Thread: 'House of Horrors' abortion clinic uncovered

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41154527...me_and_courts/

A doctor whose abortion clinic was a filthy, foul-smelling "house of horrors" that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them.

Hundreds of other babies likely died in the squalid clinic that Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran from 1979 to 2010...

He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," District Attorney Seth Williams said.

Gosnell referred to the practice as "snipping," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.

Jesus Christ dude, this shit right here is disgusting. At least they shut this place down. Only took them 31 years.

Holy crap.

the worst part is that the state knew about this for years but did nothing lest the story make abortion look unappealing.

And this is different from late term abortion... how? Just that it doesn't occur within the womb?

Don't get me wrong; I support the availability abortion. I'm just asking a question.

Prosecutors said Gosnell made millions of dollars over three decades performing thousands of dangerous abortions, many of them illegal late-term procedures. His clinic had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, a family physician not certified in obstetrics or gynecology, prosecutors said.
At least two women died from the procedures, while scores more were injured from perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, authorities said.
...
Prosecutors said the place reeked of cat urine because of the animals that were allowed to roam freely, instruments were not properly sterilized, and disposable medical supplied were used over and over.

Ew.

White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, Williams said.

Lol.

actually 33 of the counts against the guy are for illegal late term abortions. only 8 counts are for murder and one of those murders is of an adult.

also the abortions he performed almost always ended up butchering the uterus or leaving parts behind, requiring hospitalization immediately or shortly after and/or inability to ever bear a child to term again.

Originally Posted by Hippocrass

actually 33 of the counts against the guy are for illegal late term abortions. only 8 counts are for murder and one of those murders is of an adult.

Ah ok then.

also the abortions he performed almost always ended up butchering the uterus or leaving parts behind, requiring hospitalization immediately or shortly after and/or inability to ever bear a child to term again.

I was referring to the way he killed them after he delivered them vs. dismembering them in the womb.

I am against late term abortion in all cases except to protect the health of the mother. With early term abortion there is the ambiguity of whether or not the embryo/fetus is actually a person, whether they can feel, etc., but around 6, 7, and 8 months they can very obviously feel and were they to be born that moment would very likely be a fully functioning animal/person. It doesn't take 6,7, or 8 months to decide whether you want an abortion or not. At that point it is like killing a puppy because you don't want a puppy, except instead of a puppy it is a baby.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion after brain activity has started.

Either late term abortion is not okay, or infanticide at least in the first few weeks post-birth is just external abortion. Our ancestors did actually practice infanticide when there were not enough resources to support a child.

Sounds delicious.

Originally Posted by KT.

This is why late-term abortion should be legalized in every state and made easily attainable.

I was waiting for someone to have the balls to say this and the person who said it doesn't even have balls.

i think extreme late-term(like up to 70 years) abortions should be legal lets write a letter to congress and make this happen

fine qwahir
define "person" if "person" is not defined as "human"
when does a "human" become a "person" and once the "human" becomes a "person" can he ever become "not a person" again short of death?

so is kt not a person either?

I showed this news story to my friend and this is the condensed version of her response:

so
murdering premature babies with scissors is a bit harsh but like, the "mothers" weren't in there for no reason
job done, is all i'm saying
people need to stop being disgusted at these thinngs
i think im a sociopath
i mean i would never kill anyone but i dont care if someone else does
and the whole baby scissor thing, i was more affected when Friends ended

you should stick you penis in your friend's butt

also the issue is not just the abortions or "the whole baby scissor thing", though those are major issues. the "doctor's" procedure left many of his patients severely injured and at least one dead. basically you friend sounds like a real cunt.

Originally Posted by KT.

so is a retard not a person either?

This is a good question given gwahir's views on this subject. If babies aren't people because they are just 'humans with brain function' and there's nothing wrong with killing them even though they are sentient and feeling to some degree, then why stop there? Why wouldn't it be ok to kill a retarded person because they are just humans with brain function which may be less sentient and feeling than some animals?

Abortion is all well and good, but there is a line for a reason. Expanding the allowable abortion term due to things like 'Well, I mean, they can't write a book or speak, so they obviously aren't people' is a slippery slope. And the difference between a baby and a crab is that a crab will always be a crab, but a baby will become what you call a 'person' if given the opportunity to do so. An embryo can't do that, an early term fetus can't do that, but a late term fetus or a baby can. I mean, at that point if you really don't want it you should just have it anyway and give it up for adoption to help someone else who may not be able to have one.

I also find fault in the assertions gwahir made about the factors other than the mother's health, such as the woman's independence, dependent status, relationships, etc. All of those are very good reasons to have an abortion, but it does not take six months to figure that shit out. If women want an abortion they should get it as soon as they can. If it takes you eight months to be like 'Well, I don't think I want a baby after all' I don't think that a perfectly viable human (and potential future 'person') should have to die because your dumb ass took eight months to make a decision that is generally not all that hard to make. When a woman finds out she's pregnant she generally knows pretty quickly whether she wants to have a baby inside of her or not. It certainly should not take six months to decide.

All that being said, I feel like gwahir's compromise is reasonable enough, and that women could have the fetus removed at any point but if it can be kept alive it must be kept alive.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

All that being said, I feel like gwahir's compromise is reasonable enough, and that women could have the fetus removed at any point but if it can be kept alive it must be kept alive.

one major problem with this.
who pays to keep it alive?

Yeah, I think she probably only skimmed the article. Her views were a little extreme even for me.

My own views on abortion are virtually the same as Mr E's for the record.

Originally Posted by gwahir

mr e: there is no question that a baby is not a person. a baby is not a person, by any reasonable or philosophical definition of the word. "human with brain function" is not a workable definition of person, even if it might be a colloquial one.

Huh? When does a baby become a person then?

Also, it was once thought that babies were just crying, eating machines. It's now known that their mental functions are more complicated than that.

sycld has raised the real interesting point, although his own personal answer to it is a little disappointing. the question is: given that (hopefully) none of us fall victim to the "potential" argument (lest we decry contraception, as well as any man/woman who is not constantly having procreative sex), is there a relevant philosophical difference between a late term foetus and a baby? well, intrinsically, no. a one-day-old baby is no more developed mentally than a foetus.
one day from birth.

What does this argument have to do with contraception? I think you're a little confused here.

And when/if brain-scanning technology gets more and more sophistocated and finds brain activity starting in miniscule amounts earlier and earlier?

Anything resembling normal brain activity appears only around 12 weeks. Before this there's some EEG readings, but nothing resembling fully developed brain activity. (Note that electrical potentials are present in most any living organism, including plants, which would show up on an EEG.) For more info: http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

It's just like pre-term birth viability: there's pretty much a hard limit of 21 weeks that a pre-term birth has any hopes of surviving outside of a womb.

We pretty much know the limits here.

it's also no more aware or sentient or "feeling" than, say, a crab. but crab-killing is not nearly as fraught with controversy. poor crabs.

Gwahir, if you want to know why I get so annoyed with you when we debate, it's in large part because you're so willing to pull "facts" like this one out of your ass. This is totally untrue.

a false dichotomy relying on the assumption (and it is one) that intrinsic qualities of the individual infant are the only things to take into consideration. other things involved are

-the effect on the mother (not just on her health, which is less contentious, but on her "freedom"; ie. freedom to not have a baby in her belly)
-relationships forged with outside world
-status as dependent/independent
...etc

it's also a false dichotomy on the assumption that birth and abortion-via-foetus-killing are the only options

one compromise is to say a woman may elect to have a foetus removed from her at any point, but can't decide to kill it (in other words she can have it yanked out whenever she wants, but if it can be kept alive by other means then it must be)

to respond to the question posed at the top of this post -- i would say that the real relevant difference between a baby and a foetus (and a crab, for that matter) is its connection and importance to persons. i'm not saying i've solved it, but it's the best answer i have.



edit: on topic, the biggest shame in this story is that it will probably used to negatively paint abortion by anti-abortionist assholes.

Look, I understand the whole thing about a woman controlling what happens to her body. That's why I'm completely in support of abortion, in America 80% of which occur within 10 weeks of conception, ~90% of which occur within 12 weeks, and less than 1% of which occur in the "late-term" (21 weeks or later). All the anti-abortion propaganda shows images of the results of those very rare late-term abortions.

Not only that, but first trimester abortions are very safe medical procedures. However, ~50% second trimester abortions are accompanied by some medical complications (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795001-overview).

What I want to see is abortion being legalized and the stigma removed so that women can get them early on.

tl;dr

Originally Posted by sycld

What I want to see is abortion being legalized and the stigma removed so that women can get them early on.

Abortion is legal...

The stigma, however, is probably not ever going to be lifted entirely. There are always going to be the uneducated, narrow-minded, and holier-than-thou, and damn it all if it doesn't seem to be getting worse instead of better as we gain more knowledge of things (all things, not just abortion). That's what I don't understand.

I know, but abortion in general is legal is what I was saying. I didn't think 3rd term abortions were legal in any state for any reason other than medical necessity, but I could be wrong about that.

EDIT: Did some research, and it is complicated. 36 states only allow 3rd term abortions to save the life of the mother, 4 only allow them to save the life of the mother or to prevent significant health problems in the mother, and 10 of them allow them for any reason, but require at least two physicians to approve and be present to keep the baby alive should the aborted baby come out alive (a la Gwahir's idea). What I read was worded funny in terms of the number of states which fell into each category, but US state abortion laws stand something like that.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Abortion is legal...

Lol, I don't know why I said that. I know it's legal...

Let's just say I was speaking from a more global perspective.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

The stigma, however, is probably not ever going to be lifted entirely. There are always going to be the uneducated, narrow-minded, and holier-than-thou, and damn it all if it doesn't seem to be getting worse instead of better as we gain more knowledge of things (all things, not just abortion). That's what I don't understand.

The stigma for interracial marriage hasn't been lifted entirely.

All one can hope for is that more segments of society will consider abortions to be a perfectly acceptable medical procedure.

I wish my facebook friends would. Then again, a recent facebook mum today mentioned she was going to a medium. Her facebook mum friend said "Is she's any good can u giv me his number? Xx"

I mean Jesus Christ I'm pretty close to just deleting the fucking thing.

Originally Posted by simonj

I wish my facebook friends would. Then again, a recent facebook mum today mentioned she was going to a medium. Her facebook mum friend said "Is she's any good can u giv me his number? Xx"

LOL.

How the hell do you make "friends" with so many morons?


And who taught them how to get on the internet and use Booksface... did you, simonj?

They're usually people who I went to school with and rarely, if ever, talked to. They add me and I (used to) usually accept because I'd be interested what they look like now or what they're doing or something like that.

Originally Posted by gwahir

either there is an arbitrary and speciesist double standard at play, or there's something extrinsic (ie. not to do with brain functions) that makes babies less okay to kill than dolphins, saint bernards, grizzly bears, and so on.

Well, as Mr. E pointed out, a dolphon or a Saint Bernard is not going to ever become a person with whatever it is you define as a large enough amount of brain function to qualify as a 'person'.

Anyway, I'm sure there's a cracked article about how the brain function of babies actually rivals our own. I'll try and find it in the morning but I think it basically talked about how during the developing stage the brain's activity is increased immensely.

Originally Posted by gwahir

the potential argument (ie. a foetus/baby is precious because it has the potential to be a person) leads to thinking negatively of contraception; "every sperm is sacred" stuff. i'm not confused. there's no leap there.

Of course there's a leap. Not many people equate sperm with actual people. That's usually associated with religious beliefs anyway.

Gwahir, are you saying that being 'speciesist' is wrong? Of course the opinion that killing living, breathing babies is bad is 'speciesist'. If you pulled a zygote out of the womb it would die no matter what, if you pulled an early-term fetus out of the womb it would die no matter what. If you pull a 6,7,8 month old baby out it will probably live if something is done. I feel that the potential of an actual, birthed, living human is a bit higher than the potential of an actual, birthed, living zygote to the point of being in an entirely different class. I don't feel like there is a problem with that argument on those grounds.

Back to the 'speciesist double standard' then, so murder should be ok? I mean, if cows and people are on an even playing field and being 'speciesist' is wrong, why not kill and eat people? Sure, people have higher brain functioning, but isn't that being 'brain-functionist'? My point being, just because something is discriminatory does not intrinsically make it wrong. I feel like most people would not equate killing a cow for food and killing an actual living and breathing birthed baby because the mom doesn't want it. And if we are to use intelligent preference as the line for when it is and isn't okay to kill a baby, when does that begin? I don't know much about the rate of mental development of babies, but I feel like it would be too far of a leap to assume a 3-month old has no capability of intelligent preference, should we have until after then to kill them?

And then there is still the retard argument. Some people will never be capable of preference satisfaction, are they disposable?