Abortion Debate - Minneapolis, MN

and the rest:

"No one in his right mind would countenance my action, and appropriately so, for it was completely unconscionable. And any logic that I would offer to attempt to justify that action would have to be rejected as completely specious. Well, the action recommended to us by the Supreme Court is even less defensible than the action described above. Now imagine the Court to represent the deer hunter. What the court essentially did was this: it looked down into the valley and saw something that gave every indication of being a human person, and then simply pronounced that it was not a human person. And thus open season was declared on children in the womb.

I invited the supposition, above, that there might be real grounds for entertaining doubts about the identity of the child in the womb. Are there, in fact, any grounds for such doubts? There emphatically are not. There are none now. There were none in 1973, and the Court was not a little remiss to have pretended otherwise. There is not an iota of scientific evidence which allows us to conclude that, from the first moment of conception, the individual being who dwells within the body of the mother, who is neither the mother nor the father, is anything other than a human being. And, if a human being, then a human person. That is the elemental fact of the matter. The action of the Court, in denying that fact, was rash to the extreme. But it was also, in the deepest and truest sense, unlawful.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision American society has continued a steady descent into a morass of moral confusion and disorientation. We have grown used to calling black white, and white black. Abortion on demand has become a seemingly permanent part of our way of life. What was once unthinkable is now virtually routine, vying for the kind of acceptableness long accorded to things like baseball and apple pie. We have sealed over our conscience, and hardened our hearts against innocence. But how long can we keep up the show? Abortion is founded upon a monumental lie, and no nation that buys into such a lie can hope to survive for long as a coherent social entity. The truth will eventually and inevitably regain the day, arriving either as a healing, or as an avenging, angel."

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not getting into that debate.
I feel that whatever you call it, whatever it is, embryo, fetus, baby, human, as long as it is inside the woman's body, and living off of her system, it should be her choice.

why exactly, if it is human and innocent, should it be legal to kill him?

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the archaic version... ya know in olden times before we knew what biology was. Why not use the real one from M-W.com ?
"b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception "

1, so what part of biology has told us otherwise?
2, which is more accurate, the primary or secondary definition? hold on... that especially indicates a lack of being limited to that time phrame, which means that they both work for me.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? Abortion is secular. This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Christian Scientists don't believe that medicine should be used... so no taxpayer funding of medical research.
some Wiccan's don't believe you should cut down trees. No government funding of roads, no government buildings, no logging on government land, no military bases where trees are, etc.
MANY religious people don't believe killing someone is right, even in war. That means no taxpayer funding of ANY WAR.
And the most obvious, no taxpayer funded death penalty.
good luck with the doctrine of "no paying for anything with taxes that some religion objects to".

Are you done? because if so, perhaps you could provide some reason why I actually would be wrong?

Dr Life wrote:

Here is the writing of a very famous man on the subject of Roe vs. Wade:
SUPREME BETRAYAL
Author:
D. Q. McInerny, Ph.D.
This year (written April 1998) marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, the decision by which the Supreme Court of the United States of America, throwing justice to the winds, arbitrarily and cruelly deprived a substantial portion of the citizenry of due protection under the law. The citizens in question were the unborn, children in the womb, the most vulnerable part of the population. By this decision those children were left to the mercy of wolves.

You have to be born to be a citizen.

Dr Life wrote:

There were two key elements to the Court’s decision. First, with a gratuitous sweep of the judicial hand, the Court peremptorily negated an entire set of laws, democratically established by the separate states, whose effect was to provide protection for the unborn. Second, the Court in effect declared that the child in the womb is not a person, therefore not a citizen, therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. And thus the most fundamental right of the utterly helpless, the right to life, was left without a corresponding obligation to honor that right on the part of civic society. There was something bitterly ironic in the despoiling of so crucial a right on the part of a nation which from its beginnings has claimed “the right to life” as one of the most sacrosanct of its political principles. The betrayal of principles here ran very deep indeed.
Let us suppose that there were real grounds for doubt concerning the precise identity of a fetus. In such a case, the only rational decision for the Court to have made would have been to decide in accordance with the presumption that the fetus is in fact a human person. If there is the least bit of doubt in so important a question, the question must be decided in favor of the presumption that one is dealing with a human person, for fear of the untold damage that could be done were one to presume otherwise. The basic principle which is applicable here is the same principle we apply when we presume a person to be innocent until he is definitely proven to be guilty. One does not resolve genuine doubt by acting in spite of that doubt.
Imagine this situation. It is deer season and I am a deer hunter, out hunting. I am standing on a knoll in an irregularly wooded area, my .30-.30 rifle in hand, looking down into a valley in which there is a clump of bushes. In that clump of bushes I see something moving around. It is brownish. From my vantage point I cannot clearly make out what it is. It may be a deer. It may be a human being. I am doubtful about whether or not it is a human being. And what do I do? I raise my rifle to shoulder height, snuggle my right cheek against its chilly stock, aim, and fire.
..........to be continued in next post..........

If it were inside my body, deer, human, whatever, it should be my choice.

Dr Life wrote:

<quoted text>why exactly, if it is human and innocent, should it be legal to kill him?

Because he's inside the woman's body. It should be her choice.
I think it should be legal to shoot someone who breaks into my house. And that's just a building. It could turn out later they thought it was their house, and broke into mine by mistake, I would still think my actions were justified.
If there is something inside my body, implant, tumor, worm, fetus, baby, human, anything, I feel it's my right to have it removed if I so choose.

Dr Life wrote:

<quoted text>Are you done? because if so, perhaps you could provide some reason why I actually would be wrong?

I did, i provided many reasons why you are wrong. Free Exercise of religion does NOT mean that the government can not spend tax dollars on something that you have a religious objection to.

I gave you list of things that people have a religious objection to that the government spends tax dollars on every day. Are you saying the government also can't spend tax dollars on those things... or just your thing cause you're special?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
If it were inside my body, deer, human, whatever, it should be my choice.

So it should be legal for you to kill a man during sex?:)

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
So it should be legal for you to kill a man during sex?:)

So, you're fully inside a woman, as a dependen,t during sex ? Geez, still a REALLY dull tool, boy.

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
So it should be legal for you to kill a man during sex?:)

No. He's not living off of my system.:)

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
No. He's not living off of my system.:)

But you would be providing "nourishment" of sorts!

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
But you would be providing "nourishment" of sorts!

Love the pervert "religious right", who wants to judge AND go too far.

About 8 Hours to go until the shackles go back on at the Institutuion

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
But you would be providing "nourishment" of sorts!

Actually, he'd be providing me a protein drink.

Trolls wrote:

<quoted text>
So it should be legal for you to kill a man during sex?:)

No, but are you saying that once you agree to sex you can't tell him to get out? You certainly can tell him to get out becuase it's your body right?

As is currently legal.

Abortion should be a decision a woman makes with her doctor. period.

Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell charged with murdering 7 infants with scissors

BY LAUREN JOHNSTON

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

A doctor who ran a "house of horrors" abortion clinic has been charged in the deaths of one woman and seven babies who prosecutors say were born alive then killed with scissors.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who treated mostly poor and immigrant women, was arrested Wednesday along with nine employees from his West Philadelphia Women's Medical Society - among them a high school student who performed medial treatments with no license.

Gosnell, 69, raked in millions over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions, prosecutors said.

Officials described his squalid clinic like something out of a horror movie.

"There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

Gosnell has been named in at least 10 malpractice suits, but Williams said state regulators ignored complaints about his clinic and that the office hadn't been inspected since 1993.

Patients endured barbaric procedures at the hands of the twisted doctor, officials charged.

Gosnell "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," Williams said.

Police stumbled into the grisly scene at Gosnell's clinic last year after responding to a drug-related complaint.

His medical license was then suspended and the clinic shut down.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-19/ne...

April wrote:

Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell charged with murdering 7 infants with scissors

BY LAUREN JOHNSTON

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

A doctor who ran a "house of horrors" abortion clinic has been charged in the deaths of one woman and seven babies who prosecutors say were born alive then killed with scissors.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who treated mostly poor and immigrant women, was arrested Wednesday along with nine employees from his West Philadelphia Women's Medical Society - among them a high school student who performed medial treatments with no license.

Gosnell, 69, raked in millions over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions, prosecutors said.

Officials described his squalid clinic like something out of a horror movie.

"There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

Gosnell has been named in at least 10 malpractice suits, but Williams said state regulators ignored complaints about his clinic and that the office hadn't been inspected since 1993.

Patients endured barbaric procedures at the hands of the twisted doctor, officials charged.

Gosnell "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," Williams said.

Police stumbled into the grisly scene at Gosnell's clinic last year after responding to a drug-related complaint.

His medical license was then suspended and the clinic shut down.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-19/ne...

okay...

April wrote:

Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell charged with murdering 7 infants with scissors
BY LAUREN JOHNSTON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A doctor who ran a "house of horrors" abortion clinic has been charged in the deaths of one woman and seven babies who prosecutors say were born alive then killed with scissors.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who treated mostly poor and immigrant women, was arrested Wednesday along with nine employees from his West Philadelphia Women's Medical Society - among them a high school student who performed medial treatments with no license.
Gosnell, 69, raked in millions over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions, prosecutors said.
Officials described his squalid clinic like something out of a horror movie.
"There were bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."
Gosnell has been named in at least 10 malpractice suits, but Williams said state regulators ignored complaints about his clinic and that the office hadn't been inspected since 1993.
Patients endured barbaric procedures at the hands of the twisted doctor, officials charged.
Gosnell "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," Williams said.
Police stumbled into the grisly scene at Gosnell's clinic last year after responding to a drug-related complaint.
His medical license was then suspended and the clinic shut down.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-19/ne...

With the swing of bat, John I. Sanders ended another man’s life, witnesses said.

In less than an hour Tuesday, a jury found Sanders guilty of murder, ending his freedom.

Stark County Common Pleas Judge Lee Sinclair sentenced Sanders, 37, of Canton, to 15 years to life in prison for the murder, plus another 10 years as a repeat violent offender. That means he won’t be eligible for parole until he serves at least 25 years in prison.

Witnesses said Sanders struck Mark Mason, of Canton, in the head with a baseball bat on Aug. 24.

The assault was preceded by a late-night argument among Sander’s neighbors at The Ranch, an apartment building in the 700 block of Fifth Street NE, according to testimony.

Mason, 26, died of his injuries in December.

http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x720910648/Cant...

I can post articles where perfectly legal things (baseball bats) were used incorrectly to murder someone too... there are tons of stories about murder with baseball bats... OUTLAW BASEBALL NOW!.