Planned Parenthood Breaks Silence on Abortion Monster

[otherone]

That's partially true. I think that the social thinking has to proceed the legislation.

Yes, I agree, but I believe that has been going on for much longer than the 50+s can remember. Prohibition was certainly a response to social pressures as well. That's the problem with democracy....individuals are stomped on by the mob. I think abortion numbers could be affected by educating the young, but not with bloodthirsty rhetoric. It's easier to bleat about sucking the brains out of an abortionist than getting involved, and certainly doesn't make pro-life advocates look rational.

Well ya, we want revenge on that baby by making it live.

That was what I thought, too: That Gosnell should be the victim of a VERY late term abortion.

I'm not sure how post-aborting Gosnell will prevent women from seeking out others like him.

 

[Origanalist]

Yes, I agree, but I believe that has been going on for much longer than the 50+s can remember. Prohibition was certainly a response to social pressures as well. That's the problem with democracy....individuals are stomped on by the mob. I think abortion numbers could be affected by educating the young, but not with bloodthirsty rhetoric. It's easier to bleat about sucking the brains out of an abortionist than getting involved, and certainly doesn't make pro-life advocates look rational.




I'm not sure how post-aborting Gosnell will prevent women from seeking out others like him.

It won't, but should the actions commited by Gosnell be allowed in a "free" society?

 

[otherone]

It won't, but should the actions commited by Gosnell be allowed in a "free" society?

Holding someone accountable for criminal behavior in a Just Society shouldn't include mutilation of the offender.

 

[Origanalist]

Holding someone accountable for criminal behavior in a Just Society shouldn't include mutilation of the offender.

Yes, and I let my emotions get the best of me because I don't believe this is a isolated case. What is your opinion of what holding him accountable would be?

 

[angelatc]

Yes, I agree, but I believe that has been going on for much longer than the 50+s can remember. Prohibition was certainly a response to social pressures as well.

Yes, but that was a case of a minority trying to impose their will on the majority. Which is sort of the reason the SoCons are such a massive fail, too. They didn't set out to change hearts. They set out to change laws.

That's the problem with democracy....individuals are stomped on by the mob. I think abortion numbers could be affected by educating the young, but not with bloodthirsty rhetoric. It's easier to bleat about sucking the brains out of an abortionist than getting involved, and certainly doesn't make pro-life advocates look rational.

Are you saying that the liberals have the calm rational approach to this? The same liberals that shout down pro-life speakers and shred pro-life posters on campuses? That they look rational, while the people who think babies have rights too aren't?

I'm not sure how post-aborting Gosnell will prevent women from seeking out others like him.

Well, I'm not rational, but since I am absolutely convinced that women who seek abortions aren't sane, I actually don't expect to make them stop getting abortions. Can't stop other types of murder either, but I'm certainly not opposed to using all the tools at my disposal to discourage it. <shrugs> I do want society to condemn it. But at this juncture, having a pro-life bumper sticker on your car is considered acceptable justification for sugar in the gas tank.

Like someone else said, I'm not sure there's anything in this country left saving.

 

[angelatc]

Holding someone accountable for criminal behavior in a Just Society shouldn't include mutilation of the offender.

I agree with that to a point, but not from a moral standpoint. If they allow me to pick punishments, I'm good. But when they're allowing politically connected judges and far off legislators to make these calls based partially on the outrage that the media can drum up, it should be pretty easy to see where that can go horribly wrong.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, I agree, but I believe that has been going on for much longer than the 50+s can remember. Prohibition was certainly a response to social pressures as well. That's the problem with democracy....individuals are stomped on by the mob. I think abortion numbers could be affected by educating the young, but not with bloodthirsty rhetoric. It's easier to bleat about sucking the brains out of an abortionist than getting involved, and certainly doesn't make pro-life advocates look rational.




I'm not sure how post-aborting Gosnell will prevent women from seeking out others like him.

You're right, in that there are three parties responsible for the murder of unborn babies--the state, abortion doctors, and the women who want to murder their own baby. So it is not rational to simply direct the anger only at the abortionist. There are other parties involved.

As far as it not being rational that we would talk about sucking out Gosnell's brains... Maybe not. But its no more irrational than describing the baby that you just cut the head off of as a "post operative procedure" or a mass of cells or something like that.

 

[otherone]

Are you saying that the liberals have the calm rational approach to this? The same liberals that shout down pro-life speakers and shred pro-life posters on campuses? That they look rational, while the people who think babies have rights too aren't?

Angela, this isn't a competition with flaming Liberals. It's difficult for us to claim the moral high ground with neutral parties if we advocate a quid pro quo enactment of Hammurabi's code.

 

[otherone]

Yes, and I let my emotions get the best of me because I don't believe this is a isolated case. What is your opinion of what holding him accountable would be?

I believe that in cases of overwhelming evidence the death penalty is warranted for murder.

 

[otherone]

You're right, in that there are three parties responsible for the murder of unborn babies--the state, abortion doctors, and the women who want to murder their own baby.
But its no more irrational than describing the baby that you just cut the head off of as a "post operative procedure" or a mass of cells or something like that.

You've forgotten the father's responsibility.
Again, this isn't a competition to see which side can be the most inflammatory. Responding with concern for the entire family's well-being, not just the unborn, may be more helpful than knee-jerk violent vitriol.

 

[Stallheim]

You've forgotten the father's responsibility.
Again, this isn't a competition to see which side can be the most inflammatory. Responding with concern for the entire family's well-being, not just the unborn, may be more helpful than knee-jerk violent vitriol.

So if the "specialist" had a practice that regularly killed mothers to save the unborn and fathers and doctors were cool with this, would your response be the same? "Let's not be too hasty to condemn mother killing, lets respond with concern for the entire family's well-being, not just the mother." I am following this discussion with interest, but this last comment is very odd. What if fathers, doctors AND the children saved were all cool with it, but the moms were never consulted. I suppose she was outvoted but do you trust Democracy that much?

 

[Origanalist]

The grand jury report charging Gosnell and staff for various crimes.
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

 

[Christian Liberty]

People seem to think that making something illegal, that people want, eliminates it. History has taught us that the consequences of creating a black market are usually tragic. And while it occasionally appears that an abortionist is motivated by murder, it more often seems that many pro-life advocates are motivated by revenge.

It won't, but it also doesn't matter. You don't have a right to hurt someboy else, PERIOD.

Yes, I agree, but I believe that has been going on for much longer than the 50+s can remember. Prohibition was certainly a response to social pressures as well. That's the problem with democracy....individuals are stomped on by the mob. I think abortion numbers could be affected by educating the young, but not with bloodthirsty rhetoric. It's easier to bleat about sucking the brains out of an abortionist than getting involved, and certainly doesn't make pro-life advocates look rational.




I'm not sure how post-aborting Gosnell will prevent women from seeking out others like him.

It won't, but its still what he deserves, since he's a murderer. The women who go to people like him are also murderers.

It won't, but should the actions commited by Gosnell be allowed in a "free" society?

Nope.

Holding someone accountable for criminal behavior in a Just Society shouldn't include mutilation of the offender.

I believe that in cases of overwhelming evidence the death penalty is warranted for murder.

Yeah, this.

The point of mutilating him was that that is exactly what he did to someone else. He is estopped, as Stephan Kinsella would say, from claiming that his mutiliation would be immoral, since he did that to other human beings.

 

[otherone]

I am following this discussion with interest, but this last comment is very odd.

It's odd to say that there is more than one victim in an abortion?

 

[otherone]

The point of mutilating him was that that is exactly what he did to someone else. He is estopped, as Stephan Kinsella would say, from claiming that his mutiliation would be immoral, since he did that to other human beings.

What an ugly thing to say. What HE claims is moral or immoral is not relevant to his punishment.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What an ugly thing to say. What HE claims is moral or immoral is not relevant to his punishment.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

I wouldn't endorse that penalty (Mutiliation) mind you, but he has no moral right to argue against that for himself...

I'm content with shooting him in the head and letting God judge him...

 

[otherone]

but he has no moral right to argue against that for himself...

If your spouse cheats on you, is it moral for you to subsequently cheat on her?

 

[Origanalist]

If your spouse cheats on you, is it moral for you to subsequently cheat on her?

No, but she lost the moral grounds to say you shouldn't.

 

[torchbearer]

If your spouse cheats on you, is it moral for you to subsequently cheat on her?

at the point your spouse cheats(in a marriage), that person has broken the contract. which mean in order for fidelity to part of any deal again. a new contract would have to be agreed to. this usually does not happen. usually the infidelity is used as a ax over that persons head, and the relationship crumbles from poor dynamics.

 

[otherone]

No, but she lost the moral grounds to say you shouldn't.

What difference does that make?