has a point – there are indeed those who hold to ideas of the woman being “submissive” to the man.
“No climate controlled comfort in those days little girl…”
Mary, I always love your posts — they’re spot on.
Of course, the “Middle Ages” were better for women and families. Anyone who has actually studied real facts about that thousand-year era of peace and justice and relative prosperity would know this.
We could still have that sense of community, and charity, and desire for the common good based on a firm Christian faith…. as well as the medical technology that we enjoy today. It was the Catholic culture of the Age of Christendom that invented scientific endeavor, and universities, and hospitals. Catholic culture knew that our God is ordered and logical, and so His Creation is worth studying in a way that made sense. Catholic culture also knew that we have a duty to charity and care for our neighbor, so advancements were shared for the common good.
Gregor Mendel, discoverer of genetics, was a monk. Georges LeMaitre, Father of the Big Bang, was a Jesuit priest. Louis Pasteur, inventor of immunization and other great discoveries, was a fiercely devout Catholic. Science is a Catholic thing, which the world stole from us.
What the Enlightenment invented was widespread, self-serving greed known as Capitalism… and then its odd little stepchildren, Socialism and and Communism. These served to reduce human life to the value of “commodity.” Lives could be bought and sold, for wages or worse, and discarded when no longer wanted.
It is only within this new sort of slave-culture insanity — where lives are bought and sold, valued only as ‘economy units’ — that she could write:
It’s a fundamental human good for a civilization that depends on women in the workforce and as managers of households (which are micro-economies) and agents of their own sexuality have access to safe, medical abortions.
A medieval peasant woman would cringe at that insult. She had a pride and sense of self-worth that Monica McClure does not possess. To McClure’s assertion that the peasant woman would be better off with an easy way to kill her child so she could get out and work more, the peasant woman would respond, “My home is my castle, and my children are my treasure!”
A bit of history: “Middle Ages” and “medieval” are insulting terms, invented during the Enlightenment. The image is that there was a great, glorious pagan age of Greeks and Romans, then there were a thousand years “in the middle” when nothing much happened, and then came the new, glorious age which called itself “The Enlightenment.”
The proper name for that thousand-year reign of Christian culture is “The Age of Christendom.” This era saw great advancements in culture, art, human rights, especially the rights and dignity of women. This age saw the invention of social charity programs, hospitals, universities, hotels and safe public hospitality for travelers and pilgrims, orphanages and care for the old, widows, and feeble.
A word about “serfs”: The early Middle Ages inherited a serfdom class from the Roman manors. This rather quickly gave way to a agricultural class of peasants — small land owners and tenants.
There was a local lord to whom some rents and taxes were paid, and who provided some protection from highwaymen and raiders. But most of the social good and charity was provided by the local monastery.
Anyone who speaks about medieval culture for more than a few sentences before she mentions the crucial role of the monasteries — doesn’t know what she is talking about.
The Middle Ages ended when the Protestant Reformation destroyed all the monasteries, turning out the monks and buying off local lords by giving them the land. Now the lands enriched the lord, rather than supporting the local peasants with social charity, healthcare, and education.
Del: Anyone who speaks about medieval culture for more than a few sentences before she mentions the crucial role of the monasteries — doesn’t know what she is talking about.
Crucial indeed – especially like in Belgium and the Netherlands, where the monks brew world-class beer. : )
“especially like in Belgium and the Netherlands, where the monks brew world-class beer. : )”
I’ll drink to that. :)
Yes… we all appreciate the advancements that monks made in the art and technology of brewing.
But their attitude was different — The asked themselves, “How do we make enough truly great beer?” The answer involved the highest quality of ingredients and strict attention to details. This attitude is reflected in medieval art and architecture, as well. They made everything as if they expected it to endure for a thousand years.
Modern culture asks, “How can we sell insane quantities of really cheap beer?” The answer lies in cheap ingredients, lots of water, and mechanized factories run by unskilled workers. The same attitude is reflected in everything modernism makes and consumes. We make everything as if we expect to throw it away or tear it down after a few years.
And our attitude toward human life reflects our consumer values. Monica McClure says that a woman’s fundamental human worth is tied to her ability to produce goods and services. If she is too young — or too old — to work, then we have this need to get rid of her (unless it is convenient for us to keep her around for our own benefit).
I’m a huge fan of the Middle Ages, and how generally happy and content most of the culture was during those centuries. The modern, Hollywood myth that is was miserable time is simply not true. A quick look at the art, and architecture, and literature of the time displays so much joy! All of the heroes of that era were good kings and great saints.
Attila the Hun, in the early years of the Dark Ages, turned peacefully away from poorly defended Rome at the request of Pope Leo I. Already, the early Christian culture had a hidden strength that was evident in their peace.
==========================
This is a start contrast to the HuffPo culture of Monica McClure. Why do women need abortion, according to Monica?
“If we claim to be a sexually egalitarian society, then duh.”
Modern culture has an obvious stupidity that is evident in our violence. Monica cannot articulate why life has no value and modern women need to kill their children, so she punts to “duh.”
Well at least she didn’t call it the “Dark Ages.” That’s progress I guess.
I’m posting too much, but Monica has revealed the real problem with our society — but she loves it so much, she’s willing to kill children for it.
“It’s a fundamental human good for a civilization that depends on women in the workforce and as managers of households (which are micro-economies) and agents of their own sexuality have access to safe, medical abortions. If we claim to be a sexually egalitarian society, then duh.”
Let’s take this apart:
1) “Women in the workforce” is wage-slavery. It’s about cheap labor. By taking women out of the homes and putting them into jobs, there is a doubling of working hands in the factories. This suppresses wages and breaks unions, by the simple law of supply-and-demand.
2) “managers of household (micro-economies)” reveals that housewives and mothers are just another form of wage-slaves, in the mind of McClure.
3) “It’s a fundamental human good for a civilization” that relies on wage-slavery of women. This is really the strangest assertion in her whole article. We could say that the Negro slave trade was a “fundamental good for our civilization” when we relied on slave labor. But we really need to ask ourselves whether the chattel slavery of Negoes or the wage slavery of women is a fundamental evil upon which our civilization is built.
4) “Access to safe, medical abortions” is the necessary consequence of the wage slavery of women, if we mean to guard this as a “fundamental good” — according to McClure. “Duh.”
We say that abortion is the obvious evidence that wage-slavery of women is a fundamental evil of our civilization. That women are forced to leave their homes and children — to the point of killing the children, as needed — in order to achieve economic survival for their families: This is much poorer state than the Middle Ages. The labor of a father and his sons was often sufficient for the economic well-being of a normal family, and no one had to die.
Gee Del, whoever would have guessed that you’re a fan of medieval living :-)
Many millions more people die of violence and neglect each century since the end of the Age of Christendom.
Abortion is biggest killer. We are just getting started with euthanasia.
World wars, genocides, and political purges are also responsible for widespread death and fear.
Civil wars are much bloodier too, in the post-Christian era.
Yes… I’m a fan. If we could have the religious culture of the Middle Ages with the medical advances since then, we would have a world of great peace and happiness.
I think you are clinging vainly to what you see as good aspects and ignoring a whole raft of negatives Del.
If the medical advances we enjoy were present it would not be the Middle Ages, every single aspect of life would be altered by whatever delivered those medical advances. You simply cannot have it both ways.
Of course more people die each century, the population grows each year.
Abortion is not the biggest killer. That’d be disease.
Wars, genocides and purges have always been responsible for widespread death and fear.
Civil wars are much bloodier too, in the post-Christian era. – what ‘post-christian era’?
Which religious culture? Whose? The Moors? Religion doesn’t deliver a world of great peace and happiness.
http://educators.medievaltimes.com/1-5-marriage.html
Keep it going Del. You are on a 21st century roll!
You’re obviously following a different conversation truthseeker.
Yeah Del…I don’t know. I think all the protestants flayed alive and martyred for their faith by Catholic monarchs would disagree with you there.
I think that what Del envisages as utopian would soon prove itself to be dystopian.
Rather than looking back a thousand years, how about this newfangled stuff one hears from time to time?
Is “getting medieval on somebody’s …uh, butt” the same thing as “going ham on them”?
From the Poet’s interview, “I was inconsolable when I missed
prom. . .”
She missed her prom, so a child had to pay with his life. Duh.
No Praxedes. She missed the prom because she was having an abortion, she didn’t have an abortion because she missed the prom.
Reality, did she skip the prom to have growth reduction services performed on her fetus?
Try reading the article truthseeker, the answer to your question isn’t difficult to discern. Why do you expect others to do your reading for you?
She could have missed the prom because she didn’t fit into her prom dress, and then took out her anger on her baby.
What time was the baby killed? Proms are usually evening events. Are kill mills open at night?
It’s not like you to act obtuse Praxedes.
“I was inconsolable when I missed prom and had to pay a woman to pretend to be my mother so I could gain parental consent,”
Quite obviously she missed the prom because she was having an abortion, for whatever logistical reason. She certainly didn’t have an abortion because she missed the prom.
The Horror Of It All Indeed
In her closet hangs her unworn prom dress,
After the kill, her hair is a mess,
Into her life he would have brought so much joy,
But instead he lies dead, in the drain, her sweet boy.
Mary writes more imaginative stuff Praxedes.
‘in the drain’ – this was an illegal abortion was it?
Wait, what? Women had it better in Medieval times, compared to now? What is she talking about? I’m studying the Middle Ages in Global History, and considering the steady diet of horror stories our class is fed three times a week (every time we meet), her comparison made me lose brain cells.
Del, would you mind terribly if I borrowed some of your wisdom for my essay exam? ;)
I am amused that Del is in agreement with someone such as Monica.
Reality,
“In the drain” likely means the fetus was flushed down the toilet, which may occur with medically induced abortion, or with surgically induced abortion if the abortion isn’t properly performed. It also occurs with spontaneous abortion, what is otherwise known as a miscarriage. It does not imply illegal abortion.
You were saying something about writing “imaginative stuff”.
Another thing Reality,
“In the drain” can also refer to the use of medical”hoppers” used to flush and dispose of medical waste.
“In the drain” likely means the fetus was flushed down the toilet – yet Praxedes said ‘lies’ in the drain.
You were saying something about writing “imaginative stuff”. – yes.
“In the drain” can also refer to the use of medical”hoppers” used to flush and dispose of medical waste. – you’ll be able to provide some examples then.
Reality,
LOL. Nice try, but I have no intention of going in perpetual circles with you.
Medical “hoppers” was pretty self explanatory…even you should be able to figure it out.
It’s not tricky or anything Mary. If something lies in a place it hasn’t been flushed.
So you can’t even provide examples, ’nuff said.
Reality,
Not necessarily. It may clog the drain. Have seen that happen a few times. Very gross.
Anyway, what’s the connection to “illegal abortion”?
A fetus lying dead in a drain would be indicative of an illegal abortion.
Reality,
Why is that?
I thought you knew about abortion stuff.
Before it was legal as well as after.
A fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of a legal abortion.
Reality,
Please answer my question. Why is a fetus lying in the drain indicative of an illegal abortion?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325714/Dr-Kermit-Gosnell-case-We-plunged-sink-babys-arm-came-reveals-cop.html
Oh, so you think that what Gosnell did was legal do you.
I’m sure his appeal team would love to hear from you.
Come on Reality,
You know as well as I that Gosnell conducted his business with the full blessing of the law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
So tell me, why is a fetus lying in the drain indicative of an illegal abortion?
So he wasn’t convicted of anything? You think what he did was legal? Yes? No?
A fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of legal abortion.
Reality,
Let’s not get sidetracked on Gosnell.
Please answer my question.
Let’s not get side-tracked on Gosnell? Then why did you introduce him? Did you think it would assist you in some way? Did it backfire?
I have answered your question a few times now – a fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of legal abortion. Now what is it about that you find so hard to understand?
Reality,
No it didn’t backfire at all. It illustrated my point that fetuses in a drain occur in legal abortion, contrary to your claim that it is not indicative of legal abortion.
Now, please answer my question.
So Gosnell wasn’t convicted of anything? You consider what he did legal?
Your failure to acknowledge that your question has been answered repeatedly is not an issue I need to deal with.
Reality,
What I consider legal is irrelevant. Its what the state turned a blind eye to and allowed to continue with no interference that is the issue.
No your failure to answer my question at all is the issue you need to deal with.
What I consider legal is irrelevant. – well that’s true. The state however, found what he did illegal.
Its what the state turned a blind eye to and allowed to continue with no interference that is the issue. – and you think that rendered what he did legal? That’s an interesting concept.
No your failure to answer my question at all is the issue you need to deal with. – well quite obviously not. A fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of legal abortion. Seems quite straight forward, I don’t understand why you struggle so with something so clear.
Reality,
No I don’t think that rendered it legal. But apparently the state wasn’t concerned enough to to anything to stop him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
Let’s just say the state had no concern about enforcing the law, thus enabling Gosnell to carry on his activities, legal and illegal.
‘in the drain’ – this was an illegal abortion was it?
Please explain why ‘in the drain’ is indicative of an illegal abortion.
thus enabling Gosnell to carry on his illegal activities. – oh look, recognition. Good.
You’ve just answered your own question. Odd that you failed to acknowledge the answer I gave even though it was the same.
Reality,
You conveniently left out “legal” along with his illegal activities.
You said a fetus lying in the drain is not indicative of a legal abortion. Gosnell conducted a legal abortion business for decades with the full blessing of the state.
‘in the drain’ – this was an illegal abortion was it?
Please explain why ‘in the drain’ is indicative of an illegal abortion.
I do wish you could figure out whether he was convicted or not. Or if he should have been convicted or not.
Did you actually read Praxedes’ poem?
A fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of legal abortion.
Reality,
Whether he was convicted or not isn’t the point. He ran a legal business with 60% of the abortions he performed being done within the legal limit. An employee estimated that 40% were done after the 24 week legal limit.
‘in the drain’ – this was an illegal abortion was it?
Please explain why ‘in the drain’ is indicative of an illegal abortion.
Well I think it rather is the point.
He ran a legal business…. – did he? From the Grand Jury testimony – “Kermit Gosnell himself was not qualified. Under Pennsylvania law, an abortion facility must have at least one doctor certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, either on staff or as a consultant. Gosnell, the only licensed physician
associated with the Womens’ Medical Society, is not an obstetrician or gynecologist, much less a board-certified one.”
(Once again, thank you for providing the source.)
A fetus lying in a drain is not indicative of legal abortion.
Have you read Praxedes’ poem yet?
Reality,
You’re welcome. Just shows that legal abortion doesn’t put the criminal element out of business, right? Just gives them opportunities to conduct their businesses legally, which Gosnell did for years.
Yes I read the poem.
‘in the drain’ – this was an illegal abortion was it?
Please explain why ‘in the drain’ is indicative of an illegal abortion.
BTW Reality,
Around 13 years before Roe, Planned Parenthood stated that 90% of illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices by physicians in good standing in their communities and profession. Do you suppose they left fetal parts laying in their drains? That might have meant a prison sentence.
Just gives them opportunities to conduct their businesses legally, which Gosnell did for years. – well no, he didn’t. Obviously.
Sounds like you didn’t understand the poem.
Please explain why ‘in the drain’ is indicative of an illegal abortion. – quite clearly I have. Numerous times. Your choice to feign ignorance is simply one of your tiresome little tactics.
Reality,
The authorities went after Gosnell for drugs, not performing abortions. Also he was convicted on 3 of 4 charges of murder of newborn babies and involuntary manslaughter of a woman. He was not charged with illegally performing abortions.
I understood the poem.
Please point to the post that explains why “in the drain” is indicative of an illegal abortion. Your insistence that you have already explained something is one of your tiresome little tactics.
So what you are saying is that someone who breaks into your home and steals your property is not doing anything illegal unless and until they are charged and convicted.
Nope, if you understood the poem you wouldn’t keep denying that your question has been answered.
I don’t feel the need to resort to ‘tactics’.
Reality,
Abortion was legal up until 6 months. Gosnell, a licensed physician, performed abortions for decades with the knowledge and blessing of the state. He may have been unethical and the state may have been complicit in his unethical behavior, but apparently they saw nothing illegal about his practice until the “clinic” was raided because of drug charges, not the fact he was performing abortions. Even then he was not charged with illegally performing abortions. Likely because up until 6 months, he was doing nothing illegal as far as the state was concerned.
Kindly show me the post where you address the connection between “in the drain” and illegal abortion. I can’t find it.
Abortion was legal up until 6 months. Gosnell, a licensed physician, performed abortions for decades with the knowledge and blessing of the state. – so you have chosen to ignore the grand jury testimony that I pointed out in the source you provided.
Kindly show me the post where you address the connection between “in the drain” and illegal abortion. I can’t find it. – given what the above instance demonstrates about your ability to see what’s under your nose, that’s hardly surprising. What’s that old saying? “you can lead a horse to water…..”
Reality,
No, I’ve acknowledged the man was unethical. Authorities did not go after him for performing illegal abortions and he was not convicted of performing illegal abortions.
Kindly show me the post where you address my question.
I’ve acknowledged the man was unethical – yep, so why won’t you acknowledge that he was not performing abortions legally? The grand jury testimony managed to say it.
Authorities did not go after him for performing illegal abortions and he was not convicted of performing illegal abortions. – so the dude who robs someone’s home isn’t doing anything illegal unless and until he’s convicted of it? Which he probably wouldn’t be if he murders one of the victims and gets convicted of that.
Kindly show me the post where you address my question. – it’s up there. Several times. Try harder.
Reality,
Because he was performing abortions legally, and had been for decades.
Yes he did go past the 6 month limit in some of the abortions he performed, and this would be illegal, but he performed hundreds if not thousands of abortions with the blessing of the state. Authorities didn’t even go after him for performing abortions, they went after him for drugs.
Please show me the post(s).
Because he was performing abortions legally, and had been for decades. – evidently not. Have you still not read the quote from the grand jury testimony! Why not, you provided the source? While it’s amusing that you are developing a habit of providing sources which disprove your claims and support mine, I do have to wonder…
And again, the person who robs other peoples homes isn’t doing anything illegal unless and until they are convicted, that’s how it works under your logic isn’t it?
If you bother to read back over the posts you’ll see it numerous times. Make an effort.
Reality,
The evidence was submitted to the Grand Jury then Gosnell went to trial 3 years later. They just have the quotes of the trial jury members, which are horrendous. Yes some of his activities were illegal. He was unethical. However, that doesn’t change the fact the state allowed Gosnell to conduct his abortion business for years with no fear of legal repercussion, i.e.legally. Babies aborted within the legal limit might have survived as well, only to be killed by him or left to die. However he was legally aborting them.
Show me the post(s) Reality. I’ve had no luck finding it and I’m sure you’d be very happy to prove yourself correct, assuming you can.
However, that doesn’t change the fact the state allowed Gosnell to conduct his abortion business for years with no fear of legal repercussion, i.e.legally – seriously? You actually wrote that! So getting away with something which is illegal renders it legal does it? Not getting convicted for illegal activities means they’re legal activities. Gee, I’ll have to remember that one!
I’ve already been proven correct, your not liking it doesn’t alter the fact.
Reality,
I find what he did as reprehensible as anyone but the state did in fact allow him to practice for years with no fear of any legal repercussions. He was conducting a legal abortion business. The majority of abortions he performed were legal, according to Pennsylvania law.
No the fact he “got away” with a lot doesn’t make it legal, the fact the state allowed him to conduct his business with no fear of legal repercussions, and if anything turned a blind eye to his activities, is what allowed him to practice legally.
Please show me where you are proven correct.
He was conducting a legal abortion business. – so despite not meeting the requirements to legally conduct abortions he was conducting them legally? Sheesh.
The majority of abortions he performed were legal, according to Pennsylvania law. – despite him not meeting the legal requirements under Pennsylvanian law. Sheesh.
No the fact he “got away” with a lot doesn’t make it legal, the fact the state allowed him to conduct his business with no fear of legal repercussions, – so a rat-infested restaurant, keeping food well beyond its safe date etc. etc. is operating legally because health inspectors have turned a blind eye?
and if anything turned a blind eye to his activities, is what allowed him to practice legally. – no. It allowed him to practice. But that didn’t make it legal.
Please show me where you are proven correct. – every single time you ask the question. And in fact, given the stuff you are claiming about illegality being legal, more and more all the time.
Reality,
According to the state, yes.
He could legally perform abortions up until 6 months. The state was willing to turn a blind eye to any violations and allow him to conduct his business openly and legally. Who knows, maybe Gosnell started out running an entirely different type of business and went off the deep end later. The point is the state doing nothing, and the fact abortion was legal, enabled him, reprehensible as it was.
If health and state inspectors turn a blind eye and there are no legal repercussions, then yes, the restaurant is operating legally with the blessing of the state. That’s why the state is supposed to do its job, to protect the public and not allow these businesses to operate.
Sorry Reality but this enabled him to conduct his business legally. I hold the state every bit as responsible for what happened there and for those deaths as I do Gosnell. People in the PC community and power structure hold some responsibility as well.
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/note-to-the-media-naral-oposed-pas-abortion-restrictions-they-now-app
He wasn’t convicted of illegally performing abortions was he? He likely performed thousands, and a substantial amount were over 6 months. But apparently the state had no problem with his performing abortions.
Kindly show me where you address my question.
What is really the issue with Gosnell, here? He’s obviously an extreme example.
Among gynecologists, there is no shortage of examples where they’ve been convicted of all manner of rape, sexual battery, other sexual offenses, fraud, drug offenses, taking improper videos, photos, etc.
We still don’t pretend that all gynecologists are like that. Generalizing from the particular is illogical.
Doug,
You don’t seem to have been following my and Reality’s discussion.
The discussion is a little more complex than that.
Absolutely incredible Mary. You’re still pushing the ludicrous line that something which is clearly, black and white illegal is actually legal until you are convicted for it. What sort of parallel universe is that?
According to the state, no.
He could legally perform abortions up until 6 months. – no he could not. He was operating illegally.
The state was willing to turn a blind eye to any violations and allow him to conduct his business openly and legally. – no, it allowed him to operate openly but illegally.
Who knows, maybe Gosnell started out running an entirely different type of business and went off the deep end later. – irrelevant, he was conducting his business illegally.
The point is the state doing nothing, and the fact abortion was legal, enabled him, reprehensible as it was. – he may well have been enabled but he was still operating illegally.
Did you read the grand jury testimony or not?
If health and state inspectors turn a blind eye and there are no legal repercussions, then yes, the restaurant is operating legally with the blessing of the state. – what total balderdash. It is operating illegally but getting away with it.
That’s why the state is supposed to do its job, to protect the public and not allow these businesses to operate. – indeed. They are supposed to identify infractions and take action because the entity is operating illegally.
Sorry Reality but this enabled him to conduct his business legally. – no it did not. It enabled him to conduct his business illegally.
I hold the state every bit as responsible for what happened there and for those deaths as I do Gosnell. – there’s hope for you yet.
He wasn’t convicted of illegally performing abortions was he? He likely performed thousands, and a substantial amount were over 6 months. But apparently the state had no problem with his performing abortions. – how many times do I need to point out to you that just because someone isn’t convicted of doing something which is illegal doesn’t render their actions legal. Good grief, I’d never want to have you as any sort of legal representative. They had him for murder, which sent him to prison for life, performing abortions illegally was small potatoes.
Kindly show me where you address my question. – no. I have done so more than enough times already. Given your abject failure to comprehend what renders actions legal or illegal it’s hardly surprising that you can’t grasp it.
Reality,
In your hysterics you equate what’s ethical, safe, and law abiding with legal. Not the case.
First of all Gosnell was a licensed physician. He could perform abortions. An OB/GYN may be preferable, but legally he could perform them. The late term abortionist Carhart is not an OB/GYN and the late Tiller was a family practice physician. They do/did perform abortions up until the third trimester and do/did so legally. Is this ethical and safe? You tell me. It is/was however legal.
Abortion in Pennsylvania was legal up until 6 months gestation. Gosnell was legally performing these abortions. Granted his ethics were dubious at best, and his safety standards would give the health dept. nightmares, assuming of course the health dept. and state even cared enough to do their job which they did not, but he was legally performing abortions. He functioned legally and openly for years because the state let him. I gave you a source concerning their “rationale” for doing so. That isn’t to say he didn’t engage in some serious illegal and dangerous practices. That’s to say the state allowed this to go on with no fear of legal repercussions. He was allowed to legally run his house of horrors with the full blessing of the state.
Now how many times do I have to point out to you that while you may be doing something illegal and not particularly ethical, the state turning a blind eye and allowing you to continue is allowing your business to function legally?
You used the restaurant analogy. As a customer you go in and notice rodent droppings and unsanitary handling of food. You leave, call the health department and report your findings. Yes these practices are illegal and unsanitary but until the state/health dept. steps in and finds just cause to close this place down, its legally open for business. If the state and health dept. determine you were just hallucinating and allow the restaurant to stay open, then it is being allowed to operate legally.
Yes they had him for murder, of newborn babies. 3 out of 4. Also for manslaughter. But not for performing illegal abortions. Heck the state didn’t even go after him for abortion, which he had been performing for what, 3 decades? They went after him for drugs. The state knew full well what he was doing and apparently did not regard it as illegal.
That’s what I’m trying to get through to you. I consider Carhart a butcher, unethical, incompetent, and dangerous. The state begs to differ. He continues to legally practice. Understand now??
You might better direct your outrage at the PC politicians that enabled this situation to occur under the guise of enabling women to more easily obtain abortions.
Wasn’t legal abortion supposed to put sickos like Gosnell out of business? Heck, it just enabled him to hang his shingle.
Now Reality, how about addressing my question.
“hysterics” LOL. I’m just gobsmacked that you are happy and willing to continue to repeat your fundamental mistake in all this.
In your hysterics you equate what’s ethical, safe, and law abiding with legal. – not in the least. I’m equating what’s illegal with what’s legal. Law abiding comes into it but ethics and safety aren’t relevant to what the law clearly states.
First of all Gosnell was a licensed physician. He could perform abortions. An OB/GYN may be preferable, but legally he could perform them. – wrong. I quoted from your source. Have you still not read it?
Gosnell was legally performing these abortions. – clearly he wasn’t.
he was legally performing abortions. – clearly such is not the case.
He functioned legally and openly for years because the state let him. – he may have been functioning openly but he wasn’t functioning legally.
I gave you a source concerning their “rationale” for doing so. – so now you want to pick and choose what you ignore or use from the very sources you provide.
That isn’t to say he didn’t engage in some serious illegal and dangerous practices. – he was operating illegally. Full stop.
That’s to say the state allowed this to go on with no fear of legal repercussions. He was allowed to legally run his house of horrors with the full blessing of the state. – according to your logic, if a police officer observes someone break into a house and steal stuff but can’t be bothered taking action, the event is legal. I’d love to have you as my opponents lawyer if I ever find myself in court.
Now how many times do I have to point out to you that while you may be doing something illegal and not particularly ethical, the state turning a blind eye and allowing you to continue is allowing your business to function legally? – LOL. You may be being allowed to operate your business, but it isn’t happening legally.
Yes they had him for murder, of newborn babies. 3 out of 4. Also for manslaughter. But not for performing illegal abortions. Heck the state didn’t even go after him for abortion, which he had been performing for what, 3 decades? They went after him for drugs. The state knew full well what he was doing and apparently did not regard it as illegal. – goodness me, how utterly laughable.
That’s what I’m trying to get through to you. I consider Carhart a butcher, unethical, incompetent, and dangerous. The state begs to differ. He continues to legally practice. Understand now?? – what I have understood from the beginning and you fail to be able to come to grips with, is that Gosnell was not operating legally. Your source tells us such.
You might better direct your outrage at the PC politicians that enabled this situation to occur under the guise of enabling women to more easily obtain abortions. – if I felt any outrage and needed to direct it I would direct it at anti-choicers who create the circumstances which create need and/or opportunity for people like Gosnell.
Wasn’t legal abortion supposed to put sickos like Gosnell out of business? Heck, it just enabled him to hang his shingle. – see above.
Now Reality, how about addressing my question. – it seems to be more a case of you needing to address your reading and/or comprehension skills. Or your habit of feigning ignorance. Which one is at work here?
Reality,
Show me the Pennsylvania law that says only an OB/GYN and not a licensed physician can perform abortions.
Now rather than perpetually going in circles with you, I find it interesting you do not address the issue of Carhart and Tiller. These are not/were not OB/GYNs. The do/did perform late term abortions. Now tell me, do you consider this ethical and safe? Ever see that rat hole Carhart runs? Carhart takes off and leaves his patients, like Jennifer Morbelli, with no coverage in the event of an emergency. Yet Tiller did and Carhart does operate with the full blessing of the state. They were/are legal. What are your thoughts on this Reality? Geez, can someone be unethical and unsafe, yet still be legal?
I would remind you this situation occured thanks to the blessing and negligence of PC politicians. Can you show where PL people had any hand in this?
I cited the relevant words from your source. Gosnell was not legally operating his abortion facility. Sure he could perform abortions – but only under the auspices of an OB/GYN. He wasn’t. He was operating illegally.
Carhart and Tiller have nothing to do with Gosnell. Where, when and how they operated their facilities, whether they were doing so legally or illegally, is irrelevant to the fact that Gosnell was operating his facility illegally. Nothing changes that.
This situation occurred because of ant-choice actions. Their threats, intimidation, boycotts and blockades bring about operators like Gosnell.
Reality,
Show me the law.
Carhart is not an OB/GYN, has dubious ethical standards, and that’s being charitable, and even abandoned a patient who later died, yet he continues to practice legally. Now how can that be Reality?
LOL. Sure Reality. “Anti choice actions”. Whatever.
You showed me the law! Good grief, what are you up to, LOL.
Whilst it was possible for Gosnell to legally perform abortions in the correct circumstances, he wasn’t performing abortions in accordance with the legal requirements. He was operating illegally.
I’m not looking at the circumstances under which Carhart operated. It is completely irrelevant to the fact that Gosnell was operating illegally. You are attempting a distraction which doesn’t work.
Glad you recognize it.
Reality,
Show me the law.
Yes it was possible, but apparently no one was going to see to it that he did. He was operating legally though his ethics and qualifications were dubious and many of his actions illegal. Much like Carhart. No distraction at all Reality. Just curious if you agreed that someone could be unqualified, ethically challenged, and downright dangerous, yet still operate legally. Like Carhart.
Yes Reality, I definitely recognize your feeble attempt to deflect blame from the PC politicians who allowed this situation.
You know what. Given your willingness to deny the existence of what you yourself have supplied, I’m quite happy for you to demonstrate such openly. Maybe you really should try reading what you supplied.
Carhart operated in Nebraska and Maryland. He had no involvement with Gosnell. Tell me how where he operated, how he operated etc. etc. has any bearing whatsoever, in any way, on the fact that Gosnell was not legally operating his facility. Don’t evade.
The Gosnells of this world wouldn’t do what they do without what the anti-choice movement does.
Reality,
Whether or not Carhart had any dealings with Gosnell is not the point. Both are ethically challenged, neither is an OB/GYN, the legality of their practices have be questionable, and both operate/operated with the full blessing of the law.
The Gosnells of the world wouldn’t do what the they do without the full blessing of PC politicians like the ones in Pennsylvania who consider keeping the clinics open and running more important than the safety and well being of women, even to the point of suspending inspections and ignoring complaints.
BTW Reality, you never did address my question.
Whether or not Carhart had any dealings with Gosnell is not the point. – when it comes to how Gosnell operated in the context of what we have been discussing Carhart has no point whatsoever. It is irrelevant. It is meaningless.
Both are ethically challenged, neither is an OB/GYN, the legality of their practices have be questionable, and both operate/operated with the full blessing of the law. that’s somewhat contradictory.
The Gosnells of the world wouldn’t do what the they do without the full blessing of AC politicians like the ones in Pennsylvania who consider closing clinics more important than the safety and well being of women, even to the point of sending them to illegal or unscrupulous operators.
BTW Reality, you never did address my question. – only about eleventy times, which says something about you.