The Philadelphia Horror: How mass murder gets a pass

[David43515]

I dont know. When my children were being born it was obvious that a human head was coming out. If this guy stuck a pr of scissors in the baby before it was "entirely out" that would be OK?

The whole "when is it human" thing is a slippery slope IMO.

I`m almost afraid to comment on this thread because abortion is such an emotional issue for so many people. And it should be because both sides support a fundemental right that in this case clashes with another fundemental right. Namely the right to choose what happens in your own body vs the right of another person to live. I doubt if we`ll ever find common ground the two sides will really agree on.

If I can, I`d like to suggest that for a short while we don`t sidetrack this thread with questions about too many tangents. What we have here is a news story about one "clinic" where the staff is accused of serious crimes and dangerous incompetance. I for one need a little time to absorb it all before I can discuss all the "what ifs" that come when we discuss a topic like this. At least if we all want to remain civil with each other.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Take a cop's badge away, and he or she can not fight crime anymore. It is really quite simple. You are or you aren't authorized.
Sean

That's not actually true.

As far as I know, all people in the U.S. have the power to make a private person's arrest. That would include using reasonable force to apprehend someone. The only thing that changes is certain regulations, such as being armed, warrants, etc.

So if you wanted, you could go around making private person's arrests for anyone you see commiting a crime.

This is simplistic, I know, just trying to make a point. Look at the Guardian Angels for an example.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

There are exceptions; I am aware that some have been charged with two counts of homicide for killing a pregnant woman near term; but speaking in general I suspect unlicensed abortion would not rise to the definition of murder.

And that goes to what I like to call the insanity of our society. In one case killing a fetus is murder, in another it is not (not including an argument for the mother's self-defense).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I dont know. When my children were being born it was obvious that a human head was coming out. If this guy stuck a pr of scissors in the baby before it was "entirely out" that would be OK?

I personally don't think abortion is "OK" at all, but that is not the question. The question is legality. Typically in a so-called 'partial birth' abortion, the baby is delivered but NOT the head; ie, a breech birth. I'm not claiming this makes it OK. Just stating what my understanding of the law is.

The whole "when is it human" thing is a slippery slope IMO.

Of course it is, and I said that. My statement was merely that there is NO question about if they baby is alive after it has been born and is breathing on its own. That's all.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And that goes to what I like to call the insanity of our society. In one case killing a fetus is murder, in another it is not (not including an argument for the mother's self-defense).

This is another argument entirely. This goes to the point I was making that this case is being co-opted to reopen the argument against abortion. This case is not actually about abortion, since the babies were born when killed. That's not abortion.

 

[billc]

No disrespect intended, but when you say it isn't about abortion because these babies were born when they were killed, if he had killed them without bringing them out of the womb, at the point where he did kill them, would there be a difference?

Not to go to far off topic, if these children survived the an attempt at abortion and were living outside the womb, should they qualify for life saving measures, since they have cleared the womb and survived?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No disrespect intended, but when you say it isn't about abortion because these babies were born when they were killed, if he had killed them without bringing them out of the womb, at the point where he did kill them, would there be a difference?

If my aunt had testes, she'd be my uncle. She doesn't, so she isn't. All due respect.

 

[Blade96]

If my aunt had testes, she'd be my uncle. She doesn't, so she isn't. All due respect.

*snicker*

 

[billc]

Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures? After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.

 

[granfire]

Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures? After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.

I suppose there are a lot of questions to be answered, from the moral vs legal points.
However, using methods that would get you into trouble dispatching an animal should land you in serious hot water in this case.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Comedy aside, if an infant survives the abortion, is clear of the womb and is still alive, should the doctor be required to perform life saving measures? After all, the article mentioned he killed babies outside the womb, which seems to be the dileneation point between abortion and murder in this article.

Comedy aside, that has nothing to do with the crimes being discussed. You're still trying to draw a comparison where there isn't one. If you have an ax to grind, please do not be sly about it. Your previous posts don't show any attempt to sucker people into an agenda, but this one does. State what it is you feel you must state and move on, please.

 

[billc]

If I am reading the news articles correctly, the doctor and some of his staff are accused not of performing abortions incorrectly, or of being unlicensed, etc, as such; they are accused of murder. In a least several cases, they are accused of having delivered living babies and then killing post-delivery.
Bill Mattocks

My question is still, if delivering a live baby, all the way clear of the womb, is considered murder in what you have stated above, then, if the baby survives the abortion attempt, is a doctor required to perform life saving measures?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My question is still, if delivering a live baby, all the way clear of the womb, is considered murder in what you have stated above, then, if the baby survives the abortion attempt, is a doctor required to perform life saving measures?

That is not a question, that is a lure. State your point, please.

Seriously, my friend. I was born at night, but not last night (speaking of birth). I sometimes recognize an ambush when I see one.

I recognize you have an agenda here. I recognize you're attempting to lure others into making a statement so that you can pounce and give your opinion. None of this has anything to do with the crimes the abortion doctor is accused of, but you seem to have an ax regarding abortion that you wish to grind, and you need a willing participant. I am not that person. State your agenda and move on, please.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

That is not a question, that is a lure. State your point, please.

Seriously, my friend. I was born at night, but not last night (speaking of birth). I sometimes recognize an ambush when I see one.

I recognize you have an agenda here. I recognize you're attempting to lure others into making a statement so that you can pounce and give your opinion. None of this has anything to do with the crimes the abortion doctor is accused of, but you seem to have an ax regarding abortion that you wish to grind, and you need a willing participant. I am not that person. State your agenda and move on, please.

Actually, it is a legal point that has been debated, , because it happens, and in this context if a perfectly valid question.

 

[billc]

Now with a little time. I guess what I see in this are the things that are slightly off kilter. One of the comments talks about the guy in question not being licensed. It is fascinating to me that if he is unlicensed on Monday, and does one of the things he is accused of, it is murder. Having a license would clear him of one of the many horrors he is accused of. If on tuesday he has his license, then it is legal. A piece of paper determines murder, from legal, it is just interesting.
Another one, that you mention Bill Mattock,


"However, although there is a lot of gray area surrounding people's beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person for the purposes of applying legal protection due any living person, I do believe there is no doubt at all; a baby born and breathing, removed from the mother entirely, is in no sense anything but a human being. Killing the child at that point can never be considered an abortion.

If this guy had done the killing, while the baby had been in the womb, it would possibly be considered a third trimester abortion, which some people say is controversial, but is a gray area. The seperation of, would it be a distance measurement, as in the distance of the abdominal cavity to the outside world, or a time measurement, how long outside the womb that changes a legal procedure to murder. It is interesting to me think about. If he had killed the same baby that you discuss above, in the womb, that would be another legal problem he could possibly avoid.

that in this story of horrors, that the fact he didn't have a license is mentioned, possibly, I would need to go back and look at the story again, seems funny to me. It would be like reading a story about a guy who steals a car, drives through a crowd and killing a whole bunch of people, while he is firing an automatic weapon at more innocent people. When he is stopped you find he had human remains in the car and then among these horrors, the reporter states that on top of all this, it was discovered that the man did not possess a current drivers license.

Bill Mattock, In your posts you do a good job of sticking to the details, in a clinical or analytical way. That is your style and it is a good way to be. It isn't mine, I get a lot of grief sometimes, that's the way it goes. If I see something I think is "off kilter" I like to ask questions. One question would be, with your definition of life, above, would a baby that survives an abortion, to your definition, be required to recieve life saving measures? I personally think it fits in with the story about this ghoul, since he murdered fully formed babies outside the womb. that's all.

It would in fact be another crime, if he failed to provide life saving measures to a fully born but injured baby, wouldn't it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It would in fact be another crime, if he failed to provide life saving measures to a fully born but injured baby, wouldn't it?

Just not going to let that go, are you?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually, it is a legal point that has been debated, , because it happens, and in this context if a perfectly valid question.

It's not a valid question when it's a bear trap. The point here is that he wants someone to make a statement 'yes' or no' and then he can drag out his agenda, an agenda that is about abortion and not about an unlicensed abortion doctor who is alleged to have killed live babies.

What you're saying is that it is a "perfectly valid question" because you would also like to have a debate about abortion, yes?

Like I said, I was born at night, but not last night. I've been subjected to the 'innocent question' from experts, from religious whackadoos to political hacks of all persuasions, and it always starts by asking an opinion on a specific question of this type, followed by an "ah-hah!" and then a pounce on the victim. The point is not to ask what I think, Bilichak doesn't give two figs what I think. The point is to open the floor for him to vent his spleen about what he thinks, in this case about abortion and not about the topic.

I've never cared for that approach. If a person has a monster agenda that they are just bursting to vomit all over the forum, let them do what they have to do, but leave me out of those little plans.

 

[billc]

If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum. I have already given my beliefs on abortion elsewhere, but didn't think that that would be the point here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum. I have already given my beliefs on abortion elsewhere, but didn't think that that would be the point here.

Sorry to spoil your fun, but I don't agree. It was and is a setup, IMHO. I have fallen for many a setup, but not today.

 

[Blade96]

If you read my other posts, I don't need an "ah-ha" moment to vent my spleen, I can do that at will, and often do, to the annoyance of many on this forum

except me though. I dont get annoyed. My reaction is like giggle and say there goes ole bill again hehehe

I wouldnt mind a good ole abortion debate but this aint a thread about abortion really.