• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

South Dakota Moves to Legalize Killing Abortion Providers

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OK, what's your solution - ban abortions altogether? Good luck with that.
How about some oversight to see that this kind of shit doesn't happen?

Here's one example...do you need more?

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/n...-Was-By-Design.html?page=3&comments=1&showAll=

Neglect of West Philly Abortion Victims Was 'By Design'

By Tara Murtha
Posted Feb. 2, 2011

Before leaving for a job in telemarketing, Steven Massof masqueraded as a doctor at Gosnell’s clinic for five years. An online resume claims he attended medical school in Grenada, but he was not licensed and was paid in cash. He testified that approximately 40 percent of abortions performed at the clinic were on fetuses beyond 24 weeks and that he personally severed the spinal cords of about a hundred babies. Massof, 48, is charged with murder, theft by deception, conspiracy and drug violations.

The report describes daily operating procedure: As patients seeking abortions arrived, whoever was manning the front desk fed them unregulated quantities and mixtures of drugs. The chemical cocktails were designed to simultaneously induce labor and sedate the women. In many cases, the women were pumped so full of drugs they were out cold, or as D.A. Seth Williams explained on a recent episode of NPR’s Radio Times, “like zombies.” He added: “[Patients] did not know inducing the labor and severing the spinal cords of live babies was going to happen.”

The report stated that “All afternoon and evening, as patients woke and complained of pain, workers would continue to medicate them with injections of sedatives. Between doses, the staff would leave the patients largely unattended. This would go on until the doctor arrived, some six or more hours after the patient did, or until the woman delivered.”

Sometimes, depending on how far along the woman was in her pregnancy, the “procedure” would last as long as three days.

“If … a baby was about to come out, I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet,” testified Latosha Lewis, who worked for Gosnell for more than eight years. “I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes. She would not move.”

The latter happened so often that James Johnson, the clinic’s janitor—and common-law husband of 51-year-old Elizabeth Hampton, who is herself Gosnell’s wife’s sister—refused to pull any more flesh out of the plumbing.

Hampton, 51, faces charges of hindering prosecution, perjury, false swearing, and obstructing administration of law.

“[Johnson] described how he had to lift the toilet so that someone else—he said it was too disgusting for him—could get the fetuses out of the pipes.”

If the fetus or babies hadn’t “fallen out” (or “precipitated” in the euphemistic language employed by the staff) by the time Gosnell arrived, staff would push and shove on the women’s abdomen.
“By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, [Gosnell] minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff,” states the report. “The policy, in effect, was labor without labor.”
Once delivered, he would cut the spinal cord, then crush the skulls.

Upstairs, there was one clean room with a television. Tina Baldwin is a 45-year-old who worked at the clinic testified that the separate room was reserved for white women only.

“The … black population was … big here. So he didn’t mind you medicating your African-American girls, your Indian girl, but if you had a white girl from the suburbs, oh, you better not medicate her. You better wait until he go in and talk to her first.”

Baldwin is facing charges of racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption of a minor for allowing her teenage daughter to also work at the clinic.

Targeting the poorest women, women of color and immigrants like Mongar who didn’t speak English and could not read the papers they signed, was lucrative for Gosnell. When the grand jury searched the doctor’s home, they found $240,000 in cash—and a gun—in a closet of his 12-year-old daughter’s room. The cash is a pittance compared to the millions of dollars generated over decades.

“Political Football”

GosnellOfficeInterior_NoReflection.jpg

His butcher shop of an abortion factory and prescription-pill mill were operated in the unbridled pursuit of profit. He made little pretense to care for patients. When not fatally neglecting women and killing babies, he regularly hit them and forced abortions on underage girls at their guardians’ request.

The depths of inhumanity that can reside behind a gentle face is one facet of this story. That racism and sexism—both of his own and the institutions that failed to respond to complaints—enabled the atrocity is another.

“Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that,” states the report. “But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”
 
Last edited:
This isn't about placating the anti-abortion crowd...it's about the pro-abortion people opening their eyes.

The anti-abortion crowd needs to open their eyes, too. Everyone needs to open their eyes.. not necessarily to the same things, but open their eyes nonetheless.
 
This isn't about placating the anti-abortion crowd...it's about the pro-abortion people opening their eyes.

They're already wide open. The mantra is "Legal, safe and RARE" for a reason. It's well known that it's not pretty, and called by many a necessary evil. I've never met anyone "pro-abortion".

That doesn't change the requirement that women must have the right, for a reasonable time, to control their bodies completely.
 
They're already wide open. The mantra is "Legal, safe and RARE" for a reason. It's well known that it's not pretty, and called by many a necessary evil. I've never met anyone "pro-abortion".

That doesn't change the requirement that women must have the right, for a reasonable time, to control their bodies completely.
I don't think you see my point here. Please tell me when a fetus becomes a person...and the line when an abortion becomes a murder.

As far as your manta goes...legal it is...safe is sketchy...and RARE is bullshit.
 
The anti-abortion crowd needs to open their eyes, too. Everyone needs to open their eyes.. not necessarily to the same things, but open their eyes nonetheless.
Open their eyes in what way? That 'Party of Family Values' hasn't done shit and will never be to now that abortion has become so entrenched in our highly secularized society?
 
Great! Abortion procedures will be heavily regulated under your vision. Now what?
I thought you shared my vision...how about you instead tell me "Now what?" besides the obvious fact that an ugly world will become a little more humane. I'm frankly surprised that you even asked the question.
 
I don't think you see my point here. Please tell me when a fetus becomes a person...and the line when an abortion becomes a murder.

Why is a minor a minor until 18? Does a person magically gain powers at 18 making them smart enough to vote or serve in the military? Why arbitrary drinking age limits? Or drivers licenses? Or for holding elective office?

These aren't black and white issues which is why there isn't a black and white solution. "Trimesters" are handy shorthands describing bright lines in gestation because someone has to draw them somewhere. Most people recognize instinctively that a 6 week old fetus does not deserve the same governmental protection as an 8.5month old fetus. When a close friend had a miscarriage I felt sorry for her, but not nearly the way I would have felt had her 2 year old died.

Eyes are already open that these are hard issues, you don't have to pretend the people with a view different from you "just don't get it." They so understand, and still disagree with your priorities.
 
They're already wide open. The mantra is "Legal, safe and RARE" for a reason. It's well known that it's not pretty, and called by many a necessary evil. I've never met anyone "pro-abortion".

That doesn't change the requirement that women must have the right, for a reasonable time, to control their bodies completely.

This/
 
I thought you shared my vision...how about you instead tell me "Now what?" besides the obvious fact that an ugly world will become a little more humane. I'm frankly surprised that you even asked the question.
Eh? You're the one who is saying the "pro-abortion" needing to open their eyes.
 
Open their eyes in what way? That 'Party of Family Values' hasn't done shit and will never be to now that abortion has become so entrenched in our highly secularized society?

Open their eyes to the fact that abortion rates have been falling for decades, in spite of the fact that it is legal. Abortion isn't "entrenched", nor is it any more or less prevalent because of our "highly secularized society". It is what it is... and less of them are being had today than there were in years past, and fewer will be had in the future than are performed today. Society is choosing, more often than ever before, to use the many alternatives to abortion instead. This trend must continue, not be shaken up by zealous efforts by anti-abortion advocates.
 
Why is a minor a minor until 18? Does a person magically gain powers at 18 making them smart enough to vote or serve in the military? Why arbitrary drinking age limits? Or drivers licenses? Or for holding elective office?

These aren't black and white issues which is why there isn't a black and white solution. "Trimesters" are handy shorthands describing bright lines in gestation because someone has to draw them somewhere. Most people recognize instinctively that a 6 week old fetus does not deserve the same governmental protection as an 8.5month old fetus. When a close friend had a miscarriage I felt sorry for her, but not nearly the way I would have felt had her 2 year old died.

Eyes are already open that these are hard issues, you don't have to pretend the people with a view different from you "just don't get it." They so understand, and still disagree with your priorities.
Please answer the question. Where do you draw the line between a fetus without rights and a person with full human rights?
 
Please answer the question. Where do you draw the line between a fetus without rights and a person with full human rights?

If you want a simple but misleading and incomplete answer, full legal rights attend at birth, but some rights may attach in utero, like the second amendment. I believe the rights of the fetus grow along with gestation but must be balanced against the mother's. I'm not opposed, and the law allows, for the outlawing of third trimester abortions. There is no philosophical hardline to establish viability so arbitrary lines are drawn to create a workable legal framework.

Only 15-20% of the country would outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape. That means the overwhelming majority of people, and about half of pro-lifers, recognize that a fetus is not a person with equal rights, at least early in the pregnancy.

You seem to be implying there is hypocrisy in being pro-choice without the ability to state with certainty when a fetus is a person. There isn't. The real hypocrisy is in pro-lifers who believe fetuses are persons with full rights but who would also allow for abortions in cases of rape because it would be difficult for the mother. That's the inconsistent position.

I also recognize that this conversation is never had on the same level between pro-life and pro-choice. As pro-choice, I believe a woman has a right to control her body, and that's a pretty ministerial position. But pro-lifers believe that babies are being slaughtered. How do you have a logical argument with someone who believes that? We'd talk past each other, as these 2 groups have talked past each other, for decades unto centuries.
 
Last edited:
Eh? You're the one who is saying the "pro-abortion" needing to open their eyes.
Look...you brought up Tiller and used that to smear the pro-life crowd. I merely brought up the flip side of abortion to put the issue of the number of human lives involved in perspective if that's the way you want to measure this issue. Most pro-abortionists don't understand that these issues even exist and just how incredibly pervasive they are...but instead they sure as hell can tell me about Tiller.
 
If you want a simple but misleading and incomplete answer, full legal rights attend at birth, but some rights may attach in utero, like the second amendment. I believe the rights of the fetus grow along with gestation but must be balanced against the mother's. I'm not opposed, and the law allows, for the outlawing of third trimester abortions. There is no philosophical hardline to establish viability so arbitrary lines are drawn to create a workable legal framework.

Only 15-20% of the country would outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape. That means the overwhelming majority of people, and about half of pro-lifers, recognize that a fetus is not a person with equal rights, at least early in the pregnancy.

You seem to be implying there is hypocrisy in being pro-choice without the ability to state with certainty when a fetus is a person. There isn't. The real hypocrisy is in pro-lifers who believe fetuses are persons with full rights but who would also allow for abortions in cases of rape because it would be difficult for the mother. That's the inconsistent position.
Then it looks like we can a least agree that a fetus has full rights as a human being at birth. That said, are you aware that thousands of human beings are routinely murdered in our abortion clinics? Is this somehow acceptable?
 
A clarification that is unnecessary. Show me a judge or jury in SD that convicted a pregnant woman of murder for defending herself from an attacker.

Sure. Right after you show me a case where someone kills an abortion doctor and gets off scott free.
 
Open their eyes to the fact that abortion rates have been falling for decades, in spite of the fact that it is legal. Abortion isn't "entrenched", nor is it any more or less prevalent because of our "highly secularized society". It is what it is... and less of them are being had today than there were in years past, and fewer will be had in the future than are performed today. Society is choosing, more often than ever before, to use the many alternatives to abortion instead. This trend must continue, not be shaken up by zealous efforts by anti-abortion advocates.
I totally disagree with you...abortion is highly entenched in our culture and is now considered a "right" by an ever-increasing segment.

But don't worry zsdersw...the pro-lifers will never be able to shake up this "trend" you speak of...the pro-abortion crowd has won.
 
Then it looks like we can a least agree that a fetus has full rights as a human being at birth. That said, are you aware that thousands of human beings are routinely murdered in our abortion clinics? Is this somehow acceptable?

Who said it was acceptable? They brought that doc up on murder charges.
 
I'm saying that thousands of human beings are routinely murdered in our abortion clinics...that this is not an isolated incident. Were you not aware of this?

If that's the case, then no I''m not aware of it, it would be murder and it should be stopped and punished as it is in the article you linked, and it doesn't alter my position on women's rights. Who says anything different, or are you trying to refute comparisons to Tiller?
 
Back
Top