Trial For Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Detailing a "House of Horrors"

[Trag]

Every time you masturbate, you are killing life. You are a terrible person.

You.... You are really fucking stupid. This whole thread just makes me hate this forum.

"A lump of cells trying to form a human is not the same as a human. I am not a fetus and a fetus isn't what I am."
You were motherfucking fortunate enough to have been a fetus, you stupid motherfucker. You also aren't fucking dirt and decay, but you will be one day. What the fuck do you think you mean, "a lump of cells trying to form a human is not the same as a human"? How do you think every fucking human came to be?

Fuck this thread. To see people speak so shallowly, so callously ignorant about human life, is depressing.

 

[Orion]

Ulti's point is that the potential-for-human-life argument against abortion doesn't hold much water. If you think you shouldn't terminate a foetus because it has the potential to become a person/human being, then that argument can easily be extended to semen and ovum, which die automatically, even if one doesn't masturbate (in the male case). Your objection is to a matter of degree, which is something we basically all have to acknowledge unless we want to hold untenable positions. Sperm/ovum, zygotes, foetuses, babies and adults are not all equivalent in moral considerations.

No one's arguing that a foetus isn't an example of human life. The distinction lies in where we draw the line between living thing, being and person when it comes to the topic of abortion.

 

[Wehrmacht]

You were motherdiddlying fortunate enough to have been a fetus, you stupid motherdiddlyer. You also aren't diddlying dirt and decay, but you will be one day. What the diddly do you think you mean, "a lump of cells trying to form a human is not the same as a human"? How do you think every diddlying human came to be?

Terminating a fetus is not the same as killing a person, because they aren't the same thing, much like how if I stepped all over dirt and decay it wouldn't be the same as killing a person either. A fetus has no personality, memories, feelings, or any of the things we generally associate with a person who has actually had time to live, so how would they even be equivalent? It's a bit contentious where you should draw the line, since newborn infants don't have most of those things, but we still consider killing them morally wrong (and I would agree). This is why I think abortions should ideally be performed very early into the pregnancy because at that point the thing in question doesn't really resemble a human being much.

Yes, if you abort a fetus you did prevent a person from eventually forming. The entire point is that there might be good reason to do so in certain situations.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

Terminating a fetus is not the same as killing a person, because they aren't the same thing, much like how if I stepped all over dirt and decay it wouldn't be the same as killing a person either. A fetus has no personality, memories, feelings, or any of the things we generally associate with a person who has actually had time to live, so how would they even be equivalent?

Well, then, what this person did is not an issue, they don't have any memories that are substantial as they emerge from the womb, so why is it so bad he clipped their spine?
It is difficult to define what is and isn't okay to terminate.

Most people agree that an Embryo is okay to terminate, it doesn't resemble a human at all:

However, after that becomes harder to define. Around week 19 we have a heart beat, but that is still legal in most places. Week 27 we have the nervous system, and we're still legal, if not a bit over it. So, let's back track a bit. Week 16 is seems like a good place to start. This barely resembles a human, 6 inches long (generally), moving very little, bones that are starting to develop.
Week 16:

Small, but, some will consider that human.

It is a hard line to define what is human and what isn't. While some things are "obviously" not human such as the embryo or the fetus at 8 weeks, as the fetus develops it becomes more arbitrary what we call human. It is in fact [biologically] a living being the entire time. It is just where that stopping point for abortion is that I'm unsure of. I am clearly pro-choice, and probably a bit callous as I'd say it is okay to abort until the nervous system kicks in but to simply say it isn't a "human" until it shoots out of the vagina is just ridiculous.


This website gives a good overview of the prenatal development week-by-week with some images. It appears to be mostly accurate:
http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-growing-baby-weeks-2-13
http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-growing-baby-weeks-14-27
http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-growing-baby-weeks-28-40

 

[Wehrmacht]

Well, then, what this person did is not an issue, they don't have any memories that are substantial as they emerge from the womb, so why is it so bad he clipped their spine?

I was just denoting that there's generally a big difference between an embryo that doesn't really resemble a human at some point and a grown person. As I said before I don't believe that abortions should really be performed after a certain point (ideally they should be done very early into the pregnancy), because then the line between infanticide and abortion becomes blurry. Some children are also born prematurely so that further complicates the issue.

 

[Nayru's Love]

Of all the abortion topics out there, I thought it'd be this one where both pro-life and pro-choice sides would actually agree on something.

Whyyyyyy

 

[Wehrmacht]

Of all the abortion topics out there, I thought it'd be this one where both pro-life and pro-choice sides would actually agree on something.

Whyyyyyy

It is. People generally agree the guy's a rotten crook and should be locked up, that hasn't really been a point of contention.

 

[Nayru's Love]

It is. People generally agree the guy's a rotten crook and should be locked up, that hasn't really been a point of contention.

I'm more referring to how a topic that didn't seem to focus on the morality of abortions in general ended up becoming exactly that. I'm probably just being a bitch, but I'm sure we can all agree that that song's been overplayed.

 

[Wehrmacht]

I'm more referring to how a topic that didn't seem to focus on the morality of abortions in general ended up becoming exactly that.

Unfortunately it's kind of unavoidable. Someone would eventually bring this incident up as a talking point for that.

 

[Nyangoro]

And this is why watching pro-life/pro-choice debates are so frustrating.

It's like watching a bunch of people fail to realize just how arbitrary their distinctions are (and yes, on a moral level, it's pretty fucking arbitrary), and then getting in a pissing match because the other side doesn't hold said arbitrary standards.

Then again, I guess that's just how morality debates go in general. Everyone's okay with something as long as it doesn't go further than their own personal cutoff point. And you can try to argue that "it's not about morals, it's about choice," but when you get right down to it, what's being decided is what society as a whole finds morally acceptable. After all, as we've clearly seen, most people in this thread (pro-choice and pro-life), have a problem with the choice after it's progressed this far.

 

[Wehrmacht]

Then again, I guess that's just how morality debates go in general. Everyone's okay with something as long as it doesn't go further than their own personal cutoff point. sn't necessarily ground to prevent other people from doing it.

Morality in general is kind of arbitrary, yes.

 

[Trag]

Ulti's point is that the potential-for-human-life argument against abortion doesn't hold much water. If you think you shouldn't terminate a foetus because it has the potential to become a person/human being, then that argument can easily be extended to semen and ovum, which die automatically, even if one doesn't masturbate (in the male case). Your objection is to a matter of degree, which is something we basically all have to acknowledge unless we want to hold untenable positions. Sperm/ovum, zygotes, foetuses, babies and adults are not all equivalent in moral considerations.

No one's arguing that a foetus isn't an example of human life. The distinction lies in where we draw the line between living thing, being and person when it comes to the topic of abortion.

Comparing the act of pleasuring yourself on your own to conception is just a grotesque misunderstanding of how biology works and it's offensive to hear that as an argument for being pro-choice. I'm pro-choice myself, but I have an incredibly low tolerance for ignorance when it comes to the subject of terminating lives.

On the topic of Gosnell, that's fucking horrifying. Can't believe that it was able to operate so shadily.

 

[Ulti]

It isn't an argument for pro-choice. Its saying that killing potential life isn't the same as killing a life. As Orion said, extremely clearly.

 

[Evello]

Comparing the act of pleasuring yourself on your own to conception is just a grotesque misunderstanding of how biology works and it's offensive to hear that as an argument for being pro-choice. I'm pro-choice myself, but I have an incredibly low tolerance for ignorance when it comes to the subject of terminating lives.

On the topic of Gosnell, that's diddlying horrifying. Can't believe that it was able to operate so shadily.

I happen to be pro-life, but what Ultima Keyblade and others have been saying does have a purpose, Trag, even though it has been stated rather obtusely. I think everybody here agrees that the fetus is alive (correct me if I'm wrong, pro-choice'ers). The whole debate really basically boils down to deciding at which fairly arbitrary point we set the beginning of person-hood; i.e. the beginning of rights such as life. What the masturbation argument is meant to highlight is that arguing (like many pro-life'ers do) that anything with the potential to become human under the right circumstances deserves rights is an invalid argument, since things like gametes, or even certain other cells, could potentially become a person under the right circumstances. So there has to be an actual point of person-hood; potential is not the deciding factor. The pro-choice view draws the line at the development of certain physiological traits or features. Pro-life tries to trace it back further to genetic traits or features, generally. Either way, it's chemically arbitrary, though certainly not legally arbitrary. And like you said, it is an issue of human life, which is why people get so fired up and, frankly, unreasonable during debates about the topic.

But in the end what I stated above is the main issue of the debate. The two views follow pretty clearly: if the fetus is not a person, then a woman's right to do what she wants with her body is the greatest right at play, so abortion is morally acceptable because a woman can justifiably rid her body of foreign parasites; however, if the fetus is a person, then the woman's right to do what she wants with her body has to go up against the fetus' right to life, a contest most pro-choice supporters believe that the fetus wins, since the woman did consent to having sex knowing there was a (sometimes extremely minute) chance that a fetus could form (NOTE: this only applies in non-rape scenarios; rape is a whole other can of worms).

So while I heartily disagree with abortion, pro-choice people are not that much different than pro-life supporters. There really is only one small difference between the two, and it happens to be a difference that is somewhat arbitrary and hard to argue. These aren't the only views, of course, but they're the ones I've heard most.

And yes, I do think everyone will agree that this doctor is utterly revolting.

 

[Ulti]

Of course a fetus is alive. Alive like any cell in your body. Alive like a bacteria or virus. That doesn't mean any of those things has the same rights as a human. And it certainly doesn't mean they suddenly gain more rights than the woman carrying it.

 

[gotanks]

That was not raw at all. That is so disgusting, I don't even know if I'm going to be able to watch hockey playoffs tonight because of how messed up this is.

 

[ajmrowland]

Killing a baby so late, especially after a botched abortion, by snapping their spines of all things, is disgusting and inhumane. Abortions should ideally be performed very early in the pregnancy. If the mother went as far as delivery, the baby shouldn't be aborted unless there is serious risk of either the mother or the child dying. This case does NOT represent the heart of the pro-choice movement at all.

Amen to that, my man. The world may be over populated but this is just wrong

 

[Johnny Stooge]

The whole debate really basically boils down to deciding at which fairly arbitrary point we set the beginning of person-hood; i.e. the beginning of rights such as life.

The way I see it you have two choices. You either assign personhood at the moment of conception, or at birth.

Personally I think assigning personhood at conception is too socially problematic. Say you trip and fall into your pregnant friend and cause them to miscarry. Congratulations, you've just committed manslaughter and are now going to jail. Or if you're the mother: say you have a drink of alcohol or smoke a cigarette, you've just committed a crime against your unborn child.

I would have absolutely no problem with creating alternative laws to specifically address unborn children (that are not persons). But I don't believe we should be charging people with murder and manslaughter on the behalf of unborn children.

Personhood should be assigned at birth. Natural, C-section, premature, whatever. You become a person when you're born.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Every time you masturbate, you are killing life. You are a terrible person.

"Every time you have your period, you are killing life. You are a terrible person."

If you mean you are letting cells die, sure, your cells die every day from doing everything. Sperm cells would die, masturbation or not. But you haven't created a human with unused sperm.

Equating a fetus with an infant is both a gross biology error and intellectually dishonest. There is a pretty massive difference between an early embryo and an almost fully-formed child, so regardless of your position it's not that sensible to say they are both the same thing.

Why is there a difference in "inhumanity" between the two? Neither of those things are born humans yet; they have "no rights".

I don't see why you pussies see the "humanity" in a late-term pregnancy over one a few weeks earlier. You're basically just drawing a moral line in the sand as you see fit between different stages in pregnancy. One thing has more brain cells or lung cells developed than this one here a few weeks younger, wow, gee whiz, the inhumanity of killing it!

The way I see it you have two choices. You either assign personhood at the moment of conception, or at birth.

Personally I think assigning personhood at conception is too socially problematic. Say you trip and fall into your pregnant friend and cause them to miscarry. Congratulations, you've just committed manslaughter and are now going to jail. Or if you're the mother: say you have a drink of alcohol or smoke a cigarette, you've just committed a crime against your unborn child.

I would have absolutely no problem with creating alternative laws to specifically address unborn children (that are not persons). But I don't believe we should be charging people with murder and manslaughter on the behalf of unborn children.

Personhood should be assigned at birth. Natural, C-section, premature, whatever. You become a person when you're born.

See, this is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

wow did you autists really not see the sarcasm in ulti's post?