The Face of Later Abortion

[Removable Mind]

The jury found Dr Tiller not guilty of the 19 charges that were brought against him.

Not according to the Pro-Birth/Pro-Life person who murdered him. That's one of the more popular way that pro-life proponents settle the score.

I read in another thread where David said he would put to death and 12 old child for killing someone if the child did it intentionally...so there ya have it.

No matter how hard I try....the logic alludes me.

 

[sangha]

Not according to the Pro-Birth/Pro-Life person who murdered him. That's one of the more popular way that pro-life proponents settle the score.

I read in another thread where David said he would put to death and 12 old child for killing someone if the child did it intentionally...so there ya have it.

No matter how hard I try....the logic alludes me.

They murder because "every life is sacred"

That's how perverse their moral code is.

 

[nota bene]

The jury found Dr Tiller not guilty of the 19 charges that were brought against him.

Since you didn't provide any context: How the 'not guilty' verdict was secured for abortionist George Tiller

Tiller did, in fact, kill viable babies whose only defect was that they were unwanted. Pretending otherwise flies in the face of the facts. Only God knows how many babies beyond the 11 patients investigated Tiller killed, but he did kill them, and Neuhaus colluded with him to circumvent the law.

I don't understand trying to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[Sisyphus]

According to statistics, about 1% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark. There has been a lot of discussion about why a woman would abort so late. Most opponents of abortion have painted the 20 week + abortions as irresponsible.

Here are real stories of women who have aborted after 20 weeks. Most of them were pregnancies that were wanted and even planned.

1-in-10 is 10% and not 1%, and probably a rough estimate since round numbers tend to not happen in actual, hard, statistical data.

But being pro choice, I think no woman need justify why she chooses to eliminate a pregnancy, within the bounds set by SCOTUS. So these stories, which are heart-wrenching, and my sympathies go out to them all, are not needed, any more than any right of the American People needs to be justified. For example, we need not show how free expression was done in a positive manner to justify our right to free speech.

Ditto on abortion rights, in American, which SCOTUS has made clear is a privacy right of women whose uterus contains the makings of a child, but not an individual with rights of its own, separate from the mother, who alone can decide if bringing the fetus to term is what she wishes to do, since thankfully, women's wombs are not property of the state.

 

[WCH]

I have been talking about PREVENTION which is the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions. Keeping them legal keeps them safe, banning them only promises more Gosnells out there. If you want to talk about "alternatives" then you should be a strong proponent of comprehensive sex ed, and easy, affordable access to birth control.

As far as "practicing a little restraint and personal responsibility" keep your judgments to yourself. You don't know me and you have absolutely no reason to preach at me about "personal responsibility." Furthermore, restricting access to affordable birth control prevents many women from being "responsible" since no access to birth control means it's pretty difficult to ensure no pregnancy since condoms have a 17% failure rate. Beyond that, such a flippant comment assumes you know the situations a particular woman faces and assumes the misogynistic view that only "loose" women are faced with unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and nothing is further from the truth.

Just as I thought, another seminar poster coming to the rescue for the pro-aborts.

How much they paying you to be here, sweetie?

 

[nota bene]

They murder because "every life is sacred"

That's how perverse their moral code is.

You have your pronouns confused. "They" is a plural that means "more than one."

One sick man assassinated Tiller. What he did was wrong and even more obscene because Tiller was murdered in his church.

But your trying to lump all those who believe that human life is sacred in with this murder is shameful. And useless too.

 

[sangha]

You have your pronouns confused. "They" is a plural that means "more than one."

One sick man assassinated Tiller. What he did was wrong and even more obscene because Tiller was murdered in his church.

But your trying to lump all those who believe that human life is sacred in with this murder is shameful. And useless too.

Tiller is not the only person the abortion banners have murdered.

 

[JayDubya]

You have your pronouns confused. "They" is a plural that means "more than one."

One sick man assassinated Tiller. What he did was wrong and even more obscene because Tiller was murdered in his church.

But your trying to lump all those who believe that human life is sacred in with this murder is shameful. And useless too.

Yeah... if you haven't noticed nota, he's just dumping flamebait like this all over the place this afternoon.

 

[minnie616]

nota they did NOT have a case against Dr tiller that is why he was found not guilty.
His abortions were legal .
As I already said only 323 abortions 22 weeks gestion or later were preformed in Kansas in 2008.
192 were because the fetus was not viaible.
The other 132 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy continued.

The Jury determined the 19 cases were legal abortions.

 

[Removable Mind]

1-in-10 is 10% and not 1%, and probably a rough estimate since round numbers tend to not happen in actual, hard, statistical data.

But being pro choice, I think no woman need justify why she chooses to eliminate a pregnancy, within the bounds set by SCOTUS. So these stories, which are heart-wrenching, and my sympathies go out to them all, are not needed, any more than any right of the American People needs to be justified. For example, we need not show how free expression was done in a positive manner to justify our right to free speech.

Ditto on abortion rights, in American, which SCOTUS has made clear is a privacy right of women whose uterus contains the makings of a child, but not an individual with rights of its own, separate from the mother, who alone can decide if bringing the fetus to term is what she wishes to do, since thankfully, women's wombs are not property of the state.

1 in 10 = 10%.

Actually...its closer to 1.5% for abortions 20 weeks and up. About 3.8% from 13 to 19 weeks...and 12 weeks and under over 85%, which is by far...a huge majority of abortions.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Gosnell was practicing illegally. He had a market because laws made it difficult for women to find a legal place to have an abortion. He's a sociopath. You are welcome to check with Guttmacher to see whether they possibly included ILLEGAL abortions, though a little logical common sense would tell you that illegal abortions wouldn't be recorded. Illegal abortions happen when there isn't legal access to it.

PA had/has a 24 week limit on abortions which tends to fall in line with most states, and we have previously discussed how de-facto deregulation allowed Gosnell to operate so openly and freely for as long as he did. So I am lost on what basis you continue to make these statements that you have failed to defend in the past

There is certainly an absence of abortion providers in rural PA, but the forces driving that are likely lack of demand justifying a dedicated facility to serve that area. An issue that impacts any number of specialists and their patients

 

[sangha]

PA had/has a 24 week limit on abortions which tends to fall in line with most states, and we have previously discussed how de-facto deregulation allowed Gosnell to operate so openly and freely for as long as he did. So I am lost on what basis you continue to make these statements that you have failed to defend in the past

There is certainly an absence of abortion providers in rural PA, but the forces driving that are likely lack of demand justifying a dedicated facility to serve that area. An issue that impacts any number of specialists and their patients

There was no deregulation of any kind

 

[Sisyphus]

1 in 10 = 10%.

Actually...its closer to 1.5% for abortions 20 weeks and up. About 3.8% from 13 to 19 weeks...and 12 weeks and under over 85%, which is by far...a huge majority of abortions.

Good info, except for the "1 in 10 = 10%," which I pointed out already.

Meanwhile, it's an academic exercise, since it's a right even if 99% of abortions were done at 20 weeks, or more, within the limit set by the Supreme Court.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

There was no deregulation of any kind

Though you will just continue ignoring it:

Section VI: How Did This Go On So Long?
The callous killing of babies outside the womb, the routinely performed thirdtrimester abortions, the deaths of at least two patients, and the grievous health risks
inflicted on countless other women by Gosnell and his unlicensed staff are not the only
shocking things that this Grand Jury investigation uncovered. What surprised the jurors
even more is the official neglect that allowed these crimes and conditions to persist for
years in a Philadelphia medical facility.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH NEGLECTED ITS DUTY TO
ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PATIENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA’S
ABORTION CLINICS.
We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen
not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and
assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail
salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

 

[sangha]

Though you will just continue ignoring it:



http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

That is not deregulation

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Good info, except for the "1 in 10 = 10%," which I pointed out already.

Meanwhile, it's an academic exercise, since it's a right even if 99% of abortions were done at 20 weeks, or more, within the limit set by the Supreme Court.

I agree. Why people get abortions, when, and largely how should be irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is the expectant rights of the mother and if, when, and possibly how the fetus is afforded protection under the law.

Anything beyond that tends to be pointless emotional appeals, on both sides

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

That is not deregulation

de facto - definition of de facto by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Removable Mind]

Good info, except for the "1 in 10 = 10%," which I pointed out already.

Meanwhile, it's an academic exercise, since it's a right even if 99% of abortions were done at 20 weeks, or more, within the limit set by the Supreme Court.

Obviously...we have different ways of performing mathematical tasks. Sassie's post and link referred to the 20 plus week abortions, which the link showed 1%....which you still insist is 10% and like all of the math is now inconsequential because it's within the limit set by the SC.

Actually...viability is referenced by the SC at about 24 weeks and up.

And the youngest known fetus to survive outside the womb...as it's been reported in posts on this site...is 20 weeks and 5 days. But that particular survivor is almost a miraculous event that can't be construed as anywhere near a regularly repeated event.

States that are reducing abortion to 20 weeks...is a smoke screen piece of legislation. It's not really their goal. Included with such legislation is the intent to place such stringent regulations on facilities that provide abortions...they they will ultimately be forced to close. No facilities...forcing reduced abortions.

 

[Sisyphus]

Obviously...we have different ways of performing mathematical tasks. Sassie's post and link referred to the 20 plus week abortions, which the link showed 1%....which you still insist is 10% and like all of the math is now inconsequential because it's within the limit set by the SC.

Actually...viability is referenced by the SC at about 24 weeks and up.

And the youngest known fetus to survive outside the womb...as it's been reported in posts on this site...is 20 weeks and 5 days. But that particular survivor is almost a miraculous event that can't be construed as anywhere near a regularly repeated event.

States that are reducing abortion to 20 weeks...is a smoke screen piece of legislation. It's not really their goal. Included with such legislation is the intent to place such stringent regulations on facilities that provide abortions...they they will ultimately be forced to close. No facilities...forcing reduced abortions.

I was referring to the stories, which were of more interest to me than the statistics. Thus I was taken to the 1-in-10 blog, where the stories were. If the sat page says 1% and it's thus 1-100 (1%) hallelujah. But, to me it's meaningless. The right of the mother to decide the fate of something in her womb extends to 24 or maybe 26 weeks, I think. Any done prior to that are okie doke with me, regardless of where along that timeline the pregnancy is terminated.

But that's just me, since I support choice within the limits set by SCOTUS.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Obviously...we have different ways of performing mathematical tasks. Sassie's post and link referred to the 20 plus week abortions, which the link showed 1%....which you still insist is 10% and like all of the math is now inconsequential because it's within the limit set by the SC.

the late term abortion "personal story" piece is titled "1 in 10" and is what I think he was referring to

 

[Removable Mind]

I was referring to the stories, which were of more interest to me than the statistics. Thus I was taken to the 1-in-10 blog, where the stories were. If the sat page says 1% and it's thus 1-100 (1%) hallelujah. But, to me it's meaningless. The right of the mother to decide the fate of something in her womb extends to 24 or maybe 26 weeks, I think. Any done prior to that are okie doke with me, regardless of where along that timeline the pregnancy is terminated.

But that's just me, since I support choice within the limits set by SCOTUS.

Gotcha...thanks.

I misunderstood the percentage intent in your reply to Sassie.

I'm pretty much in line with the viability period...with regard to the decision by the SC as it does coincide with the medical community. And like yourself, I believe pre-viability decisions should be in the hands of the woman who carries the fetus...and her desired medical professional/provider.

 

[Removable Mind]

the late term abortion "personal story" piece is titled "1 in 10" and is what I think he was referring to

thanks...just caught that...and acknowledged my misunderstanding to the poster.

 

[Sisyphus]

Gotcha...thanks.

I misunderstood the percentage intent in your reply to Sassie.

I'm pretty much in line with the viability period...with regard to the decision by the SC as it does coincide with the medical community. And like yourself, I believe pre-viability decisions should be in the hands of the woman who carries the fetus...and her desired medical professional/provider.

I'd agree, except with her desired medical professional having any decision-influencing aspect. If they decide to offer abortion care, then do as the woman wishes, unless reasonable fears that the procedure might be outside the guidelines set forth by the Supremes are a concern.

 

[Removable Mind]

I'd agree, except with her desired medical professional having any decision-influencing aspect. If they decide to offer abortion care, then do as the woman wishes, unless reasonable fears that the procedure might be outside the guidelines set forth by the Supremes are a concern.

I was referring to the SC extending the right of privacy between a woman...and her desired medical professional and/or provider. When a woman seeks an abortion, she needs to feel as confident as possible that the person she has selected will respect her choice...and know that she'll get the best possible medical attention.

Medical providers who do abortions...also need the right to sustain a confidential relationship between him or her and the patient seeking an abortion...and also understand legal boundaries regarding abortion.

 

[SassySmartie]

1-in-10 is 10% and not 1%, and probably a rough estimate since round numbers tend to not happen in actual, hard, statistical data.

But being pro choice, I think no woman need justify why she chooses to eliminate a pregnancy, within the bounds set by SCOTUS. So these stories, which are heart-wrenching, and my sympathies go out to them all, are not needed, any more than any right of the American People needs to be justified. For example, we need not show how free expression was done in a positive manner to justify our right to free speech.

Ditto on abortion rights, in American, which SCOTUS has made clear is a privacy right of women whose uterus contains the makings of a child, but not an individual with rights of its own, separate from the mother, who alone can decide if bringing the fetus to term is what she wishes to do, since thankfully, women's wombs are not property of the state.

I didn't name the blog 1-in-10, I didn't write it, it isn't mine so I'm not sure why it's named 1-in-10, Guttmacher says around 1% which is of course rounded, but I put that source in the first post, just for clarification.

I agree with everything you've said in your post as well, just wanted to bring some food for thought for those here who keep making assumptions about the morals and character of women who abort beyond 20 weeks. There is such an air of misogyny in the arguments about "personal responsibility" that the moral police around here try to push.