Abortion Doctor found guilty of murder following late-term abortions

[Quellist]

The attorney branded prosecutors "elitist" and "racist" for pursuing his client, who is black.
That's the most disturbing part actually.

Yeah, he disregarded hygiene, professional standards, abortion laws and killed kids with brutal methods but they're just after him because he's black!

While in no way do i excuse this defense its just possible that the guy is so obviously guilty that this was the nearest thing to a viable defense the lawyer could come up with.

Lets face it the guy has to mount some kind of defense, even if its a crazy one...

 

[[REDACTED]]

Why in the all-holy fuck does the title refer to infanticide as "late-term abortions"?

 

[Quaxar]

The attorney branded prosecutors "elitist" and "racist" for pursuing his client, who is black.
That's the most disturbing part actually.

Yeah, he disregarded hygiene, professional standards, abortion laws and killed kids with brutal methods but they're just after him because he's black!

While in no way do i excuse this defense its just possible that the guy is so obviously guilty that this was the nearest thing to a viable defense the lawyer could come up with.

Lets face it the guy has to mount some kind of defense, even if its a crazy one...

It's not actually a defense though. "Your honor, in this coming trial I set out to prove that you and all the witnesses are far too racist to convict my client. I will also show that you elitist snobs wouldn't know a professional abortion doctor if he cut your spine with a scissor... no wait, bad analogy."
Pissing off the prosecution seems like the worst possible defense in fact. Maybe his "lawyer" was just one of the guys who lost their jobs at the clinic?

 

[Colour Scientist]

Keep in mind the pro-life community pushes for no support for single mothers. No support for public pre-natal care. No support for children, one of the most impoverished demographics in the US.

I, my sister, and my mother are members of the pro-life community. You're a fucking retard, if that's what you actually believe. Get a clue, idiot.

That doesn't really do anything to disprove his statement.
You, your sister and your mother are pro-life, so what?
What does that have to do with pre and post-natal care and financial support?

I'm not touching the rest of your post because I'll only end up yelling.

 

[Quellist]

The attorney branded prosecutors "elitist" and "racist" for pursuing his client, who is black.
That's the most disturbing part actually.

Yeah, he disregarded hygiene, professional standards, abortion laws and killed kids with brutal methods but they're just after him because he's black!

While in no way do i excuse this defense its just possible that the guy is so obviously guilty that this was the nearest thing to a viable defense the lawyer could come up with.

Lets face it the guy has to mount some kind of defense, even if its a crazy one...

It's not actually a defense though. "Your honor, in this coming trial I set out to prove that you and all the witnesses are far too racist to convict my client. I will also show that you elitist snobs wouldn't know a professional abortion doctor if he cut your spine with a scissor... no wait, bad analogy."
Pissing off the prosecution seems like the worst possible defense in fact. Maybe his "lawyer" was just one of the guys who lost their jobs at the clinic?

I dont have any legal training but i have a feeling that attacking the credibility of witnesses and even the prosecution itself is a viable tactic.

Ah whatever, i dont really care about this, i was just voicing a possibility. This doctor was a horrible person and i think i would rather have quit my job rather than defend him. One reason i will never make a lawyer i guess...

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I, my sister, and my mother are members of the pro-life community. You're a fucking retard, if that's what you actually believe. Get a clue, idiot.

So your reponse is to call me a fucking retard, an idiot, yet to not to actually disagree or to suggest otherwise. Yes?

Do you believe the Pro-Life agenda supports public prenatal care?

Do you believe the Pro-Life agenda supports welfare for children enough that they can rise outy of poverty?

The US is the wealthiest nation in the world (by far), and yet we are near the bottom when it comes to children per capita living in poverty, about 21% of all kids live with impoverished families [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/child-poverty-2011_n_2323383.html]. This doesn't account for the 400,000 kids in foster care. Feel free to quote your own sources.

You're going to have to present some data to suggest I'm wrong, or you're just going to look naive. By calling me idiotic, you look naive and petulant. And that's not going to win you any friends. Calling me a fucking retard also suggests you have no sympathy for the disabled (people who are actually mentally retarded), which only makes things worse.

Try again. This time with more civility.

More to come...

238U

 

[JoJo]

OT: Abortion is murder. Zygote, fetus, or child, inside or outside the womb, it's still human. This is a biological fact. If you believe that it is unethical to kill a human, yet you support abortion, you are a hypocrite.

And I honestly fail to see how this is so horrifying, because the procedure (snipping the spinal cord with scissors) was the same that doctors use for normal late-term abortions inside the womb. If you want to draw some arbitrary line where inside the womb is ok but outside the womb isn't, you're a sick individual. If you think this incident is in any way outstanding or significant, search abortion on google images, safesearch off. If you have a strong stomach, that is.

Are foetuses human? Undoubtedly. Are they a person? Given their lack of consciousness or self-awareness, probably not. I personally don't believe it is unethical to kill a human, I believe it is unethical to kill a sapient person[footnote]With a few exceptions such as self-defence but that's an argument for another day[/footnote] and so killing foetuses in the womb is absolutely morally fine. I do agree with you on the second paragraph though, whether a foetus is inside or outside the womb is clearly arbitrary and thus at the most this doctor should be charged with conducting illegal late-term abortions rather than spurious murder charges.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Ahh and so the fucking abortion debate comes up again...

Whilst I'm pro-choice and maintain that women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, I can't condone late-term abortions except under extreme circumstances.
My reasoning is this:

I base my morality on the assumption that in circumstances where suffering is a certainty, picking an option that leads to the minimum amount of suffering is the moral thing to do.
A very early stage foetus has no capacity to feel pain, due to having an undeveloped nervous system. Not only that, it has an undeveloped brain, meaning that it has no consciousness or awareness of self. From its perspective, it is not aware of its surroundings or its own existence. At this stage it represents only potential but nothing more.
However, at this stage, the suffering that the mother can feel exists as more than potential. Psychological suffering IF the foetus is conceived via rape, or very real danger of harm if the foetus is developing in the fallopian tubes, or the simple fact that pregnancy at that stage represents a huge financial problem, an end to a career, or a responsibility that is simply too much to cope with without support that may not be available.
Therefore, at an early stage, abortion can be the morally right thing to do.

However, as the nervous system and brain develops, the suffering of the foetus itself becomes more than just potential and becomes a reality. It can feel pain and discomfort and all that bad stuff. It still has no real perception of self for a long time, but it does become cognitively aware enough to recognise familiar voices and respond to outside stimuli.

The other aspect to this is whether the foetus is able of living outside the mother, ie, as a seperate entity, or not. If the foetus is undeveloped enough that it absolutely requires the mother as 'life support', then I see a decision to turn off that life support as the woman's decision regarding what to do with her own body. If the foetus is developed enough that it could survive outside the womb, then that becomes less clear. Once you get much past that point, I think you'd be better off performing a C-section or delivering, providing that doing so does not pose too large a threat to the mother's health.

This is a gradual process, so for me, the question of whether getting an abortion is justifiable or not depends on how serious the threat to the mother is versus how far along the pregnancy is. This is why I say that late term abortions are only justifiable in extreme circumstances, ie when continuing the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother.

I disagree with pro-life people because they generally fail to acknowledge that abortion can be the lesser of two evils. Saying that something is unambiguously wrong in all contexts and circumstances seems to me quite juvenile. We all agree that killing is wrong, yet most of us would condone killing a brutal dictator or even an armed intruder who posed a direct threat to us and our families. The few things that are unambiguously seen as wrong are things like rape, because there is no conceivable circumstance in which rape would be considered anything other than inflicting unnecessary and easily avoidable suffering on another person for no reason other than selfishness.

That's my 2 cents. Please, nobody quote me to argue with me because I don't want to hear it. Not now. Thanks.

Edit:
Oh, right, forgot to link this into the actual topic. Yeah, this 'doctor' sounds like scum and there's no way to justify what he did. If you've already delivered the baby and the mother keeping it is impossible, put it up for adoption. That is all.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Just goes to show you...
Uh, I don't actually know...

Uh... don't cut corners? If you're going to preform an abortion make sure the fetus isn't alive when you take it out?

This is depressing, The only thing he did wrong is the order of events, kill the thing, scoop it out. How hard is it to remember that?

Also properly dispose of medical waste and hire qualified people... those are good things to.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

OT: Abortion is murder. Zygote, fetus, or child, inside or outside the womb, it's still human. This is a biological fact. If you believe that it is unethical to kill a human, yet you support abortion, you are a hypocrite.

A biological fact is an observation. Sure a fetus may be human (in that it's extracted from a human being) but so is anything else pulled from a human body. Cells, hair, tonail clippings, feces, cancer, blood and so on. That's not enough to designate that it's worth personhood or legal protections.

The common Pro-Life argument equates a fertilized zygote as equal to a neonatal infant, even though statistically (according to Guttmacher) about 70% of such zygotes are spontaneously aborted (not so much potential), and no Pro-Life sector has any agenda towards rescuing the countless uninduced miscarriages. (accipitre, correct me if I'm wrong, without calling me names, preferrably.) This is actually a good thing, since a lot of defective zygotes that would never become infants or would be badly deformed are rejected this way.

There is a shitload of controversy regarding when a fetus becomes a person (worthy of a whole nother essay). There is NO controversy as to whether or not the mother is a person. And any efforts to impose the rights of the fetus over the mother causes interaction with the 9th Amendment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]. Considering that Catholic doctrine imposed upon hospitals has already caused unnecessary deaths (albeit no cases in the US that have been widely publicized,). Violation of the mother's rights in preference of her unborn progeny is proving to be a valid concern.

So far, the Pro-Life approach has been entirely disinformation and legal obstruction (and the rare murder or terrorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States]). For example, all the human-like mangled fetuses that we've been shown by the anti-abortion fronts are almost exclusively natural miscarriages. Actual abortions don't come out so pristine.[footnote]It's also interesting that if we showcased exploded bodies and heads and veterans with missing pieces to promote an anti-war agenda, that'd all be censored right quick as too offensive or disturbing and unpatriotic, but dead babies (typically late-term ones, which is to say, likely wanted by the mother) are acceptable.[/footnote] Again, accipitre, feel free to correct my errors after you're done with your tantrum. Please be specific.

Myself, I'm still one for state-supported ectogenesis, where every zygote gets its own incubation tank, Mozart piped in if you pay for the fancy service. Both the mother's and the zygote's rights are preserved. Of course this may create a (temporary) population boom, but it will dispose of this sorry excuse of a controversy (granted in exchange for others that, I suspect, are more easily resolvable). It would also put the pro-life back into the Pro-Life sector, since it will be revealed whether this is a satisfactory solution, or if the underlying issue surfaces, which is that they want everyone to stop having sex except under the exclusive license of a (their) church.[footnote]I suspect they'll invoke Genesis 3:16[/footnote]

238U

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Disgusting. I'm all for abortion, but killing the poor thing AFTER it's been born is just monstruous. I mean you already gave birth, what's stopping you from delivering it to an orphanage?

My sentiment precisely. A woman whose health is at risk, or a couple who cannot support a child are valid reasons for abortion (among others) up to like the second trimester, but after a child is born that is murder. As stated, a child born healthy can be given up for adoption and would've been the appropriate action in cases like this.

That guy deserves a harsh sentence and the parents who went along with it probably ought to be punished, if not at least counselled or spoken with.

 

[Orbot_Vectorman]

OT: Abortion is murder. Zygote, fetus, or child, inside or outside the womb, it's still human. This is a biological fact. If you believe that it is unethical to kill a human, yet you support abortion, you are a hypocrite.

A biological fact is an observation. Sure a fetus may be human (in that it's extracted from a human being) but so is anything else pulled from a human body. Cells, hair, tonail clippings, feces, cancer, blood and so on. That's not enough to designate that it's worth personhood or legal protections.

The common Pro-Life argument equates a fertilized zygote as equal to a neonatal infant, even though statistically (according to Guttmacher) about 70% of such zygotes are spontaneously aborted (not so much potential), and no Pro-Life sector has any agenda towards rescuing the countless uninduced miscarriages. (accipitre, correct me if I'm wrong, without calling me names, preferrably.) This is actually a good thing, since a lot of defective zygotes that would never become infants or would be badly deformed are rejected this way.

There is a shitload of controversy regarding when a fetus becomes a person (worthy of a whole nother essay). There is NO controversy as to whether or not the mother is a person. And any efforts to impose the rights of the fetus over the mother causes interaction with the 9th Amendment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]. Considering that Catholic doctrine imposed upon hospitals has already caused unnecessary deaths (albeit no cases in the US that have been widely publicized,). Violation of the mother's rights in preference of her unborn progeny is proving to be a valid concern.

So far, the Pro-Life approach has been entirely disinformation and legal obstruction (and the rare murder or terrorism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States]). For example, all the human-like mangled fetuses that we've been shown by the anti-abortion fronts are almost exclusively natural miscarriages. Actual abortions don't come out so pristine.[footnote]It's also interesting that if we showcased exploded bodies and heads and veterans with missing pieces to promote an anti-war agenda, that'd all be censored right quick as too offensive or disturbing and unpatriotic, but dead babies (typically late-term ones, which is to say, likely wanted by the mother) are acceptable.[/footnote] Again, accipitre, feel free to correct my errors after you're done with your tantrum. Please be specific.

Myself, I'm still one for state-supported ectogenesis, where every zygote gets its own incubation tank, Mozart piped in if you pay for the fancy service. Both the mother's and the zygote's rights are preserved. Of course this may create a (temporary) population boom, but it will dispose of this sorry excuse of a controversy (granted in exchange for others that, I suspect, are more easily resolvable). It would also put the pro-life back into the Pro-Life sector, since it will be revealed whether this is a satisfactory solution, or if the underlying issue surfaces, which is that they want everyone to stop having sex except under the exclusive license of a (their) church.[footnote]I suspect they'll invoke Genesis 3:16[/footnote]

238U

And those born in the ectogenesis process shall be raised for military applications.

 

[Xukog]

I'm as big a fan of abortion as anyone. To the point where i think it should be mandatory unless you can prove that you have at least $250,000 on deposit somewhere strictly allocated to the child's upbringing.

So.....by that logic,I,my brother,hell even the rest of my family,should not exist!? I really hope that is just a poor joke,because otherwise that is quite the cruel thing to say....

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

So you would oppose safely-rapeable sexbots the way we have safely-killable projections in computer games?

Your analogy doesn't really fit because(for a pro-lifer) abortion isn't a victimless crime. I have no problem with video games or pornography. So my analogy still stands.

Correction: your analogy, and that's another can of worms. You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that rape is so terrible that we have to outlaw it even when it is consensual or when there is no harm done (say if someone raped his own toaster)?

Does it follow that a fetus (not a baby yet, by the way) that feels pain is self aware? Does it follow that a fetus who feels pain and is self aware is a person? Does it follow that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother? I don't have clear-cut answers to these myself, by the way.

Where do you get this notion that people have become far too flippant and casual regarding late-term abortion? It takes two doctors to authorize the necessity of a late-term abortion in the US. In some states, it takes three (even though SCOTUS as regard that as too much of a procedural burden). And we're talking legal necessity. How is that flippant? How is that casual?

What degree of murder do you thing a mother should be sentenced for, after receiving an illegal abortion? Is it considered a heinous crime? Should she therefore be executed by lethal injection? Or should she just spend the rest of her life in the slammer?

Why the first trimester? Why not around 22-27 weeks when the brain activates? How do you figure in risk to the mother (e.g. she may not die, but there's significant chance she will) how significant a chance does it make it worth crossing that line? What about if the fetus has late-detected abnormalities that guarantee a short, miserable life in pain? Interestingly, Mom may not be stuck with the medical bills since there are safe-harbor laws in every state now, so probably the state will foot the bill. What if the fetus has no brain? (Yes, it happens.)

It appears that you hold a very black-and-white position on what proves, in a lot of these cases, to be a lot of grey circumstances. This is why I'd rather leave it to the parents and the doctor to decide what is best for mother and child.

 

[Daveman]

Back-alley abortions are hardly a new thing. In those cases the mother may die too.

Personally I don't see how this would change the debate on legal abortions.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Weather you're pro-life or pro-choice it's pretty much everyone can say this is pretty disgusting. This is probably going to go real political real quickly, even though what this "doctor" did isn't technically abortion.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Myself, I'm still one for state-supported ectogenesis, where every zygote gets its own incubation tank...

And those born in the ectogenesis process shall be raised for military applications.

Some will, no doubt, exactly the way that the FBI is hacking our phones with Stingray technology. This happens whenever we get a paradigm-breaking technology, that sometimes we over-restrict it due to moral panic and sometimes we under-restrict it (usually letting the military and law-enforcement play with it), until rights are obviously being violated (e.g. the police searching your phone without a warrant to get your entire life), and we have to scale back what we can or cannot do.

I think the clone army will be much like the robot uprising: small and contained. We'll probably genetically engineer a supersoldier or ten until one goes rogue and disappears into the wilds or into the urbs. We'll probably encounter some robot bugs that might cause injury (or worse, robot hacks by which a human being murders another human being) and we'll learn to create accountability and security protocols. But right now, we're moving towards a robot army anyway (imagine drones and armed big-dogs replacing infantry with air support) so our vat-grown humans will just have the most boring job in the world piloting warbots by satellite in another country.

I suspect once we do have ecto-tanks everyone will use them, since motherhood really runs ragged over a woman's body (not always, but a lot), and since infants from the lower classes won't be subject to the lifestyle risks that are commonplace (e.g. smoking, drinking and drugs) a lot more infants will be adoptable. Then, we'll just have to get past them being non-white.

238U

 

[jetriot]

So you would oppose safely-rapeable sexbots the way we have safely-killable projections in computer games?

Your analogy doesn't really fit because(for a pro-lifer) abortion isn't a victimless crime. I have no problem with video games or pornography. So my analogy still stands.

Correction: your analogy, and that's another can of worms. You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that rape is so terrible that we have to outlaw it even when it is consensual or when there is no harm done (say if someone raped his own toaster)?

Does it follow that a fetus (not a baby yet, by the way) that feels pain is self aware? Does it follow that a fetus who feels pain and is self aware is a person? Does it follow that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother? I don't have clear-cut answers to these myself, by the way.

Where do you get this notion that people have become far too flippant and casual regarding late-term abortion? It takes two doctors to authorize the necessity of a late-term abortion in the US. In some states, it takes three (even though SCOTUS as regard that as too much of a procedural burden). And we're talking legal necessity. How is that flippant? How is that casual?

What degree of murder do you thing a mother should be sentenced for, after receiving an illegal abortion? Is it considered a heinous crime? Should she therefore be executed by lethal injection? Or should she just spend the rest of her life in the slammer?

Why the first trimester? Why not around 22-27 weeks when the brain activates? How do you figure in risk to the mother (e.g. she may not die, but there's significant chance she will) how significant a chance does it make it worth crossing that line? What about if the fetus has late-detected abnormalities that guarantee a short, miserable life in pain? Interestingly, Mom may not be stuck with the medical bills since there are safe-harbor laws in every state now, so probably the state will foot the bill. What if the fetus has no brain? (Yes, it happens.)

It appears that you hold a very black-and-white position on what proves, in a lot of these cases, to be a lot of grey circumstances. This is why I'd rather leave it to the parents and the doctor to decide what is best for mother and child.

Rape by definition is non-consensual. If it is with a video game character, a book or a toaster it is not rape... so I have no clue what you are trying to say. As for the WHEN an abortion should be illegal, I personally believe after the first trimester but simply stated that a line must be drawn because doctors and mothers can not be trusted to make a decision that is best for all the parties involved(the baby being a party without a voice). Also, only some states require 2 doctors.

My positions are fairly black and white. When it comes to murder they generally have to be. I have not discussed sentencing and I don't believe in the death penalty, that is open to debate. All I am saying is that when a decent percentage of people can seriously believe that killing a newborn is ok then we have gone way too far as a society.

I believe that history will judge us harshly for how we treat the unborn. Just as we judge harshly those that owned slaves, people will be sickened by how we treat the newly formed lives inside us.

 

[accipitre]

Keep in mind the pro-life community pushes for no support for single mothers. No support for public pre-natal care. No support for children, one of the most impoverished demographics in the US.

I, my sister, and my mother are members of the pro-life community. You're a fucking retard, if that's what you actually believe. Get a clue, idiot.

That doesn't really do anything to disprove his statement.
You, your sister and your mother are pro-life, so what?
What does that have to do with pre and post-natal care and financial support?

I'm not touching the rest of your post because I'll only end up yelling.

Yell away, mate. To state that the pro-life community provides no support is a lie. I'm speaking from experience here. Care to prove otherwise?

I'm not touching this debate any more, I get really fucking pissed when people try to defend murder in any form - death penalty, warfare, abortion. It's murder, that's all there is to it. One of my friends survived an attempted murder in a bar. Another one survived an attempted murder in the womb. Talk to people like him if you want to say that abortion is anything but murder. Go right up to him and tell him to his face that he shouldn't exist.

If you're pro-abortion, you're pro-murder. Deal with it.