Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill to increase access to abortions [W:148]

[Dr. Chuckles]

Hopefully. The reason Gosnell was able to operate so freely is because Pennsylvania made a decision to stop inspections of clinics.

they didn't just choose not to inspect in many instances, they chose to ignore reported incidents of patient injury and death, and also ignore numerous documented violations when they did inspect. And that isn't even getting into the fact that the larger medical community acted within a similar manner, *against* state law and their own interests.

So the idea the mere existence of a law, without a means to adequately enforce it, acts as some type of universal deterrent is beyond silly and naive. Even when concerning doctors

 

[Scrabaholic]

Sure. I was just observing that when pro-choice advocates say late term abortion is rare, it's often used as an excuse to not bother to make it illegal. Except that it's not as rare as they think, because doctors aren't reporting their illegal abortions.

Late term abortion is not illegal here but you would be hard pressed to find a doctor willing to do one without there being a maternal health issue or fetal deformity.

 

[Scrabaholic]

they didn't just choose not to inspect in many instances, they chose to ignore reported incidents of patient injury and death, and also ignore numerous documented violations when they did inspect. And that isn't even getting into the fact that the larger medical community acted within a similar manner, *against* state law and their own interests.

So the idea the mere existence of a law, without a means to adequately enforce it, acts as some type of universal deterrent is beyond silly and naive. Even when concerning doctors

Which is an excellent illustration of the uselessness of making all elective abortion illegal......

 

[minnie616]

.... Gosnell was required to keep records of many of the illegal abortions he performed and was able to doctor the data by a slight altering of the angle that he measured the fetus at, and was self-reporting on this instances without any means to be reliably audited....

Of course he could have been audited and chances are they would have caught the false measurements . There were ultrasound
records they could have checked his measurements against.

Gosnell was not only unethical I personally think he was certifiably crazy.
No sane person would keep the feet of aborted fetuses in jars laying around his clinic.
He seemly did not even care about the women who were his patients or he would not have performed abortions past the viability date and he would not have let the clinic become as filthy as it was described.

It seems he got his chuckles out of disregarding the laws and putting the women in danger.

I feel he was a very sick man and I personally feel he is one of a handful of criminals I had heard/ read about who deserved the death penalty for what he did ...not only to the born alive infants but to the women who put their lives in his hands.

 

[choiceone]

Anyone regardless of age that is seeking an abortion is sexually active.

A rape victim who got pregnant because of the rape and sought an abortion is necessarily "sexually active"???

Don't call it nitpicking. If you are careless about details, it is an indication of something wrong. . . .

 

[choiceone]

To hold an innocent human being as having the same significance as a common parasite? It would be difficult to imagine a more depraved position than that.

To hold a zygote, morula, embryo, or fetus, including one whose presence inside a woman is a serious threat to her life, as having the same significance as an innocent born human being? It would be difficult to imagine a more ignorant position than that.

 

[choiceone]

When an unborn child is able to willfully commit a murder or some other similarly serious crime, be tried and convicted by due process of law, and properly sentenced to death, then perhaps you'll have a point comparing the death penalty to abortion as you are trying to do.

As most (perhaps all, as far as I know) states in the U.S. specifically prohibit the application of the death penalty for crimes committed when the offender is a minor, I rather doubt if you will be able to find any case that comes anywhere close to being applicable. Certainly, any ethical application of the death penalty requires that the offender be found to have committed an extremely serious crime, with a full intent and understanding of the seriousness of that crime. We don't generally consider young children—even those much older than the target of an abortion—to have the necessary capacity to form such an intent and understanding.

War is something else entirely. While I recognize that it is something that is sometimes necessary and unavoidable; it is something that I have a very difficult time reconciling with my ethical framework. In any event, I very much doubt that you'll be able to find any case that is relevant to war, that is similar enough to any case involving an unborn child, to make a comparison any more relevant than you can do with the death penalty.

So basically if a legally insane person is running about trying to chop off people's limbs or to rape women because he believes God told him that this would be a great blessing for those people and women, it's wrong to use deadly force to prevent those acts just because the person cannot be tried and found guilty? That is the nature of your reasoning.

 

[vesper]

A rape victim who got pregnant because of the rape and sought an abortion is necessarily "sexually active"???

Don't call it nitpicking. If you are careless about details, it is an indication of something wrong. . . .

Fair enough for the 1% of those seeking abortions that stated they were forced to have sex.

 

[choiceone]

Fair enough for the 1% of those seeking abortions that stated they were forced to have sex.

How about for the unknown percentage of those seeking abortions that did not state they were forced to have sex and instead chose to give another reason?

PS - Trying to imply that abortions in cases of rape are not significant because they represent a low percentage of all abortions? When there were state laws banning abortion but making exceptions in some cases, including rape, the very laws could traumatize rape victims, who could fear being turned down for an abortion because they did not report the rape to the police or did report it but there was not good enough evidence for the district attorney to prosecute. I remember those days.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Of course he could have been audited and chances are they would have caught the false measurements . There were ultrasound
records they could have checked his measurements against.

What do you think was doctored? They used a technique of angling the ultrasound so the fetus measures below what it actually was. And being that this is something we have extensively discussed in the past, I can't help but to assume you are being intentionally deceptive here

Gosnell was not only unethical I personally think he was certifiably crazy.

It doesn't matter what you think of Gosnell, what matters is that we know the data is not auditable, short of an intensive criminal probe, and that the data can be intentionally deceptive.

You can keep ignoring that, but that doesn't make it any less true

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Which is an excellent illustration of the uselessness of making all elective abortion illegal......

I'm not going to agree here, being that no law was ever made with the idea it would cease all such activity (your argument serves as a means of legalizing pretty much anything), and that I'm not convinced a better auditing process couldn't be constructed. Laws should be considered more on the basis of *if we should do something*, and then moving on from there about practical measures and applications and their impact in our daily lives.

Like I imagine you would be pretty hard pressed finding someone to give you an abortion in Saudi Arabia or Taliban controlled Afghanistan. But even the most ardent western anti-abortionist would likely want nothing to do with such a society

 

[minnie616]

What do you think was doctored? They used a technique of angling the ultrasound so the fetus measures below what it actually was. And being that this is something we have extensively discussed in the past, I can't help but to assume you are being intentionally deceptive here

He trained his ultrasound techs to angle the probe so the fetus would appear smaller.

Most ultrasounds use several different angles.

So Professional ultrasound readers or those with more experience would have been able to tell those ultrasounds were taken at angles that made the fetus appear smaller.

So while a quick look at the ultrasounds may have overlooked the fact they were falsified ( angled ) ultrasounds a more investigative audit would most likely not have overlooked that.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

He trained his ultrasound techs to angle the probe so the fetus would appear smaller.

Most ultrasounds use several different angles.

So Professional ultrasound readers or those with more experience would have been able to tell those ultrasounds were taken at angles that made the fetus appear smaller.

So while a quick look at the ultrasounds may have overlooked the fact they were falsified ( angled ) ultrasounds a more investigative audit would most likely not have overlooked that.

lol, you didn't even know the ultrasound (or purposely lied about it) was doctored like an hour ago. So can you source the claim that a review of the ultrasound with indicate the abortion was illegal, and then can you show such a review process was administered to the data your numbers are derived from? Because, if not, your numbers would, wait for it, still be unreliable, and all you would have shown is a more thorough review is possible. Something I never even suggested was impossible, in fact, in my above post to scrabaholic I suggest the exact opposite

 

[Thrilla]

meh, it doesn't take much skill or training to kill a fetus...so I don't see a problem with NP's doing it.
i'm sure they are all smart enough to call 911 if they **** it up.

it is , however, very odd to me to see people actually celebrating such laws... celebrating abortion is pretty warped.

 

[vesper]

How about for the unknown percentage of those seeking abortions that did not state they were forced to have sex and instead chose to give another reason?

PS - Trying to imply that abortions in cases of rape are not significant because they represent a low percentage of all abortions? When there were state laws banning abortion but making exceptions in some cases, including rape, the very laws could traumatize rape victims, who could fear being turned down for an abortion because they did not report the rape to the police or did report it but there was not good enough evidence for the district attorney to prosecute. I remember those days.

Who said that rape cases were insignificant? They are hideous acts of violence. The number of abortions that women claim resulted from being forced to have sex is 1% in the study. The one percent has no bearing on the stats proving reckless behavior on the part of many women seeking abortions because of so many who do become pregnant report not taking their birth control properly or not at all during the month they conceived.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To hold a zygote, morula, embryo, or fetus, including one whose presence inside a woman is a serious threat to her life, as having the same significance as an innocent born human being? It would be difficult to imagine a more ignorant position than that.

Right.

Because nothing could be more ignorant than recognizing an innocent human being as being equivalent to an innocent human being.

So basically if a legally insane person is running about trying to chop off people's limbs or to rape women because he believes God told him that this would be a great blessing for those people and women, it's wrong to use deadly force to prevent those acts just because the person cannot be tried and found guilty? That is the nature of your reasoning.

Because an innocent child is the equivalent of a violent, insane criminal, right?

 

[AGENT J]

i love watching people panic and lie over a bill that simply gets government out of the way of medical regulations decided by the medical community and allows people better access to safe and regulated medical services

 

[choiceone]

Right.

Because nothing could be more ignorant than recognizing an innocent human being as being equivalent to an innocent human being.




Because an innocent child is the equivalent of a violent, insane criminal, right?

A legally insane person is by definition not a criminal, because he or she cannot be legally guilty of committing a crime even if he or she performed an act which would be a crime if committed by a legally insane person. If a born child commits a violent act that permanently injures or kills a person, we do not hold that child guilty if it is young enough to be considered completely irresponsible.

Since born children are small, it is usually possible to prevent them from committing acts that permanently injure or kill others. The problem with embryos and fetuses is that they are inside the bodies of persons and, being in that situation, they can and sometimes do permanently injure or kill those persons. Thus, by virtue of their location, those embryos are automatically a threat to the life and well-being of the persons.

And since the location is the sex organs of a person, they are, by their being in that location, committing acts which, if committed by any legally sane person, would be considered a crime.

That's all I'm saying.

If you can't understand that, it's because, unconsciously, you know those acts will not be committed against you by any embryo, and you are ignoring the real issue by virtue of being personally safe. That's just egoism.

 

[choiceone]

Who said that rape cases were insignificant? They are hideous acts of violence. The number of abortions that women claim resulted from being forced to have sex is 1% in the study. The one percent has no bearing on the stats proving reckless behavior on the part of many women seeking abortions because of so many who do become pregnant report not taking their birth control properly or not at all during the month they conceived.

You do not know that "the one percent has no bearing on the stats proving reckless behavior on the part of many women seeking abortions." Women not taking birth control or taking birth control improperly can and probably are among those who get impregnated via rape. Most women who get abortions have lots of reasons for doing so and merely select one from among a list of choices on a survey or from among those they have.

And lots of women don't want to tell anyone they were raped. And some women don't even know that they were raped because they have been socialized to believe, first, that if sexual contact occurs, even if it occurs because the guy uses force or threats against which they have failed to protect themselves adequately, it's their own fault.

Though that female guilt-trip mentality is changing percentage-wise, it still continues, especially among women who are less intelligent and less educated and therefore more likely to use birth control improperly, be victimized by abusive men who sabotage their birth control, etc.

 

[JumpinJack]

I hope that's safe. It's basically a d&c, so if practitioners perform d&c, this should be safe. I'd worry, though, if it were me. But it helps hold down costs,and if they are well trained, should be okay. It's a simple procedure. No surgery.