Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Something I don't understand with this practice

by Steven Haninger / May 13, 2013 10:12 AM PDT
Abortion doctor found guilty of murder

So if he's successful in killing the fetus/baby before it exits the birth canal, everything is fine and dandy...but if he kills it afterward, it's murder? The intent from the very beginning was to kill something. We're talking about maybe a few minutes in time so what magic happens in those minutes to change the definition of what's happened from legal activity to criminal activity? Sometimes laws can seem very stupid.
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Something I don't understand with this practice
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Something I don't understand with this practice
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I agree the law is stupid
by James Denison / May 13, 2013 12:09 PM PDT

but it's been stupid since abortion was allowed and maybe this will serve as another nail in the coffin for it. Stupid is as stupid does.

Collapse -
A couple of things about this
by TONI H / May 13, 2013 8:21 PM PDT

case in particular is that he was performing the abortions illegally from the git-go.......PA has a law (and most states have it now as part of a Federal law) that late-term abortions cannot be done after 24 weeks. That's because the baby, with new medical interventions and abilities, can actually survive at that point and beyond a good portion of the time and be healthy later with fewer complications than ever before. So in most of his cases, he and his patients were breaking the law. The other thing about this case was the manner in which he was performing 'out of the womb' abortions......he was actually murdering them in various ways, and some were being 'toyed' with for as long as 20 minutes before he killed them. This wasn't a case of injecting something into the baby's heart to stop it quickly or overdosing intervenously like you would put down a dog in as humane a way as possible....this doctor was over-the-top intentionally cruel and inflicting horrendous pain during the murders. The prosecution was able to prove that at least four of the five babies' deaths he was charged with that those babies had survived the 'abortion' and were alive when they were born. This is the same type of charge that a mother gets charged with when she has a baby in secret and kills it intentionally and dumps it in a trashbag to be rid of it.

I believe that a new amendment(s) to Roe v Wade will be written soon to cover instances like this. As far as I'm concerned, the doctor and his assistants who plea bargained a guilty plea should not have been the only ones charged in this case. Every single one of those mothers from hell should also be charged and I can only hope that now that this case is done, that will happen and get just as much publicity from conservative media as this case did......which finally caused the liberal media to pick up on it and begin reporting it. They should all be doing time since they willingly allowed the murder of these babies to happen and were breaking the law just as much as this quack.

Collapse -
The whole idea turns on convoluted legalistic thinking,IMO.
by Ziks511 / May 13, 2013 9:09 PM PDT

While the fetus is inside the mother and is attached to her and is supplied with oxygen and nutrition by her it is not viewed in law as a separate being, however viable. The abortion is being carried out on the mother whose life is of primary concern, and assuming she survives, that is where the reasoning ends. I don't like this contorted disengenuous thinking, but it`s what has been the basis of the ruling. If the baby emerges and begins to breathe on its own, then it becomes an individual human being on its own, and therefore all efforts to resuscitate are to be attempted.

This the doctor didn't do, therefore he is guilty of murder for not doing his job. If he had done all that was considered possible to resuscitate the new person attempting to breathe and had failed, he would have been in the clear, had he succeeded, he would have been in the clear. It was the absence of any effort that put him in jeopardy.

The sooner we have a better ruling, or better contraception, or the wide availability and use of Plan B the better.

Toni will disagree with this but so long as intervention occurs before the blastocyst implants in the womb then it is just a collection of cells. It has the potential to develop into a fetus, or any of the various unsuccessful proceeds of conception which at that early date are indistinguishable from the blastocyst (i.e. the fertilized ovum developing cells and growing. Additionally, failure to implant occurs fairly frequently, and implanted fetuses also fail at one point or another during gestation.

My own limit tends to be within the first two months, and even that I am uncomfortable with. One of the earliest features to develop is the neural fold which is the precursor to the spine and brain. The heart is partly formed and begins beating around week ?3, or ?4.

The problem I see as equally acute and important to abortion is the problem of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted babies. Unless the State is willing to put into place a mechanism for assuring loving parents for each birth, then we will be creating a generation of neglected and abused children. We have more than enough of them already.

Rob

Collapse -
Siamese twins and unwanted babies
While the fetus is inside the mother and is attached to her and is supplied with oxygen and nutrition by her it is not viewed in law as a separate being, however viable.

Same could be said where one Siamese twin is dependent on the other for life, but the dependent twin could be removed so the life of the other might be "unburdened". As for unwanted babies, there's already a shortage of white babies wanted by couples, enough so they go to foreign countries to adopt them. If that is an argument, then wouldn't it stand to reason that only abortions of the unwanted or unadoptable would be allowed? If so, would that be discrimination on behalf or against any such group?
Collapse -
Mankind as always been faced with tough choices
by Steven Haninger / May 14, 2013 1:32 AM PDT

and has created ways to deal with them as best as possible in both the secular and non-secular worlds of thought. The best policy, IMO, has always been a simple one that we first attempt to do good and avoid all that is "evil". Barring that, we can only justify doing evil when it's to avoid a greater evil. It seems that similar logic exists today but we've replaced the words "good" and "evil" with "convenience" and "inconvenience"

Collapse -
going to other countries isn't just a shortage
by Roger NC / May 15, 2013 10:59 AM PDT

some find the entire procedure, legal, social services, red tape, etc too long and difficult in the US.

Others, at least a few years ago, started shopping for babies overseas when courts started giving visitation rights or even outright custody of children back to birth mothers 2, 3, or more years after the adoption.

Know of one or two of each case myself. That's relatives, close or distant, not just web stories.

Collapse -
But it wasn't fine & dandy at all
by Josh K / May 14, 2013 1:22 AM PDT

He was performing abortions well past the legal term limit, and then if the babies emerged alive he killed them.

Collapse -
I still wouldn't see a difference
by Steven Haninger / May 14, 2013 1:59 AM PDT

The desire was to terminate a living being regardless of its technical description by lawmakers as being human or not. Thus far, it seems we are using current technology to determine viability. That technology has improved greatly over time and I'd think we'll continue to see success in saving preemies even earlier. Does the law just move the window as that happens?...and science and medicine come up with an artificial womb that can take over entirely? Just might happen.

Collapse -
(NT) It's man's law, Steven.
by drpruner / May 17, 2013 6:53 AM PDT
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
icon
Laptops 19,436 discussions
icon
Security 30,426 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
icon
Windows 10 360 discussions
icon
Phones 15,802 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

CNET's Tech Minute

Top 3 news reading apps

With the latest tech, getting news delivered to your phone is easier than ever. Here's a roundup of apps that are customizable and useful for getting the news.