Abortion Docs And Serial Killers

Serial killers are known for keeping trophies of their crimes. Reader Tom C notes that abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who is now facing trial for managing to commit deeds that even this nation's pro-abortion establishment feels crosses the line, also has that tendency. Here, the Philadelphia Inquirer  expresses puzzlement as to why he kept jars of the preserved feet of the unborn children.

Answer for the clueless: It was because he is a cold-blooded sociopath and no damn different than a  serial killer.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 3/21/2013 2:22 PM Cathy Craddock wrote:
    Bet you can guess why the national news broadcasts on ABC/NBC/CBS have not covered this trial.
    Reply to this
  • 3/21/2013 11:57 PM Kristina wrote:
    You can't kill what's not alive.
    Reply to this
    1. 3/22/2013 10:02 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
      If the heart's beating and it has a face you can be rather certain it's alive.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/22/2013 10:59 PM Kristina wrote:
        Normally yes, but if IT is still in ITS mother's womb, then IT is a fetus.
        Reply to this
        1. 3/23/2013 12:04 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
          If life is determined by the beating of the heart then it doesn't matter where that heart is beating for there to be life.
          Reply to this
          1. 3/23/2013 6:09 PM Kristina wrote:
            Life is determined from the moment you are born and take your first breath of air. Not a beating heart.
            Reply to this
            1. 3/24/2013 7:45 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
              And who determines that?
              Reply to this
              1. 3/24/2013 10:56 PM Kristina wrote:
                The law in every first world country....anyone who cares about female rights....anyone who knows the first thing about medicine.
                Reply to this
                1. 3/25/2013 10:28 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                  See reply in new post
                  Reply to this
  • 3/25/2013 8:46 AM Liz wrote:
    I agree with Kristina, unborn, fetus, born a baby if viable. Till born fetus is just tissue. I can't believe these men who think they are GOD!!! Women can take care of their health and the health and economics of their family. Get out of our personal business.
    Reply to this
  • 3/25/2013 10:32 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
    To Kristina,

    Who is teaching you this garbage?

    The law in every first world country.... (says human life starts when you take your first breath)

    Actually, no. France and Germany both ban abortion after 12 weeks & the U.K. after 24 weeks.

    anyone who cares about female rights....

    So the people in France, Germany and the U.K. don't care about "female rights?" Maybe your thinking of China where they force the women to have abortions.

    anyone who knows the first thing about medicine.

    Like those in the U.K., France and Germany not to mention all doctors who take seriously the Hippocratic oath?
    Reply to this
  • 3/25/2013 11:36 PM Kristina wrote:
    They ban abortion after the first trimester, but they still allow abortion. Just like we do. In the US, doctors will only perform a 2nd trimester abortion if the mother's life is at stake.

    This hippocratic oath also only applies to LIVING PEOPLE! Not unborn fetuses. Otherwise, wouldn't those UK, France, and Germany doctors be breaking it by performing abortions at all? The fetus isn't alive, so they're not killing anything. You just said they DO perform abortions....but aren't breaking the hippocratic oath.

    And it's not garbage - it's science. Unlike religion, it's based on facts. It's also MY body. NOT yours. NOT the governments. NOT a mixture of cells inside it. Making abortion illegal won't stop it - this just makes it safer for women.

    And before you try to insult me, please learn correct grammar yourself. The difference between "your" and "you're" should be something you learn in the first grade.
    Reply to this
    1. 3/26/2013 9:12 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
      Yes, Kristina it is garbage that you are being taught.

      Read the Hippocratic oath, yourself.

      The claim that the "law in every first world country" declares that "life is determined from the moment you are born and take your first breath of air" is false. In France and Germany, in fact, it is far closer to the traditional standard of a beating heart/active mind. BTW, Poland and Ireland have near total bans on abortion. Most consider them first world countries.

      Why did you say that "law in every first world country" declares that "life is determined from the moment you are born and take your first breath of air"? You didn't cook up that false belief on you own.

      In the United States, second trimester abortions are legal in every state as per Roe v Wade. Some states have restrictions on third term abortions but about 1,000 a year still occur in this country.

      Yes, it is killing a baby -- fetus, btw, is Latin for bearing of young, and was sometimes used for newborns or offspring -- and inflicting pain on another human being.


      No, it is not your body no matter how many capital letters you want to use. You are merely the one stuck with taking care of him or her. And, no, murder is not an option.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/26/2013 1:50 PM Kristina wrote:
        You're still saying that these countries allow abortions - meaning they're not banned. I know the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. That's why doctors don't put people to death in prisons. Why do they perform abortions? Because they're not killing anything.

        And it IS my body. All the FETUS is is tissue and cells. Nothing more. It may come from a different meaning in latin, but so do a lot of other words. We're speaking english, and that's the definition I'm going off of.

        It's MY body. I'll do what *I* want with it. If I don't want a parasite feeding off of me, I won't have one. I don't plan on getting pregnant any time soon, and I wouldn't want an abortion, but it IS my right and depending on the circumstances, I WOULD get one. It's the WOMAN'S body. It's the WOMAN'S rights. An unborn fetus does NOT have more rights than a living being.
        Reply to this
        1. 3/26/2013 5:36 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
          Um, you forget to capitalize Latin and English.

          Go and actually read the Hippocratic oath.

          And that fetus is tissues and cells just like, well, you. It even has a face and a heartbeat.

          And nerves that transmit pain.
          Reply to this
          1. 3/26/2013 11:05 PM Kristina wrote:
            As soon as the sperm hits the egg it has a face and nails and a heartbeat? Yeah, no.
            Reply to this
            1. 3/26/2013 11:30 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
              For those who think life starts with a new DNA progressing seamlessly until death, that would be when the sperm hits the egg.

              The heartbeat and face don't come about until week six.
              Reply to this
              1. 3/27/2013 12:58 AM Kristina wrote:
                That's my point. You're saying abortion is wrong because a fetus has this that and the other thing.....yet you just admitted they don't. You can't kill what's not alive.
                Reply to this
                1. 3/27/2013 1:17 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                  Replying in a new comment
                  Reply to this
  • 3/27/2013 1:21 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
    Kristina wrote:
    That's my point. You're saying abortion is wrong because a fetus has this that and the other thing.....yet you just admitted they don't. You can't kill what's not alive.


    OK, so you are saying that if it has those things it is alive, and so once it develops those things -- at six weeks -- it is indisputably alive and you shouldn't be allowed to kill it, right?
    Reply to this
    1. 3/27/2013 9:31 AM Kristina wrote:
      No. There's also no hard proof that a fetus can feel pain that early.
      Reply to this
      1. 3/27/2013 9:55 AM Bill Lawrence wrote:
        Why is "hard proof" needed?

        Shouldn't "distinct possibility" be the standard to guide your actions regarding the infliction of suffering on others?

        How about later in the pregnancy when it becomes pretty certain that the unborn child feels pain? At what point would you say "no, this must not be done"?
        Reply to this
        1. 3/27/2013 11:16 AM Kristina wrote:
          More evidence says they feel nothing until it's developed. When it can survive on its own outside of the womb, then a c-section or induced labor can be performed. If it can't, then an abortion is an option.

          What about the lady in Ireland who died (along with the dead "baby") because they refused to give her an abortion? She didn't deserve to die because a parasite made her septic.
          Reply to this
          1. 3/27/2013 12:59 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
            You have evidence that a child in the womb feels nothing until it's "developed?" What evidence is this? By "developed" what do you mean?

            I'm guessing you are referring to Savita Halappanavar as the "lady in Ireland." The case is being investigated but it appears to more a medical mistake than having much to do with abortion law.

            Just across the Irish Sea, it has been revealed that 40,000 preventable deaths are occurring annually in the U.K.'s sate-run health care system. Where's the outrage about that? Did they deserve to die? Expect to see that start happening here, btw.

            Did Tonya Reaves deserve to die?"

            Truthfully, "deserve to die" is a rather stupid phrase. We are all going to. It's how we live that is what matters.
            Reply to this
            1. 3/27/2013 1:21 PM Kristina wrote:
              Actually they knew the baby was dead inside her and that she was septic. They refused to remove it because they said abortion was wrong and against their religion. If you read about it, you'd know.

              And yes, we are all going to die. But she could've lived a lot longer if those doctors hadn't left her to die because of their religious beliefs.
              Reply to this
              1. 3/27/2013 3:36 PM Bill Lawrence wrote:
                That's good that you know all this because you can inform the authorities in Ireland and they don't need to waste time continuing the investigation.

                There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the doctors would not have been in violation of the law if they had removed the embryo from Mrs. Halappanavar. So this isn't about law but about the judgement of a doctor.

                Sure is a shame that the Halappanavars couldn't have done some doctor shopping like we can do here.

                Or used to anyway.

                You raise an interesting point, though, about what to do if a doctor refuses to perform a procedure due to his religious beliefs. So, what do you do? Call him names? Drive him from the practice of medicine? What if he is extremely skilled and just saved the lives of a dozen kids in the past two months?

                And if would have been kind of nice if Tonya Reaves lived a little longer, dontch think?
                Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.