Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Ayatollah Buggeri

American Late Term Abortion Doctor Convicted Of Murder

Recommended Posts

A charming individual in Philadelphia who basically delivered slightly premature babies alive and then murdered them, has been convicted of murdering them.

Admittedly, this is a difficult story to cover on any news channel, paper or website because the details of what he actually did are so horrifying that any child or individual from a sheltered background could probably suffer significant psychological harm from being told of them. I consider myself reasonably tough when it comes to these things: I was once on a station platform when someone jumped in front of an express train, and saw the aftermath, and was also at a conference when (unedited, unbroadcast) footage of Ratko Mladic's goons crucifying and burning alive a seven year-old boy in front of his parents was screened. Neither experience caused me real shock beyond a few minutes. Reading about this, however, made me quite simply unable to eat breakfast this morning.

But that having been said, I am struck by the extent to which the American media is downplaying the story, burying it on inside pages (even Fox News) - here is the LA TImes reprinting of some press agency copy, for example, and it isn't even linked from the site's front page. In our media, I quite simply haven't seen it covered at all. Other comparable stories are: whenever there's a public shooting incident, even if it only causes injuries, The Guardian, Independent and BBC in particular are all over it. Is the feminist lobby really so powerful that any discussion of the negative effects of abortion is now quite simply taboo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Reading about this, however, made me quite simply unable to eat breakfast this morning.

Horrible story I agree, but do you think you'd feel any better witnessing a legally sanctioned abortion? (I have no strong feelings either way on the moral issues of such BTW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In our media, I quite simply haven't seen it covered at all.

I think it's about time UK media stops obsessing with US stories, it's not like the UK is a US colony or is it? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of what is regarded as normal medical practice is brutal, especially when babies are involved. I guess when emergencies occur, and a choice has to be made between mother or baby, there's only one winner. That attitude is carried over to elective procedures like (many) abortions are.

I find the notion of abortion after the point of viability without a compelling medical reason to be repulsive.

Not for the queasy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter Block is on a youtube video discussing the libertarian position on abortion, saying that 50 years ago, libertarians would be very much 'pro-choice', as the time limit for premature babies would be rather short, as time goes on an viability improves, libertarian doctrine would require libertarians to become more 'pro-life' as viability is extended.

Food for thought, suggesting that if you want a truly rights based approach to abortion, the actual pragmatic response can change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's about time UK media stops obsessing with US stories, it's not like the UK is a US colony or is it? :blink:

True, youd think the BBC would obsess more on Europe, being the EU sycophants they are. I guess the news coming out of there recently isnt so EU-positive...

If we must have a union, one based on language would seem far more logical than one based on a few warring countries that have a mutual dislike for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Plenty of what is regarded as normal medical practice is brutal,

True. Even the most basic incision is pretty horrible. I wonder how many here could do it if called upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an incredibly complex and emotive subject that is evolving all the time.

Babies born very early are "viable" with modern medicine but often don't have a bright future health-wise. Lots and lots of mental and physical health issues are associated with early birth.

My lass made valiant efforts to emerge at 27 weeks, it was only modern drugs that kept her in the womb to nearly full term. To say I was scared doesn't even begin to express how I felt, and it wasn't only fear of losing her.

A question for any of the men on this thread : If you'd had a drunken one-night stand with someone who you later discovered was a drug user and general n'er-do-well, and she contacted you more than 5 months later saying she was pregnant, what would you want to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Even the most basic incision is pretty horrible. I wonder how many here could do it if called upon?

I am not particularly bothered by seeing surgery etc on tv. In real life i think i would find it interesting for the most part.

However i once saw someone on tv getting liposuction on their ****.

****** that was brutal. Probably because it looked like someone being repeatedly stabbed with a very long knife.

I doubt these people can sit comfy for some time after this procedure .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the feminist lobby really so powerful that any discussion of the negative effects of abortion is now quite simply taboo?

This is a bit of a leap of logic, TBH. I'm emphatically Pro-Choice, but that's absolutely not the same thing as thinking that abortions are a good thing- they are not. I don't really have a lot of friends (I'm generally quite shy, and in any case I would rather have a few close friends than spread myself thin) but even I know someone who had an abortion, and it was a horrible situation, though I am convinced it was the right thing for her to do given her situation at the time.

Yes, this is a ghastly case, though if we're comparing feelings of revulsion, I was far more shaken up by the reports of the Syrian rebel fighter cutting out the hearts of his dead enemies and munching them, also front page on the BBC today. I guess we all have our own individual trigger points of what upsets us and what we can shrug off- just as I was finishing work today, a road about a quarter of a mile away from my bus garage was closed by an accident, so after I'd been relieved I strolled down to see if I could find out what was going on, if only to report to my colleagues the likely length of the road closure. I got down there to see 5 cop cars, 5 cop bikes, a couple of ambulances, and literally about 40 coppers and PCSOs, and the road taped off, with two of our buses stuck inside the taped area. Walked a bit closer, and saw a lorry in the middle of the road, and in front of it. a plastic tarpaulin covering something roughly person sized (it was raining). I shuddered briefly, saw that there was nothing I could do (someone senior to me from my company was already in attendance), and wandered up the road to McDonalds for some chips.

Anyway, back OT: I really don't think there's any conspiracy to suppress this news, because TBH anybody who thinks it's acceptable to 'abort' near-term babies by delivering them and then killing them is, realistically, a psycopath. Nobody's trying to make a case for it.

And then you've got tragic cases like this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/19/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy-inquest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter Block is on a youtube video discussing the libertarian position on abortion, saying that 50 years ago, libertarians would be very much 'pro-choice', as the time limit for premature babies would be rather short, as time goes on an viability improves, libertarian doctrine would require libertarians to become more 'pro-life' as viability is extended.

Food for thought, suggesting that if you want a truly rights based approach to abortion, the actual pragmatic response can change.

Yes absolutely this. I'm actually a little surprised that the limit is 24 weeks in the UK, though since that's roughly the limit of viability even with the wonders of modern medicine, I suppose it's fair enough. TBH I'd take a fairly dim view of a woman who took 5 months to decide she didn't want her baby, unless there were unusual mitigating circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes absolutely this. I'm actually a little surprised that the limit is 24 weeks in the UK, though since that's roughly the limit of viability even with the wonders of modern medicine, I suppose it's fair enough. TBH I'd take a fairly dim view of a woman who took 5 months to decide she didn't want her baby, unless there were unusual mitigating circumstances.

IIRC, there usually are - serious abnormalities, very young mothers, imminent danger to the mother, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit of a leap of logic, TBH. I'm emphatically Pro-Choice, but that's absolutely not the same thing as thinking that abortions are a good thing- they are not. I don't really have a lot of friends (I'm generally quite shy, and in any case I would rather have a few close friends than spread myself thin) but even I know someone who had an abortion, and it was a horrible situation, though I am convinced it was the right thing for her to do given her situation at the time.

Yes, this is a ghastly case, though if we're comparing feelings of revulsion, I was far more shaken up by the reports of the Syrian rebel fighter cutting out the hearts of his dead enemies and munching them, also front page on the BBC today. I guess we all have our own individual trigger points of what upsets us and what we can shrug off- just as I was finishing work today, a road about a quarter of a mile away from my bus garage was closed by an accident, so after I'd been relieved I strolled down to see if I could find out what was going on, if only to report to my colleagues the likely length of the road closure. I got down there to see 5 cop cars, 5 cop bikes, a couple of ambulances, and literally about 40 coppers and PCSOs, and the road taped off, with two of our buses stuck inside the taped area. Walked a bit closer, and saw a lorry in the middle of the road, and in front of it. a plastic tarpaulin covering something roughly person sized (it was raining). I shuddered briefly, saw that there was nothing I could do (someone senior to me from my company was already in attendance), and wandered up the road to McDonalds for some chips.

Anyway, back OT: I really don't think there's any conspiracy to suppress this news, because TBH anybody who thinks it's acceptable to 'abort' near-term babies by delivering them and then killing them is, realistically, a psycopath. Nobody's trying to make a case for it.

And then you've got tragic cases like this:

http://edition.cnn.c...roversy-inquest

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back OT: I really don't think there's any conspiracy to suppress this news, because TBH anybody who thinks it's acceptable to 'abort' near-term babies by delivering them and then killing them is, realistically, a psycopath. Nobody's trying to make a case for it.

Some surprisingly mainstream elements within the 'pro-choice' lobby are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some surprisingly mainstream elements within the 'pro-choice' lobby are.

I am never sure how anyone manages to be so definite about their position on these things. What is noticeable is that no-one ever wants to try and answer the kind of difficult questions that some medical staff around the world have to face every day.

A 25-week baby is struggling for life on the table in front of you, you're a doctor in a 2nd or 3rd world country or even in a remote clinic in the UK, the nearest hospital with full incubator and medical facilities is hours away. Prognosis for this baby if it survives is bloody awful, what are you going to do?

Some will say life is sacred and will try to give the baby whatever life it can get, some will not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some surprisingly mainstream elements within the 'pro-choice' lobby are.

Well, I read the article at work on my phone, and having just got home I've now watched the video. And at no point does the woman explicitly argue, as the article contends, for the right to 'post-birth abortion'. As it's the Weekly Standard, a self-described "Conservative Magazine", I don't think they're an entirely disinterested observer.

She certainly doesn't come across very well, very nervous and rather evasive in fact, but when specifically asked a question about what should be done with a child born alive, she replies "that's a very good question", which I, as someone who's not out to attack her point of view or that of the organization she's lobbying for, would interpret to mean "you have a point". To state that she stood in front of that committee and argued for the 'right to post-birth abortion' is ludicrous, and arguably libelous (certainly on the basis of the 6 minute segment of video that I watched on the Weekly Standard site, which presumably they chose to best illustrate their case).

I certainly agree that a child born alive as a result of a botched abortion should be given every chance to live if they really have a chance to make it (I was going to say if they're 'viable', but I actually find that piece of impersonal medical terminology distasteful, now I've thought about it). But realistically, a baby born at 22-24 weeks has very little chance, and so you've got to consider whether attempting to prolong a life that will 9 times out of 10 end in a (probably unpleasant) death is actually in the interests of that child.

It's an incredibly difficult ethical question. I imagine that in reality it's an incredibly rare situation in any case, the current court case notwithstanding. I would also argue that, (as with, say, the prohibition of recreational drug use) this is a situation in which attempting to put legal obstacles in the way of people doing what they want to do, or which they perceive to be in their best interests, actually increases the likelihood of situations like this, and thus the overall level of harm. As I say, I'm not in favour of abortions, and in an ideal world no woman would ever need to have one- contraception would be 100% reliable, people would never make silly choices while drunk and horny, or (as I suspect the Religious Right would prefer) sex just wouldn't be so damned enjoyable, and so people would only do it as a necessary precursor to having a child they dearly want! :P But in reality, unwanted pregnancies happen.

By being against both recreational sex and abortion, IMO the Religious Right (in America at least) create a toxic situation in which carrying and using contraception isn't normalised, and in which pregnant women are discouraged from seeking advice on their options at the earliest opportunity. That can put them in a state of denial/fear which means they don't do anything until their pregnancy gets to a stage (4-5 months) where they've got a bump and they have to face up to it. That in turn leads to abortions at a later stage, which is undeniably far more messy, inhumane, and emotionally damaging to the woman. It also leads to the situation in which the Philadelphia murderer can ply his grisly trade :( .

In a mature society, it should IMO be clear that it is far better not to get pregnant in the first place, but that if you do, and you're not able or willing to have the baby, you should get it terminated at the earliest opportunity. Mature, rational debate (and much as the RR seem to hate it, decent sex education) is the key to bringing this about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two penneth-worth......what is the difference in killing a small vulnerable human being that can't speak up for itself that nobody wants, nobody loves, nobody will support or care for, than killing an older person in the same position that has become a drain and a cost to society and has reverted back to a helpless childlike state.

You could extend it to those with mental health problems or other disabilities or extend it further still to hardened criminals that only put a cost on society..........then all we would have left is the powerful, the rich, the healthy and the smart.........not forgetting the powerful, rich, healthy and smart may one day become just like them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife is seriously anti-abortion. I think they call the cause "pro life"? I avoid conversations about it with her because although I agree on many levels, I don't see any solution. Therefore what's the point discussing it?

Yes the realities of abortion are horrific. Watch any programme on the subject and you soon learn just how bad it can get. Let's face it, abortion is legal murder. A living & often healthy human being is killed. The body is then chopped up inside the womb and removed bit by bit. And for what? So a mother can avoid the inconvenience of giving birth? Hell, if you don't want it just give it away. Why kill it unless it endangers your own life.

But despite my feelings on the subject, I know there is no workable answer. Especially in these "womens rights" days, there's zero chance of anything changing. And to argue in favour of the baby has you written off as a religious nut (I'm not religious, my wife is).

Anyway, just my 2 cents. The "abortionist" in that news story is simply a monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I read the article at work on my phone, and having just got home I've now watched the video. And at no point does the woman explicitly argue, as the article contends, for the right to 'post-birth abortion'. As it's the Weekly Standard, a self-described "Conservative Magazine", I don't think they're an entirely disinterested observer.

She certainly doesn't come across very well, very nervous and rather evasive in fact, but when specifically asked a question about what should be done with a child born alive, she replies "that's a very good question", which I, as someone who's not out to attack her point of view or that of the organization she's lobbying for, would interpret to mean "you have a point". To state that she stood in front of that committee and argued for the 'right to post-birth abortion' is ludicrous, and arguably libelous (certainly on the basis of the 6 minute segment of video that I watched on the Weekly Standard site, which presumably they chose to best illustrate their case).

I certainly agree that a child born alive as a result of a botched abortion should be given every chance to live if they really have a chance to make it (I was going to say if they're 'viable', but I actually find that piece of impersonal medical terminology distasteful, now I've thought about it). But realistically, a baby born at 22-24 weeks has very little chance, and so you've got to consider whether attempting to prolong a life that will 9 times out of 10 end in a (probably unpleasant) death is actually in the interests of that child.

It's an incredibly difficult ethical question. I imagine that in reality it's an incredibly rare situation in any case, the current court case notwithstanding. I would also argue that, (as with, say, the prohibition of recreational drug use) this is a situation in which attempting to put legal obstacles in the way of people doing what they want to do, or which they perceive to be in their best interests, actually increases the likelihood of situations like this, and thus the overall level of harm. As I say, I'm not in favour of abortions, and in an ideal world no woman would ever need to have one- contraception would be 100% reliable, people would never make silly choices while drunk and horny, or (as I suspect the Religious Right would prefer) sex just wouldn't be so damned enjoyable, and so people would only do it as a necessary precursor to having a child they dearly want! :P But in reality, unwanted pregnancies happen.

By being against both recreational sex and abortion, IMO the Religious Right (in America at least) create a toxic situation in which carrying and using contraception isn't normalised, and in which pregnant women are discouraged from seeking advice on their options at the earliest opportunity. That can put them in a state of denial/fear which means they don't do anything until their pregnancy gets to a stage (4-5 months) where they've got a bump and they have to face up to it. That in turn leads to abortions at a later stage, which is undeniably far more messy, inhumane, and emotionally damaging to the woman. It also leads to the situation in which the Philadelphia murderer can ply his grisly trade :( .

In a mature society, it should IMO be clear that it is far better not to get pregnant in the first place, but that if you do, and you're not able or willing to have the baby, you should get it terminated at the earliest opportunity. Mature, rational debate (and much as the RR seem to hate it, decent sex education) is the key to bringing this about.

A very good post Rave.

It's legislating for the idiots that is difficult, there are cases of women being surprised by suddenly giving birth so late abortions are always going to exist. I regard the Philadelphia "doctor" as a symptom of the human condition - he probably thought of it as an unpleasant but necessary service, and probably regards those who condemned him as hypocrites, he probably has a point. If there was a referendum proposing to raise taxes in order to pay for all unwanted babies born to the kind of idiots who seek his services to be helped to survive then looked after, many for all their lives, many of the same high-minded hypocrites would be jumping up and down saying no....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two penneth-worth......what is the difference in killing a small vulnerable human being that can't speak up for itself that nobody wants, nobody loves, nobody will support or care for, than killing an older person in the same position that has become a drain and a cost to society and has reverted back to a helpless childlike state.

You could extend it to those with mental health problems or other disabilities or extend it further still to hardened criminals that only put a cost on society..........then all we would have left is the powerful, the rich, the healthy and the smart.........not forgetting the powerful, rich, healthy and smart may one day become just like them. ;)

If it's after birth I suppose it is "infanticide" not abortion.

I think that both infanticide and whatever you call killing old people is/was done by various societies. It's easy to say they're both wrong but on the other hand our society now considers it "right" and "normal" to leave people alone to live in ignorance and ill health and suffering. Communist utopias don't do so well at alleviating that either. I dont know what the "solution" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The body is then chopped up inside the womb and removed bit by bit. And for what? So a mother can avoid the inconvenience of giving birth? Hell, if you don't want it just give it away.

To describe carrying a baby to full term as an 'inconvenience' is a bit of an understatement, to put it mildly, which I will, since I'm very well aware that this is a very emotive topic and I don't want to fall out with anyone! :ph34r: It's actually the most physically and mentally demanding thing that the vast majority of women will ever do. Is it really preferable that they should go through that and then, as you suggest, 'give it away'? As opposed to an abortion at, say, 6 weeks, when the foetus is still barely formed?

I am aware, of course, that there are and probably always will be (in the first world at least) enough unfortunate childless couples to take on every single baby put up for adoption. But I don't accept that it's right to expect women who are unfortunate and/or foolish enough to get pregnant when they didn't want to be to have to see it through.

But despite my feelings on the subject, I know there is no workable answer. Especially in these "womens rights" days, there's zero chance of anything changing. And to argue in favour of the baby has you written off as a religious nut (I'm not religious, my wife is).

Well, if you have an argument in favour of the baby that isn't based on religious nutterism, then share it! I'm an atheist, but I certainly tend towards the Humanist view rather than the Nihilist. I just don't believe that once a gamete is formed that the woman should be obliged to see it through if she doesn't want to. Women can choose to give life to another being; I'm the eldest of three brothers, and my mum told my wife and I over a bottle of wine a couple of years ago that by her mid-20s she was absolutely desperate for a baby- had to hold herself back from nicking one out of the prams outside Tesco, in fact! (this being the late 70s). So when I arrived I was wanted and loved- I haven't turned out to be the greatest kid ever, but she still loves me nearly 34 years later despite my faults.

But by the same token, I do believe that women who aren't, for whatever reason, keen to have a baby should have the right not to give life to a small bundle of cells that has formed inside them against their will / better judgement. To emphasize the rights of the baby over the mother seems to me entirely the wrong way round.

A very good post Rave.

Thank you! :)

It's legislating for the idiots that is difficult, there are cases of women being surprised by suddenly giving birth so late abortions are always going to exist. I regard the Philadelphia "doctor" as a symptom of the human condition - he probably thought of it as an unpleasant but necessary service, and probably regards those who condemned him as hypocrites, he probably has a point. If there was a referendum proposing to raise taxes in order to pay for all unwanted babies born to the kind of idiots who seek his services to be helped to survive then looked after, many for all their lives, many of the same high-minded hypocrites would be jumping up and down saying no....

Well, I'm not actually sure about that. I'm going to talk about the USA here, since that's where this case occurred, and where the 'Pro-Life' movement seems to be at its strongest in the first world countries. It actually wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the grass-roots anti-abortion movement amongst the church-going population were prepared to put their money where their mouth is and contribute to the upkeep of babies that they'd 'saved' from abortion. I've never been to the USA but I read around, and have met plenty of 'ordinary' Americans, and the vast majority of them, as far as I can tell, are genuinely very kind and community spirited people. I think that many of them are misguided, but I recognize that they are motivated by a desire to 'do the right thing'- albeit that what they perceive as right has been dictated to them by corrupt politicians, and (not necessarily, but quite possibly) corrupt religious organisations.

As a British Generation Y-er I'm of course not happy with the balance of power in this country, but I don't think we're actually that far down the path of corruption, corporate influence, and kleptocracy yet- certainly not to the extent that it can't be fixed without violent revolution. When I look at the USA on the other hand- a country that still has, in theory, the highest disposable income per capita of any nation in the world, and yet vast swathes of the population in real, desperate, no-hope poverty that we in Britain are still nowhere near- I can only wonder how they've got there, and how they still function as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 243 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.