Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

My opinions are similar. Being sexually active comes with responsibility, and that includes making difficult choices. I've never had to make the choice to abort a fetus, but I do not take it lightly and though I haven't been in that position I do not think I would be able to do that past 3-4 months (if at all, though I'm "pro-choice").

But all that is assuming the mother is in a position like mine, with a college degree and a certain amount of maturity (and by that I mean that though I do not claim to be fully mature by any means I believe at 24 I am better equipped to handle the possibility of a child than a teenager, for instance). Many women are victims of rape or incest, or are victims of far more desperate circumstances than someone like myself. Though I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy at 6+ months, I understand why/how these things happen. The topic is far more complicated than black and white IMO.

That being said the things this "doctor" and "clinic" did are sickening beyond belief. I just do not believe the babies that were murdered (because IMO some of these babies were blatantly murdered, from the little I've read...I'm not squeamish but I couldn't make myself read all of the details on this case) were the only victims. I do hope this "doctor" is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



The bolded is very well said.

While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people admit, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I hope I'm reading you wrong because I don't see how you can be pro-life and feel that one child should get care over another based on whether they are "wanted" or "unwanted." And I'm pro-choice.

I think she is saying that in the cases of abortion the 'infant' gets no care, which has a whole host of other problems besides the ones you mentioned. Making the decision to put a super-premie or premie on life support is a big decision one way or the other, even for a child who is very much wanted. Not everyone chooses extraordinary care for anyone in that situation, even an infant.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people discuss, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.

I agree, add in the lack of access to reliable birth control that the woman can control herself and the problem compounds- condoms are all well and good IF he agrees to use them and IF he uses them right and IF he lets you buy them in the first place - pills are more expensive, or require insurance as well as regular doctor's visits, yet more hurdles. IUDs require a doctor's care at least for insertion as well as follow up if something goes wrong and education about maintenance, etc.

Bodily autonomy is something many of us take for granted because we can afford to. Or because we've never had it violated. The idea that someone can as easily seek an abortion at 3 months as at 6 involves a lot of assumptions about education, transportation, income, non-abusive/controlling households, and so on.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Precisely, I hesitate to get even close to suggesting that a premie shouldn't get that care, because that's not really what I'm saying, but a policy that encourages the births of super-premies is going to be a very expensive one on top of all of the other troublesome aspects of it.

Something else to consider is a chromosomal, genetic, or other abnormality that will result in a child who will die, will suffer greatly, or the parent could not take care of. I feel like a bit of a broken record on this but I maintain that most women who abort at 5+ months never thought that they would or could do so, but have come to that decision after a lot of weighing of options. It's pretty common to 'other' people who make choices out of our experience, and while the women in this situation were 'other' from us, many women who seek out late term abortions are college educated, middle class, and wouldn't be out of place at any social event that any GCer would attend. It's not just about poverty or being a victim, sometimes it's just about making the best decision for themselves, their families (because many also have other children too), and even, they believe, making the best choice for the unborn child.

I agree. I envy no woman or couple who has to make that choice, but I certainly understand why some make the decision under the circumstances you describe.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I agree, add in the lack of access to reliable birth control that the woman can control herself and the problem compounds- condoms are all well and good IF he agrees to use them and IF he uses them right and IF he lets you buy them in the first place - pills are more expensive, or require insurance as well as regular doctor's visits, yet more hurdles. IUDs require a doctor's care at least for insertion as well as follow up if something goes wrong and education about maintenance, etc.

Bodily autonomy is something many of us take for granted because we can afford to. Or because we've never had it violated. The idea that someone can as easily seek an abortion at 3 months as at 6 involves a lot of assumptions about education, transportation, income, non-abusive/controlling households, and so on.

It's certainly not black and white. As I've said I've never had to make that choice and I hope I'm never faced with it but I do know women that have for various reasons and in some states/situations it is difficult even for college age+ women with reasonable financial resources to obtain an abortion at 3 months. I can't imagine how hard it is for women without the education or financial ability (not to mention the other complications you mention). That is why I do not believe the babies were the only victims in this case. Though what this "doctor" did was disgusting.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

While some are making conscious decisions to have consensual sex, I think the issue of rape (including date rape and spousal rape) and incest are far more common than people admit, especially among poor women. If we are going to tackle this issue as a society, we can't ignore this topic as we have been doing for centuries.

Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Infants should not be murdered. A fetus is a fetus until birth/delivery. The term murder doesn't apply to abortion although it does apply to what this non-doctor did.

The child is not a child until it exits the birth canal. If a mother decided as she was going through labor in the 9th month to kill the baby this is okay? If it is not okay then your argument is moot. It is taking a life, period. We play God, judge and executioner by claiming it is our bodies and no one can tell us what to do. The only time I would see abortion as an option is when the life of the mother is at stake and then the decision should rest with her as this is a life for a life. The baby is always innocent. The mother and father, may not be.

I go to the beaches of the outer banks of NC and see all these protected sea turtle nests. Do you know what the fine is for disturbing them? Depending on the degree of the felony between 1-5 years and from $100/egg up to $5000. We think more of the unborn turtle fetuses then we do of our own babies. This is warped and sad.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.

Numbers lie, particularly in the case of the rape/incest. That has to be something that is reported/recorded to medical officials and most often (even in the case of non pregnancies) they are not reported. It wasn't until I was older (actually after I became Greek) that I was able to get a scope of how often rape/incest occur and go unreported.

[Ch2tf]

Originally Posted by honeychile

There aren't the proper words for this. I know so many couples who would love to have a baby of any ethnic background, and end up going to another country to get them - and these people were allowing a baby to be born just so they could kill the poor thing? At what point does a person lose enough of his or her conscience to stab a baby to death? Then keep jars of the babies' feet or other parts? If this isn't considered Hitleresque, I don't know what would be.

Hijack, but puhlease to the couples wanting babies and being "willing" to go overseas to adopt. There are far too many children in the system now waiting for families and far too many people making the decision to go abroad to adopt first.

And you need to qualify "these people" as in all the new reports I've seen and read (haven't gotten up to reading the grand jury report) many of the mothers who's fetus were "born" alive were not aware of this fact.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.

Even if these numbers could be substantiated (rape and incest are under-reported,) pro-choice advocates would love to see the numbers of abortions go DOWN by having decent sex education and contraceptive services available. This is the never ending argument of "can't condone pre-marital sex" BS. If you want to really make a difference in abortion numbers, you don't do it by making abortion more difficult to obtain (we know how women used to get back alley illegal abortions) you make it less necessary by making contraception more available!

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Even if these numbers could be substantiated (rape and incest are under-reported,) pro-choice advocates would love to see the numbers of abortions go DOWN by having decent sex education and contraceptive services available. This is the never ending argument of "can't condone pre-marital sex" BS. If you want to really make a difference in abortion numbers, you don't do it by making abortion more difficult to obtain (we know how women used to get back alley illegal abortions) you make it less necessary by making contraception more available!

Yes, I get that there isn't a way to get 100% accurate statistics, but even if it were 70%/29%/1%, I would still call that ridiculous...and that's giving a 27% benefit of the doubt.

I'm absolutely not an abstinence-only advocate...in fact, I love what PhoenixAzul's school did. I don't even care what other people do with their own sex lives - but I do care when they bring someone else into the equation.


Some of you who have been around GC for awhile may recall my circumstances when I was pregnant with my daughter. Jr in college, my husband and I hadn't yet gotten married, I was only working part time, then we moved to NC and both got full time jobs, put on our big-kid pants, and made a life for our family. Yes, my parents helped us out a little, but the point is, we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices. It's not like I can't empathize with where these women are at. I've been there. I remember looking at that test and thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do now?".

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Yes, I get that there isn't a way to get 100% accurate statistics, but even if it were 70%/29%/1%, I would still call that ridiculous...and that's giving a 27% benefit of the doubt.

I'm absolutely not an abstinence-only advocate...in fact, I love what PhoenixAzul's school did. I don't even care what other people do with their own sex lives - but I do care when they bring someone else into the equation.


Some of you who have been around GC for awhile may recall my circumstances when I was pregnant with my daughter. Jr in college, my husband and I hadn't yet gotten married, I was only working part time, then we moved to NC and both got full time jobs, put on our big-kid pants, and made a life for our family. Yes, my parents helped us out a little, but the point is, we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices. It's not like I can't empathize with where these women are at. I've been there. I remember looking at that test and thinking "Holy crap! WTF do I do now?".

And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Here's the thing - I did a research paper on this in 2001. The numbers could have changed some by now (I kinda doubt it), but statistically 97% of abortions are performed as post-conception birth control, 2% rape/incest, and 1% heath reason (mother or child) - and I had several sources on those statistics. It wasn't one pro-life periodical that I got that from. At the time I did the research, it was estimated that 1/3 of all pregnancies were ending in abortion. Seemed high to me, but again, several sources.


I am sympathetic to the rape/incest/medical issues, but the numbers say that it's not what's happening. If it weren't for a fear of innocent (male) victims, I would be willing to say that abortion should be legal only for danger to the mother and legitimate rape/incest cases where charges are filed. Like I said, I know that's not fesable, because it opens up a willing sexual partner to a later rape charge.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not killing babies. And whatever medical term you want to give it at whatever stage of development, it's still human.

Do you have demographic data behind those statistics?

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.

Well said.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

And that was your choice. It was hard, but you actually had a reasonably good situation. Not everyone is as fortunate as you in that tough situation. When talking about such touchy subjects, it's often hard to put yourself in other people's shoes and think about what their situations may be. Yes, there are people who probably get abortions without even thinking about it, but I doubt those people are very common. It's a big decision and a tough one. Even people who are pro-choice say, "I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could make that choice for myself." That indicates that many people would have to be in a really tough place to make that choice.

This is kind of where I am with the whole thing. I personally don't know if that's a choice I could/would make. However, I live in the real world where I recognize that not everyone is in the place (financally, emotionally, etc.) to care for an unplanned child.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

...we could have not taken responsibility and took the "easy way out". We decided to own up to our choices.

Why is parenthood considered the only "noble" choice, even over adoption? Like, bragging that you took the toughest punishment. I don't know if I'm clearly explaining myself. I can't stand it when people who do choose parenthood get up on a high horse by saying they "took responsibility" for their actions, as if that's the only responsible course of action. AF, you were lucky you had the resources to care for a child, even though it probably seemed tough and most certainly changed the plans you initially had for your life.

It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you can't care for. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 1.3 million abortions are performed each year, and about 75% of those are performed because the woman can't afford a/another child. Oh, but there's always adoption. What would 980,000 additional wards of the state every year do to our economy (17.64 million at any given time after 18+ years of such a policy)? Yet, the same people who block access to reproductive choice are often the ones begging to cut government spending.

I agree this case is horrific. I hope it serves as an example of what happens when access to reproductive choice is blocked for those who need it most.