Will Obama be consistent: pardon PA Doc on seven counts of murder?

friday said:

A doctor in PA has just been arrested, along with members of his staff, for his abortion horror house office where he had doctors practicing without licenses, had parts of fetuses stored throughout the office, where a woman died of sepsis, and where he killed seven babies right after birth by cutting their spines shortly after they were born.

On the other hand, he provided cheap late term abortions to minorities and poor mothers who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford their "constitutional right". So is he a monster? Or a pro-choice hero? He is now facing 8 counts of murder.

Will Obama pardon him for seven of those murders? If Obama was consistent, he would. After all, in 2001 Obama was the only Illinois senator who stood up to try to ensure that Illinois did not grant human rights to a baby who survived an attempted abortion.

Dr. Gosnell finished seven abortions that he was not able to complete with the baby on the inside of the mother's skin. What hypocrites we are for finding his actions morally reprehensible or charging him with murder. What is so magical about the mother's skin that he now faces seven counts of murder?

Let me ask you this. Do you support a woman's right to choose, yet oppose abortion personally? Why?

I oppose smoking on a personal level. But, I support another's legal right to smoke because he is only hurting himself. I oppose smoking in public places on a legal level, because that hurts the people around him. So if you think legally a woman should be able to have an abortion, but oppose it on a personal level, the logical question that follows is this: do you oppose abortion because it harms the woman? Or because it harms a different human being? And if abortion is the harming of an innocent human being who has no choice in the matter, why do you support its legality?

Dr. Gosnell is facing 7 counts of murder for killing newborns whose mothers intended to abort. 10 years ago, state senator Obama would have gone to bat for him.

The only difference between what Gosnell did and a partial birth abortion or other late term abortion is what side of the mother's skin the baby was on. And the only difference between a late term abortion and an early term abortion is age and development. If you are pro-choice, but outraged at Dr. Gosnell, maybe it's time to re-examine this debate again.

Click to expand...

nonpareil said:

First of all let's define Murder: it's killing not sanctioned by the state. If you killed someone who attacked you, that's state sanctioned, you didn't commit murder, you killed in self defence. The state don't commit murder, the state administer capital punishment. Murder is illegal killing.

The guy induced abortion with the intent to kill the babies that were born alive and viable. By any law, he commited murder. There's no exception for this kind of act in any abortion law ever proposed in any state.

Click to expand...

friday said:

Wow. Are you really ok with that answer? And Manc Skipper/Spud_meister, you like that answer? For 100 years slavery was sanctioned by the state. Let me ask you this, did Nazi Germany murder any Jews? All that was sanctioned by the state. What if the state decided tomorrow that in the interest of population control every third woman of child bearing age would be put to death. Would that be murder or state sanctioned killing? You really have to be careful with a "abortion is legal, therefore it is good" defense. You open yourself up to the worst evils of the worst governments our planet has known, and still knows today.

Click to expand...

nonpareil said:

So far, only you have said "abortion is legal, therefore it is good". I've only repeated it to show that you are the first one to say it.

This case has nothing to do with the merits or dismerits of abortion because it is not about abortion. It's clearly about murder. So your entire premise is false, and that needs to be made clear before any logical debate can take place.

Something sanctioned by the government can be right or wrong, good or bad etc. Doesn't change the way we understand what murder is. To say that anything sanctioned by the government somehow makes it "good" is just too stupid for words.

The Nazis targeted and killed jews to extend that it was a genocide.

Click to expand...

friday said:

Ok, explain: you say abortion is not killing someone, it is not murder. So why wouldn't the right to have an abortion be good? Is the right to use a condom good? Why would you not say the right to have an abortion is good?

Click to expand...