Quote of the Day 1-27-11
The allegations against Dr. Kermit Gosnell are heinous. If the Philadelphia doctor operated the ugly abortion mill he is charged with operating, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But let’s keep in mind that Roe v.Wade does not authorize his alleged reprehensible actions. According to a grand jury report, Gosnell killed babies that he delivered alive in the 3rd trimester by severing their spinal cords with scissors. He has been charged with murder….
The pro-choice movement is not responsible for Gosnell’s alleged crimes. Neither is Obama. Any organized effort to make that link is cynical politics at its worst.
~Joan Vennochi, Boston.com, January 26
Jan.27, 2011 10:43 am |
Quote of the Day |
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.
Ugh, okay, Joan Vennochi. Make your excuses. The truth is leaking out. This IS the face of “choice.”
I cannot believe pro-aborts and their “explanations” and defense of abortion, especially after this. “This isn’t what we mean! We want women to have abortions in CLEAN facilities with nice wallpaper!”
Either way, you get a dead baby that’s thrown in the garbage. What do you say to that, Joan? What do you pro-aborts want? When will you stop the double-speak and lies? Enough is enough.
Um, the pro-choice movement overlooked Gosnell’s facility. The pro-choice movement encourages the practice of killing babies.
The pro-choice movement (people like Ms. Vennochi) only seem to be concerned that Gosnell didn’t sever the spinal cords INSIDE the womb before the children exited the birth canal. If he had, they wouldn’t be outraged at all – they’d probably be taking up a collection for new equipment, wallpaper, and a cleaning service so Gosnell’s facility would be more “homey.”
Wow..what “mental gymnastics” pro-aborts go through to justify their position! Must be exhausting…
“We told him what he does is ok with us. We let him get away with it for years and looked the other way –
but DON’T BLAME US! DON’T BLAME US! IT’S NOT OUR FAULT!”
The “pro-choice” movement may not be responsible for Gosnell’s crimes, but they CAN (actually they MUST) take credit for the deaths of about a billion children around the world the last two decades.
That enough crimes for you?
NAF employees saw that Gosnell was running a filthy, unsanitary facility and did nothing about it. Since when does NAF not part of the pro-choice movement? He’s responsible for his own actions, but they’re responsible for enabling him.
The pro-choice movement is absolutely responsible. How many years did Kermit ply his deadly trade? With a front door and a sign that beckoned young women and their families? With an NAF member who observed all the filth and deplorable conditions and did nothing but let it continue? Roe and Doe were evil twin rulings that opened hunting season on helpless children, and you tell us not to blame you?
One of the bloggers this week compared Kermit to Loughner, saying that we can’t call one politically blameless and then call the other politically responsible. Uh, yes we can. Loughner was a young man who snapped. Kermit practiced day in and day out, on evenings, on weekends, for years, decades. Women in Philly are coming forward with even more atrocities not listed in the report. One said her relative took her to his building, she didn’t want an abortion. When he entered the room, she refused to undress. He forcibly removed her clothing, she told the DA, and tied her legs to the stirrups. What happened next is absolutely the fault of the pro-choice movement. A baby is not a baby if someone doesn’t want it to be and pays for it to die. Although some surveys report that 60% of all abortions are forced or coerced, the pro-choice movement turns a blind eye. The death mongers are willing to throw all of us under the bus so they can continue to kill for profit.
As a believer in God, forgiveness is available, even for such as Cecile Richards, but unlike the abortionists who forcibly murder the young, Jesus will not force forgiveness on anyone. You’ve got to ask.
Joan – got news for you. If the Roe opinion didn’t exist, Gosnell would still be a criminal. However, Roe, Doe etc. does directly authorize Gosnell to conduct business no matter how stupid he is in doing so.
You’re trying to evade the murder of all the younger children he dispatched in horrible ways and distance yourself from all this nasty business. And if you don’t think what he or any other abortionist is horrible – try throwing yourself through a full-sized wood chipper – you’ll get pretty much the same results.
I guess Ms. Vennochi just doesn’t understand the actual definition of abortion, let alone murder. Ignorance is one thing…. you can teach ignorance. But stupidity, that’s another. The pro-abortionists just keep showing how stupid they are.
Didn’t Doe vs. Bolton make what Gosnell did technically legal? I mean in the sense that he killed 3rd trimester viable babies? I mean we all know in pro-choice bizarro world snapping spines is wrong unless done within the confines of a uterus. But why are the Vennochis of the world so horrified at the AGE of the babies when their own supreme SUPREME COURT gave us the ruling that said it was okay to kill babies that age?
Sydney: Yeah, that’s what I’ve been wondering about. I’ll have to ask one of my law professors how Doe v. Bolton legally co-exists with state laws about late-term abortions.
Marauder, let us know when you find the answer!
“Ugh, okay, Joan Vennochi. Make your excuses. The truth is leaking out. This IS the face of “choice.”
Is Columbine or Jared Loughner the face of gun rights? Using your logic, it must be.
How so Joan?
Um, yeah, what’s your point, Joan? Also, I am pro-gun control. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. But since you bring it up, yeah…..Obviously it’s way too easy for a madman to get his hands on a gun.
Nice try, though, Joan, to throw us off the subject at hand.
“Um, yeah, what’s your point, Joan? Also, I am pro-gun control.”
And so you agree that the face of gun ownership rights in America is unstable, mass-murdering lunatics who slipped through the cracks, and whose actions are condemned by every normal, well-adjusted supporter of gun rights? I’m in favor of gun control too, but I wouldn’t make the claim that the actions of a few deranged individuals are in any way the “face” of a larger movement that widely condemns them.
And that’s just one example. What about the people who assassinate abortion doctors and blow up clinics? Again, using your logic here, where it’s alright to associate an entire movement with the actions of a few fringe characters who are condemned and rejected when their misdeeds come to light, it’s perfectly fair to say that Scott Roeder or Eric Rudolph is the face of the pro-life movement.
Kermit and his workers didn’t perform alot of these abortions in the womb of the mother. Many of the killings were on babies that were delivered in chairs, on the floor, in toilets… and they waited until the Doctor got to work later that night or the workers that were there did the “snipping”. So these were babies that had already been born. Most could have been saved with medical help.
I thought Doe v Bolton also defined the health of the mother statute to legalize abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. However, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban (2007) was upheld by the Supreme Court, so regardless of what state the abortionist is in, wouldn’t this federal case override it?
The goal of the pro-abortion movement is to allow women to have doctors kill their babies.
Kermit Gosnell, a doctor who killed babies.
I’m just not clear as to why pro-aborts should have a problem with his murderous ways.
Now, as far as the unsanitary conditions, that I understand is something the pro-aborts should be livid over. Yet they seem to be breezing over the uncleanliness for the most part and focusing heavily on his clearly unstable behavior. Why is this? Because talking about his disgusting facilities would be admitting that the NAF failed in their responsibility to women. It would mean admitting that there should be regulations on the sanitation of abortion clinics.
Joan, your logic would be solid except for one detail:
Kermit Gosnell was only doing exactly that which the pro-abortion movement lauds as empowering. He was killing babies that your movement supports killing. He simply moved them from their place of residence first.
You know full well that there is an objective, legally and ethically-defined difference between abortion and what Kermit Gosnell was doing. But you, and more broadly speaking the entire pro-life movement, have so little respect for the position of the other side, that you just keep repeating the same ignorant, stupid talking points over and over in order to quickly end any kind of argument where your logic can’t hold up to basic scrutiny.
You’re right Joan. I have no respect for the side that advocates killing human offspring. Not one ounce. Never will. Those babies are the same human beings whether they were 22 weeks (a legal kill in your book) or 32 weeks (an illegal kill in your book). They didn’t change from one species to another. They were human beings from conception. I’m sorry you can’t wrap your mind around that BASIC biological fact. Thats basic science Joan not a stupid talking point. Waving hangers in the air and screaming “Keep your rosaries off our ovaries” is a stupid talking point and have heard your type scream it over and over and over because you have no morality, ethics or science to bring to the table.
“But you, and more broadly speaking the entire pro-life movement, have so little respect for the position of the other side, that you just keep repeating the same ignorant, stupid talking points over and over in order to quickly end any kind of argument where your logic can’t hold up to basic scrutiny.”
joan,
WHAT is respectable about abortion?
You know full well that there is an objective, legally and ethically-defined difference between abortion and what Kermit Gosnell was doing.
You’re right Joan. Kermit chose scissors and the law advocates for poison.
Seriously, it’s all killing. It’s all brutal nasty death.
And you want me to be more or less outraged at Gosnell’s behavior? I don’t see a ton of outrage from your side. Mostly defense of other doctors.
On the other hand, when Scott Roeder gunned down Tiller, there was an immediate response from just about every pro-life organization saying that it was WRONG.
Joan, I respect all sorts of things about my pro-choice friends. I don’t respect their opinions about abortion however. They are at best uneducated and at worst self-indulgent and calloused.
Joan clearly skimmed right past my comment where I addressed her silly assumption before she made it:
One of the bloggers this week compared Kermit to Loughner, saying that we can’t call one politically blameless and then call the other politically responsible. Uh, yes we can. Loughner was a young man who snapped. Kermit practiced day in and day out, on evenings, on weekends, for years, decades. Women in Philly are coming forward with even more atrocities not listed in the report.
Basically, Joan and her friends would see nothing wrong with Kermit if he’d used a little more soap and water.
Well, Vennochi has a good point here. It’s like a car owner asking a mechanic to take a sledgehammer to his engine before he leaves the lot. But if he did it a block away that would be wrong.
Just so, this doctor shouldn’t have done what he did. He gives a bad name to the good doctors who stuck in the scissors before the baby was fully born.
Wait a minute. Mechanic destroying car engine. Doctor stabbing baby. No, this doesn’t make any sense after all.
Never mind.
Hans,
Awesome analogy! ^_^
Joan, what is abortion? Is it the ending of a pregnancy or ensuring “fetal demise?” If you consider abortion the ending of pregnancy, than a pregnancy at fetal viability should be ended in a hospital to at least give the baby a chance! These woman didn´t want to end a pregnancy, they wanted to ensure fetal demise. After all I guess it is better to be dead than given a chance.
Joan, the bravest choice in an unwanted pregnancy is Adoption, because the mother believes in the life of her child and gives her child a chance; despite life´s pain and difficulties.
The more I read your comments and those of poor choicers, the more it strikes me that you feel that it is better to be DEAD than alive.
Are you really Catholic, Joan? Do you really believe in God? If there is an once of faith in you, than please say some of the Catholic prayers. One Hail Mary a night may be a good start. Why do you even consider yourself Catholic if you don’t accept its teachings? It is dishonest.
The pro-choice movement IS responsible for Gosnell’s alleged crimes because it seeks the ending of pregnancy by successful fetal demise! An abortion survivor is seen as a dreaded complication.
“joan,
WHAT is respectable about abortion?”
The pro-choice position is not pro-abortion, it’s pro-abortion rights. Abortion is a private medical decision that is constitutionally protected. The pro-choice position respects this constitutional right. You could personally find the abortion procedure appalling while remaining pro-choice.
“Joan clearly skimmed right past my comment where I addressed her silly assumption before she made it.”
I have no idea what you are even trying to get at with “politically blameless/responsible” here.
He gives a bad name to the good doctors who stuck in the scissors before the baby was fully born.
Ain’t that the truth Hans? I can hear the abortionists humming about Kermit now (to the tune of Bon Jovi’s You Give Love a Bad Name):
Slit through the spine and you’re to blame
Buddy you give death a bad name
Two angel’s smile is what we kill
Just promise them heaven then put them through hell
Chains of hate got a hold on me
When death is a passion we can’t break free
Oh! Just a useless girl, yeah
Oh! Give her nowhere to run
Tell her no one will help her
Our damage needs done
Slit through the spine and Kermie’s to blame
He gives death a bad name
(Bad name)
I scrubbed my mill and he left a mess
He gives death a bad name
(Bad name)
Hey, you give death a bad name
Fake, cruel smile on our lips
Blood red dripping from our fingertips
Just a clump of cells, our job is to lie
Our very first meeting is your baby’s goodbye
Joan, abortion is NOT a constitutional right. ITS NOT iN THERE!
And if abortion is a private decision why do you want the public to pay for it?
I’m trying to make sense of Joan’s answer at 7:25 p.m. She was trying to answer the question, “Joan, what is respectable about abortion?” The best I can make of her answer is this: there’s nothing respectable about abortion, but there is something respectable about the Constitution of the United States.
According to Joan, then, the Constitution of the United States really protects abortionists and does not protect pre-born babies. I’d like her to quote the relevant article and explain it to me. I don’t believe that the American Constitution even once mentions abortion. Does it even mention a “private medical decision”? Also, according to the Hippocratic Oath, a physician is bound to do no harm; the purpose of medicine is to heal, not to hurt. Only the very few abortions carried out to save the mother from dying (e.g. cutting out a baby growing in the wrong place, and that’s not usually called “abortion”) are truly medical.
Anyway, what is respectable about abortion? As Joan seems to concede, there’s nothing respectable about it. Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, the Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. This proposed amendment to the American Constitution would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. Thankfully, it was never ratified, but even if it had, there would still be nothing respectable about slavery.
“The pro-choice position is not pro-abortion, it’s pro-abortion rights. Abortion is a private medical decision that is constitutionally protected. The pro-choice position respects this constitutional right. You could personally find the abortion procedure appalling while remaining pro-choice.”
If one is pro-the right to have or do something, then one is pro- the thing itself. How can you be pro-slavery rights, for example, if you personally find slavery appalling? Two hundred years ago anyone saying they were pro-slavery rights but personally found slavery to be appalling and morally wrong would have been rightfully called a loon. Such a position makes no logical or ethical sense at all.
If abortion is not morally wrong, then why be afraid to admit you’re pro-abortion? If you dislike the label pro-abortion, it can only be because you know that such an admission means you are in favor of killing babies. But that’s what abortion does. It does not terminate pregnancies, but it ensures fetal demise. It destroys a baby. If the abortion zealots cannot own up to that, well, too bad. It doesn’t change the facts. The truth is the truth.
At 4:49 p.m. Joan said, “You know full well that there is an objective, legally and ethically-defined difference between abortion and what Kermit Gosnell was doing.”
By legally, I admittedly know you are referring to the current implementation of American law. You are not referring to God’s law (Judeo-Christian morality). We know full well that there is a difference between the two, even though one was originally extensively modelled on the other. That resemblance is important when considering the founding fathers’ intent in the Constitution. (See my comment at 8:44 pm.)
By ethically-defined, I suppose you are referring to the nonsense which says that a baby becomes a person only after it is born.
By objective, I suppose that you mean many feminists and other secular humanists are making a big deal of their difference and couching it in phrases such as “a private medical decision” and “viability.” Get real! I believe in objective morality, and that’s morality (ethics) as God has defined them in the Bible. After God once destroyed the world for its violence, he blessed the sole surviving family in the same way he had Adam–with once exception. He also gave Noah the animals to eat, specifically excluding human beings from being killed. His reason? When you kill another human being, you are killing something that originally resembled God Himself (Genesis 9:6).
“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.“ (Gen. 9:4-5)
“The allegations against Dr. Kermit Gosnell are heinous. If the Philadelphia doctor operated the ugly abortion mill he is charged with operating, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
Cheapen the value of human life and what do you get? You get “doctors” who only measure it in dollars and cents. You get people who are willing to kill other people for a living. As fair-minded Mr. Gosnell knows, whether they’re already born or not yet born is very little, if any, difference ethically-speaking. In fact, he was more willing than most abortionists to hold the mothers to his same standards (which were very low. And in Belgium now, “doctors” are developing a protocol to “ethically” harvest organs from euthanasia victims.)
The “pro-choice” movement is certainly responsible for Gosnell’s crimes. Obama also is. Any organized effort to deny that link is cynical politics at its worst.
Praxedes,
Brava!
The pro-choice position is not pro-abortion, it’s pro-abortion rights. Abortion is a private medical decision that is constitutionally protected. The pro-choice position respects this constitutional right. You could personally find the abortion procedure appalling while remaining pro-choice.
You are doing abortion apologetics. You are defending it. You believe it can be morally, ethically, and legally justified.
That makes you pro-abortion whether you like it or not.
Let’s not forget that Gosnell wasn’t arrested alone; over the years he had a lot of coworkers.