An awful murderer

May 15th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

An American doctor may face the death penalty after being convicted of the gruesome killings of three babies shortly after their births in his filthy backstreet “ mill”.

Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of the first-degree of three newborn children, as well as the manslaughter of one of his patients.

A jury in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania also convicted the 72-year-old of carrying out 21 abortions later than the state’s limit of 24 weeks into pregnancy.

The court heard how Gosnell and his unqualified staff persuaded vulnerable women seeking abortions to give birth to live fetuses, whom they killed by “snipping” spinal cords.

What an awful man, and horrible case. Absolutely horrific.

Tags: ,

54 Responses to “An awful murderer”

  1. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Cue: another tedious abortion debate

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    So it’s OK to do it while in the womb ,but not outside.Doesn’t make sense.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/had_he_just_butchered_the_babies_in_the_womb_instead/

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t even be news in India or China.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Hideous, sensational case, and almost complete media silence over the whole thing. Might endanger the whole abortion narrative you see. Babies still moving and breathing after being shoved down the toilet, just another abortion, women’s right to chose you know, far more important than babies lives.

    Anyone want to claim that this is just a one off, or is he just the fall guy who finally got caught ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    You’re dreaming if you think this is the only case of its type – he’s the one who got caught.

    Until it is recognised that abortion is simply legalised murder of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society, these abuses will continue, and the abuse of children will continue, despite all the handwringing of the bleeding heart liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jaffa (94 comments) says:

    “giving birth to a live fetuses” is actually called a BABY!
    Killing it is actually called MURDER!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    I am lead to believe that he won’t face the death penalty. The Government has apparently agreed not to seek it in exchange for his agreeing not to appeal the conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    That same thing would have been legal a few seconds before. Really, all those wailings of those supporting abortion: these women came their to kill the kid right? Clearly the kid was able to survive outside of the womb, not a part of the women, so why is partial birth abortion ok, and a few seconds later it isn’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Louis Houlbrooke (9 comments) says:

    I agree that it’s silly to think abortion suddenly becomes ethical as soon as a fetus leaves the body. Which is why I support after-birth abortion in some cases. A newborn baby is a very different being from an adult. This man should not be charged with three murders.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Simon (724 comments) says:

    Tim Stanley at uk telegraph has good summary.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100216703/kermit-gosnell-found-guilty-in-abortion-trial-a-victory-for-human-rights-that-will-shame-many/

    TS nails it mostly except on MSM where if its a crime involves the lefts cherished belief system it gets ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    Berend: No not legal a few seconds earlier. I regard third trimester abortions as terrible and should only occur where the mother may die without it.

    I regard the first trimester as the logical point at which abortion should be legal. There is no “perfect” point. Some of course say it should be conception. But should the morning after pill be illegal then? Should contraception be banned?

    Generally I think first trimester is a decision for the mother, once they know they are pregnant. 2nd trimester should be rare and in exeptional circumstances only and 3rd trimester should be only to save a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mandk (993 comments) says:

    DPF, can’t help thinking you are being more than a touch hypocritical here, given your views about killing pre-born babies.

    [DPF: Only to those who can't tell the difference, a demented minoroty]

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    pollywog (1,072) Says:
    May 15th, 2013 at 11:11 am
    Wouldn’t even be news in India or China.

    It barely made the news in the Western world.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Mark Thomson (81 comments) says:

    Louis, your attempt at finding some moral consistency is commendable. Allow me to pose some questions…

    (i) Is it your view that being sufficiently like an adult is the criterion we should use to assess a individual’s right to be protected from forced death?
    (ii) In practice how would you determine whether an individual meets or does not meet your criterion? Do you believe that such a determination is actually possible?
    (iii) Do you believe that a specific decision that might be made with respect to any particular individual would rest on some fundamental moral absolute, or on simply the informed opinion of one or more people tasked with exercising their own judgment in the matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ashley Schaeffer (487 comments) says:

    This is just the logical end of the slippery slope is it not?
    Gosnell should be put to death with a pair of his own scissors.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mandk (993 comments) says:

    [DPF: Only to those who can't tell the difference, a demented minoroty]

    I’d rather be thought of as mad than as a cheerleader for the pro-death camp.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I was worried that lunatic elements of the abortion debate would hijack this trial for political points. So it is a relief to see the proper verdict returned.

    By rights, Kermit should now be executed by severing the base of the spinal cord with a pair of scissors… but fortunately (for him) most western societies are more civilised than their worst inhabitants.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    I’d rather be thought of as mad than as a cheerleader for the pro-death camp.

    The people who don’t really know what abortion is, but are certain they don’t like it and it shouldn’t be allowed, are always pretty quick to put their hands up and identify themselves online.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    This guy was a criminal….and what you will have a lot more of if abortion was illegal…..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    This just shows that yet again the pro abortionists are still on the backfoot since Roe v’s Wade. – and this is the only reason that the MSM haven’t reported on this case – abortion has failed society and women!

    “Three quarters of the people who are effected by abortion are women, half of the babies and all the mothers.” – Mother Theresa.

    Abortion is not equality – but emnity!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    It is the mothers baby and the mothers choice. If she wants it killed at birth, that is her business. The infant does not know anyone else and the mother is the whole world at that point in time. The very last thing this world needs is even more unwanted kids.

    But please carry on with the pantomime of outrage. I do note that some of you minimise the deaths of thousands of innocent kids (who are wanted by their parents) on the basis it is their fault for being born into an Islamic country. Yet a few dead Western sprogs brings floods of crocodile tears.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mandk (993 comments) says:

    RRM,
    Are you saying that you really know what abortion is, but pro-life people don’t?
    Would you care to share your credentials on this?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    So to show how much society objects to killing unwanted infants, we are going to kill a Dr ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. pmofnz (22 comments) says:

    “An awful murderer”

    So there’s ‘good’ murderers?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Gengis Khan?

    The Romans?

    The Communists?

    The Nazis?

    Armies at war?

    Mao?

    Pol Pot?

    Idi Amin?

    Nup – it’s the feminists – they hold the title!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Louis Houlbrooke (9 comments) says:

    Mark, here are my answers:

    (i) Is it your view that being sufficiently like an adult is the criterion we should use to assess a individual’s right to be protected from forced death?

    More or less, but I’d use the term ‘person’ rather than ‘adult’. Even young children can, in my view, qualify as persons. However fetuses, newborns, and humans in vegetative states do not.

    (ii) In practice how would you determine whether an individual meets or does not meet your criterion? Do you believe that such a determination is actually possible?

    Do I think it’s possible for us to draw a line and say ‘baby becomes person at age X’? Of course not. But we can make comparisons and say ‘this being is more of a person/deserves greater rights than that being’. We already do this every day, in fact, when we eat meat. By eating bacon we acknowledge that pigs do not meet the criterion for having natural rights.

    As for how I’d judge personhood, there are a few different factors which in my view separate persons from non-persons. The extent to which a being can feel pain, the ability of a being to hold memories, make plans and have ambitions, the ability of a being to form relationships, the ability of a being to make decisions independent of instinct, and perhaps above all, the ‘self-awareness’ of a being – its capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize itself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals. It is these factors that separate animals from adult humans and thus justify the slaughter and consumption of animals.

    (iii) Do you believe that a specific decision that might be made with respect to any particular individual would rest on some fundamental moral absolute, or on simply the informed opinion of one or more people tasked with exercising their own judgment in the matter?

    I fear that there is no moral absolute which would be acceptable to the population and hence we are doomed to accept compromise. I think that in theory all judgments should be based on moral absolutes, but the nature of lawmaking precludes this. Ultimately our laws will be based on a sense of compromise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “….So to show how much society objects to killing unwanted infants, we are going to kill a Dr ?…”

    Of course.

    You are selling life out cheap when you don’t kill those who kill. The IMPORTANCE of the Sanctity of Life is THEN upheld if you kill them as it deters others.

    Just look at what’s happening Kea – abortion and in some places euthanasia, are now ‘rights’. Are you saying that people who make these decisions value the sanctity of life – of course they don’t – as some women kill so they can work more at the BNZ, others so that they can go on an already planned holiday to Bali witht their girlfriends.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Harriet –

    You make a lot of hay out of that word “kill”.

    Do condoms “kill” in your opinion?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Still the only thing separating what is murder from what is abortion is if the baby is wanted or not.
    This is made quite clear in the recent case of the Cleveland man who had abducted those three women, had gotten them pregnant, and then had caused them to abort by kicking their stomachs. He is being charged with their murder.

    Ariel Castro, the Cleveland man police say kidnapped and held captive three women for a decade, could also face aggravated murder charges for allegedly terminating the pregnancies of his captives.

    Based on the facts of the case, authorities said they intend to seek charges not only for the sexual assaults endured by the victims, but also “each act of aggravated murder he committed by terminating pregnancies.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/09/cleveland-judge-sets-ariel-castro-bail-at-2-million-per-charge-at-arraignment/

    So again, it’s only called murder if it wasn’t the mother who wanted them killed. I’d speculate that if she’d purposely fallen or struck herself to cause the abortion, it probably would have been OK?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Babies still moving and breathing after being shoved down the toilet, just another abortion, women’s right to chose you know, far more important than babies lives.

    Anyone want to claim that this is just a one off, or is he just the fall guy who finally got caught ?

    Ed Snack –

    I think you’re smart enough to know that what Gosnall was doing is nothing at all like the kind of abortion that is legal in the USA…?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    It is interesting that one of the journalists reporting on the Gosnell case started off pro-choice, by by the end of it was against abortion.

    A pro-choice reporter who has been present in the courtroom listening to testimony in the Gosnell trial has changed his mind on abortion, according to one of his fellow reporters.
    “That’s the power of the Gosnell trial,” reporter JD Mullane told former Gov. Mike Huckabee during a recent appearance on the Huckabee Show.
    Mullane, a pro-life columnist for the Bucks County Courier Times, has been present in the courtroom from the very beginning of the Gosnell trial. His regularly-updated Twitter account has become the go-to place for breaking updates on the case.
    “There is one journalist sitting in that courtroom who writes for a local publication who has told me that he is very liberal, very pro-choice,” Mullane told Huckabee, “but after sitting through the testimony in the Gosnell trial, he’s reconsidered. He’s changed his mind.”
    Testimony in the case has featured former employees of Gosnell describing how “hundreds” of babies, many of them past viability, were born alive in the clinic only to have their spinal cords snipped by Gosnell or one of his assistants. Employees described babies moving, breathing, screaming, and even “swimming” in a toilet after being born alive.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/pro-choice-reporter-covering-gosnell-trial-changes-mind-on-abortion.html

    So, Gosnell got charged with the murder of three, but there are probably hundreds he killed in the same manner.
    Disgusting.

    By the way, good to see that the Herald has finally reported on this HUGE case.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. berend (1,709 comments) says:

    DPF: I regard the first trimester as the logical point at which abortion should be legal.

    That’s 9.5 weeks. I don’t see any advocate of abortion calling for this, so if you are for abortion, you’re effectively agreeing to a 24 week term (that’s well into term 3). Such a limit is not on the horizon either.

    If you really believed this, the logical thing would be to call for a ban on abortion instead. Because either you have no abortion or a 24 week term. If you rather have a 24 week term than no abortion, a 24 week term is what you will get.

    DPF: There is no “perfect” point. Some of course say it should be conception. But should the morning after pill be illegal then? Should contraception be banned?

    Morning after pill should be illegal. Some forms of contraception are not abortive, so no need to ban or regulate them. Although a health warning that injecting the body or brain with chemicals may have severe side effects.

    But the real question for you to answer David is: when does a human become human? If you put that past conception, it’s open season. And we only argue about when we can kill. Not if we can kill.

    [DPF: A human becomes human when they can survive outside their mother's body.]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..You make a lot of hay out of that word “kill”…..Do condoms “kill” in your opinion?…’

    Lots of teenage girls say that they don’t want to have kids – fine- let’s then offer to cut out their wombs!

    Yep – they fucken kill alright – even after they’ve had all the kids that they ‘want’.

    Condom failure is not the cause of the entire abortion rate. Neither most of it. Or 20% of it. Lazyness with contraception is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Harriet –

    I’m not talking about condoms breaking, or condoms being “forgotten”

    I’m asking: When a condom works properly, does its job, and catches a load of semen thereby preventing sperm cell from meeting egg cell and conceiving a child – is that murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that folk like Kea can look at the photo of the baby with the severed spinal cord and the jars of baby feet and find it completely morally acceptable. Words fail me on that one.

    Most countries do not have as liberal abortion laws as the US, and that is all down to Roe v Wade. Fortunately, not even Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the most liberal Supreme Court Justice, seems prepared to defend it any more.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    It’s interesting that folk like Kea can look at the photo of the baby with the severed spinal cord and the jars of baby feet and find it completely morally acceptable. Words fail me on that one.

    Truth fails you too by the looks of it.

    I have seen dead babies, babies in jars and other stuff. It is not nice and I wish these things did not happen.

    However, the product of unwanted births is not very nice either and has far more effect on wider society. I consider abortion ok, not because I am unfeeling, but because I am. Few people can see past their emotive maternal responses enough to see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    This is abortion. A crime against humanity. It must be ended.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. James Stephenson (2,180 comments) says:

    That’s 9.5 weeks.

    Nope. First trimester is 13 weeks (one *third* of 39/40 weeks average pregnancy length). I’m in full agreement with DPF, that’s the point at which expectant couples generally announce a pregnancy, because the major risk of a mother’s body “aborting” the pregnacy is passed, seems to be a logical place to put the limit on the mother making a conscious choice to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    LiberalismIsASin , but it is not a crime.

    I suspect you are not driven by a desire to protect “innocent little babies … blah blah blah” but by a desire to impose your adobted christian views on others. No one is imposing abortion on those who do not want it. You stick to your beliefs but do not impose them on others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ciaron (1,434 comments) says:

    No one is imposing abortion on those who do not want it.

    LMGTFY

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    [DPF: A human becomes human when they can survive outside their mother's body.]

    WTF?
    Really?
    If it isn’t human then what is it? It’s not an animal and it’s not a vegetable. Take the DNA – it’s human.
    And if you’re right then how can this Cleveland man get charged with murder for killing unborn babies? You don’t get charged with homicide for killing an animal (usually) or a vegetable.

    Nope, it’s human alright.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    Kea: you suspect wrong.

    And it is a crime against humanity and one day will be recognized as such. Future generations will look back on us and marvel that we were capable of such evil. They will think of us the way we think of ancient cultures that performed rituals of human sacrifice. Just because our morally corrupt government thinks something is fine means nothing to me. There have been governments that once believed slavery was fine, many still do.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Fletch –

    My wife once spontaneously aborted a pregnancy at what would have been about 5 weeks’ gestation. It manifested as an unusually messy period with a bit more clotted blood in it than usual.

    We knew what it probably was, and we mourned the fact there might have been a baby if it had continued…. but it was certainly not the same as the death of a person.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    LiberalismIsASin , I doubt it will ever be viewed that way.

    A lot of this reaction is about ego. Many people think the best thing they have done with their life was to make a baby. This reminds them it may not be such a feat after all and they don’t like it.

    It is less of a “crime against humanity” than the outcomes we often see for unwanted kids, some of whom die from their mistreatment much later in life. Some of whom cause untold suffering to others. That worries me more than a aborted fetus.

    “Just because our morally corrupt government thinks something is fine means nothing to me.”

    Good on you for that. Abortion is not compulsory, so no conflict there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    RRM, sorry to hear that.

    But in regard to aborting a baby, it still doesn’t make sense to me that the criteria for judging whether a baby is “human” is whether it is inside the womb or out – this so-called “viability”, or whether it can survive on its own without help.

    Inside the womb, the baby depends on its mother for sustenance but it is the same after it is born. The mother still nourishes the infant from her own body (notwithstanding baby formula these days). She feeds and changes her baby, puts it down for sleep, and all the other things parents have to do.

    The baby is still reliant on the mother for everything and the mothers body for food. It relies on her after it is born. Maybe even more than when it was in her womb.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    RRM, he’s been found guilty of 1st degree murder, so I would guess that even blind Freddy might have an inkling that what he was doing wasn’t lawful. But late term abortions, partial birth abortions, they fall quite clearly into the tolerated category even if illegal by the letter of most laws. The original RvW decision tied the right to the timing but that has evolved to the general rule that abortion can be banned (by the States as the laws are State based) from the time of viability outside the womb, defined around 28 weeks although it could be argued that 24 is also applicable.

    In practice though, as Gosnell’s quite long career shows (he’s been an abortion provider since about 1972 !), abortions right up until the 42-43 rd week are tolerated in that no effort is made to enforce any ban. However I’m not sure what the local law says in Philadelphia.

    Note however that the raids that led to his arrest were initially based around allegations of careless drug over prescribing, and the investigation was initially based around the DEA. His clinic had not been inspected since 1993 although he was reported for illegally procuring the abortion of a 30 week fetus back then. No follow up. He was also cited for forcing a 15 year old to have an abortion against her will, and for also doing so to another of the same age without parental consent, for which he paid damages. As an aside, I’ve seen reports that NO abortion clinics in Pennsylvania have been inspected for close to 15 years, apparently the official view was that inspections increased the barriers to women seeking abortions.

    So I assert that late term abortion may be technically illegal in the USA, but it is routinely carried out and no significant effort is made to police what restrictions there are.

    And I note we have an infanticide fan commenting, Louis would like to judge if a child meets her standards before killing it. How old would you guess a baby would have to be before you would let it live Louis ? 3 months, 6 months, maybe 1 year ? By your criteria if it was severely enough disabled it could be at any time. It sounds…a bit arbitrary to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Yes Fletch that’s true, but I think the issue is whether a person is killed or not.

    A condom stops the sperm and the egg from meeting, I don’t think that’s murder, any more than sexual abstinence is.

    The emergency contraceptive pill usually comes after egg & sperm have met, but before implantation, so there is no person, only a single celled organism that had about a 10% chance of growing and developing into a person. I don’t think that’s murder either. It could well become a person, but as yet it isn’t one.

    Beyond the point of viability, it is obvious by inspection that you have a little person who can kick you, and if allowed to be born it can breathe, open its eyes and look at you etc. Therefore 3rd trimester / late term / partial birth abortion is clearly killing someone and it is clearly wrong.

    It is everything after the emergency contraceptive pill but before the 3rd trimester that is the grey area. I wouldn’t abort my baby at this stage but I don’t think it’s obvious that it should be illegal because I don’t think it’s clear that to do so is to kill a person.

    IMHO the only justification for abortion after 2nd trimester is in instances of euthanasia… it seems extremely perverse to me to insist that a baby be born with the kind of deformities that will cause it a brief period of suffering and then inevitable death, solely to satisfy some matter of principle of ours about whether abortion is right or wrong. A little baby shouldn’t suffer for my principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    With so many couples desperate to adopt a baby, I doubt any mother would allow a healthy normal baby to be killed after birth. I suspect there is more to the story.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Fletch (4,287) Says:
    May 15th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    RRM, sorry to hear that.

    But in regard to aborting a baby, it still doesn’t make sense to me that the criteria for judging whether a baby is “human” is whether it is inside the womb or out – this so-called “viability”, or whether it can survive on its own without help.

    Inside the womb, the baby depends on its mother for sustenance but it is the same after it is born. The mother still nourishes the infant from her own body (notwithstanding baby formula these days). She feeds and changes her baby, puts it down for sleep, and all the other things parents have to do.

    The baby is still reliant on the mother for everything and the mothers body for food. It relies on her after it is born. Maybe even more than when it was in her womb.

    A lamb relies on its mother for everything and the mother’s body for food. Have you ever eaten lamb before Fletch? Perhaps even sacrificed one to your homophobic God in your weirdo church? Because if you have, then you are no better than an abortionist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Kea, the point is that the mother doesn’t know.
    She has gone in for an abortion and isn’t told the baby is born alive.
    The whole purpose of an abortion is to kill it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    Jimmy, a lamb is an animal.
    Would you eat a human?
    No?

    Then stop making stupid arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Piffle. There’s nothing sacred about Homo sapiens, just another animal on Earth; destroying it.

    I don’t want people killing my children (or me, at the moment). If they want to kill their own children they may need help; they certainly don’t need condemnation.

    Killing a foetus or infant is gruesome. Harden up.

    Yes, harden up: somehow find the strength to kill an adult trying to help desperate people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Just got back home after a long day and reflecting on what Louis Houlbrooke said at 1.15 what we see there is the sort of argument that the Nazis used to justify killing Jews, the handicapped, gypsies etc. They’re not really persons, so they have no right to life.
    Utterly repugnant.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Ugh. This case makes me shudder. How horrific.

    [DPF: A human becomes human when they can survive outside their mother's body.]

    Well firstly when you think about it there’s no logical reason why the ability to live outside the human body determines whether someone is human, but there are also compelling reasons to reject this criterion. I mean, the development of technology means that the age at which someone can survive outside the womb continues to get earlier and earlier. In this sense, it’s an arbitrary point, dependent on the time the mother is living in (hardly a good, objective starting point.) But not only that, it is also dependent on which society the mother is living in at any given time and the availability of technology in a given society. I mean, if the mother gets pregnant in the US and her baby is human there and then she flies off to Congo for a couple of days, does the unborn temporarily cease to be human? What about if she then flies back to the US?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote