You’ve heard the news, now here’s the comment thread on your favorite gay conservative blog. Kermit Gosnell is guilty of three counts of murder re: the babies, and one count of involuntary manslaughter re: his grownup patient who died in a late-term abortion.
With outstanding cluelessness, Planned Parenthood tweeted “The jury has rightly convicted #Gosnell for his appalling crimes, ensuring no woman is victimized by him ever again.” Clueless, because – even apart from the fact that a Gosnell acquittal probably would have made PP breathe a sigh of relief – they made no mention of Gosnell’s main victims (the murdered babies).
NARAL’s statement started in a similar vein to PP, then topped PP by suggesting that conservatives are the real villains:
Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today…Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.
Lefties!
FROM THE COMMENTS: Noting another deception in the NARAL quote, V the K says “Gosnell was not a ‘back alley butcher,’ he operated precisely the kind of ‘safe and legal’ abortion mill PP and NARAL champion; state licensed, he advertised in the yellow pages and accepted all major credit cards.”
Pure. Conjecture. Breathing a sigh of relief from the acquittal of someone they deemed a “monster” is not likely at all.
Also from Planned Parenthoods’ Twitter:
Please stop abortions.
Fetus are alive and an intact human. Abortion victims are fetuses who have no voice. They are human beings worthy of respect and life.
Imagine if you were a fetus and something came and tore you apart limb to limb, or left you to suffocate to death out of the womb, or die of hypothermia.
Please give all fetuses a chance.
ADOPTION, not abortion.
VS, you need to keep up. You’re only making points that I had already known/assumed.
“Conjecture: An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.”
Have I pretended to possess complete information about PP’s strategy meetings and internal feelings? Well, slightly: in the form of a sarcastic title (plus I threw in the word “fact” when I had meant “likelihood”, a mistake). Then again…not really: Sarcasm is, after all, sarcasm (plus I did remember to throw in the word “probably”).
To settle the matter, I shall clarify it for you, now: I am not, and I do not pretend to be, privy to PP’s strategy meetings or true internal feelings. Done.
Now, you shouldn’t pretend to be, either. Your riposte (leaving the implication that PP rooted for a Gosnell conviction with sincerity, rather than as a cynical political deception) is equally based on no knowledge of PP’s strategy meetings or internal feelings. And thus, as you would put it, “pure conjecture.”
I must call BS. Gosnell was not a “back alley butcher,” he operated precisely the kind of “safe and legal” abortion mill PP and NARAL champion; state licensed, he advertised in the yellow pages and accepted all major credit cards.
Comments should be back on. Looks like they were off a few minutes, when I did the “From the comments” update… sigh.
Gosnell was operating illegal, performing illegal surgeries to financially vulnerable women who couldn’t afford a legitimate facility. It was back alley. Otherwise, he couldn’t have gotten convicted on three charges of murder, manslaughter as well as breaking various other laws.
The name of the “grownup” killed ILC failed to mention was Karnamaya Mongar. Though, he went out of his way to allow Gosnell’s name to be repeated seven times. I guess she wasn’t a “main” enough victim for ILC’s consideration, considering the charge her death brought. I guess ILC considers her death as non-“main” along with the lesser charges.
All quoted words are from ILC.
VS: Again, do keep up. Mongar was killed by Gosnell involuntarily (as in, conviction for involuntary manslaughter). Whereas he murdered (voluntarily and intentionally) the not one, not two, but three babies. More serious offenses, both in number and in degree. And yet I didn’t quote their names, either. They weren’t provided, but even if they were, I probably still wouldn’t have quoted any of the four victims’ names in a short post about -Gosnell- having been on trial.
Really, VS: “he went out of his way to allow Gosnell’s name to be repeated seven times” in a post about Gosnell… One of the silliest criticisms I’ve seen from you.
There is still no reason for the “main” designation. Lives were lost due his negligence and lack of conscience. Really makes no difference coming from the same mind. But, you feel the need to draw a distinction as far as the “main” deaths. Have it your way.
And, you feel the need to repeat the murderer’s name, while ignoring the name of a victim that was readily available. Again, have it your way.
My criticisms “stupid”? Your need to distinguish the three charges of murder from the long list of other charges, including manslaughter, was a choice you made, and insensitive. If it were me, the death of Mongar was right up there with the three babies, but you felt it necessary to create a separation based on the legalities. That was your choice. The same mind who lacked the subscience to kill three babies, belonged to the same mind whose negligence led to the death of a woman. There were four deaths at the hands of a monster, period.
And your condescending “keep up” remarks are not appreciated. I’m “keeping up” just fine. Thank you.
Sure there is: Murder is more serious than involuntary manslaughter. Legally, morally, intentionally. Also, three is greater than one.
All this is a typical VS sideshow. The essential fact – the fact that my post pointed out, and that you, by your series of stupid distractions, clearly do NOT want talked about, is this:
Planned Parenthood and NARAL are evidently monstrous enough, by their omissions, to not want the three murdered babies mentioned. Do they even recognize the murders as crimes, as the Gosnell jury did?
You resent that being noted, so you change the subject with your nonsense.
Pathetic. Again: Before Gosnell’s trial, he wasn’t a ‘criminal’, he was a state-licensed clinic operator of the kind that PP and NARAL sought to defend. Also, the women didn’t go to Gosnell for ‘treatment’, they went for illegal abortions of sufficient lateness so as to constitute murder in the eyes of the jury.
Not only do PP and NARAL support abortion in the third trimester, they also strenuously oppose the types of regulations and inspections that would have shut down clinics like Dr. Gosnell’s.
Also, the question remains, why do PP and NARAL support sucking out the brains of 7,8, and 9 month babies inside the womb, but suddenly it’s a crime to cut the spinal cords of those same babies outside the womb?
Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Unless, you are of the mindset that infanticide is justified if it permits people to have sex without consequences or responsibility.
Bigger question… Did Planned Parenthood refer anyone to Gosnell? Amyone at all? In other words, did PP “force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.”
TL, good question.
I have only a little doubt that, if Gosnell had been acquitted, PP would NOT be out there protesting the injustice of his acquittal. Rather, PP would be glad to see the Gosnell matter vanish, without the verdicts raising such uncomfortable questions about the abortion industry. Or in the vernacular, PP would likely “breathe a sigh of relief”.
Their statement’s torturously-limited condemnation of Gosnell – touching only upon the adult patient’s death, omitting any reference to the murder verdicts for the three dead babies – smacks of a dance for political survival, forced upon them by circumstances.
And also, one should remember that Planned Parenthood and NARAL endorse and support killing babies after birth, as does Barack Obama.
The interesting thing about all of this is that Planned Abortionhood and NARAL had apparently known about Gosnell for years, referred patients to him, and worked strenuously and donated copiously to the Obama Party to make sure he was never inspected, never complained about, never investigated, and shielded completely from any of the oversight and regulation that the Obama Party insists is absolutely necessary.
And he showed quite nicely what Planned Abortionhood and NARAL actually do, and it sure ain’t mammograms.
Gosnell has been convicted on three counts yet operated his facility for over 30 years and was initially investigated due to an unusually high volume of prescription pain killers.
Wow. Such a victory.
Planned Parenthood exterminates 1,000 children every day, primarily for the sake of the mother’s convenience.
VS,
The infants did not chose to go to Gosnell to be murdered while Mongar chose to go to Gosnell to dispose of her child and stayed even as she saw the subpar facility. She had a CHOICE and made a poor decision to trust Gosnell with her life. These infants, with no names, were not offered a choice of life. So the murder of infants who did NOT choose to be murdered is more significant than the involuntary manslaughter of an adult woman who voluntarily, without coercion, choose to go to Gosnell. Get it? The factor is CHOICE. The infants had none, were born alive in Gosnell’s horror shop and had their spines severed. The woman chose Gosnell’s service and essentially died of a drug overdose due to negligence. Not at all equal.
Murder of an innocent child is the height of depraved evil, I am surprised that you refuse to see this. But then again I am making the ridiculous assumption that you are not a lib troll.
And he showed quite nicely what Planned Abortionhood and NARAL actually do, and it sure ain’t mammograms.
Yes, and as the recent undercover videos from Lila Rose have shown, Gosnell was not an outlier.
As a pro choice person early in pregnancy, I am diametrically opposed to mid to late term abortions. This man is horrific, slapping some of his patients and making cruel comments. Gosnell deserves the death penalty. And if he gets life, perhaps one of the inmates will give him a knife to the heart in prison.
I believe PP and NARAL are happy with the conviction. An aquittal would have placed Gosnell on their level. This way, they can condemn him as a one-off and say their activities are not the same.
eeyore – Good point.
Not surprisingly, the State-Run Media didn’t give a whiff about this butcher of a doctor who disgraced his Hippocratic Oath:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/05/14/cnn-covered-arias-trial-more-one-day-gosnell-trial-eight-weeks
Typical libtards.
Regards,
Peter H.
A just verdict, but what needs to happen to this monster (and almost certainly will not) is:
a) he be sentenced to death
b) the method of execution be as near to the atrocities he visited upon these babies as possible
I won’t get too graphic here except to say that his execution wouldn’t require very much in the way of equipment or technology.
A set of sturdy pruning shears or a set of bolt cutters would do the job just fine.
The critical question of ethics that comes from this whole tragedy is: why do we permit a doctor to slice and dice the (fetus, baby, clump of cells) inside the womb with impunity, but charge him with murder if he delivers the (fetus, baby, clump of cells) and slices and dices it outside of the womb?
There is a glaring inconsistency in how our line of right and wrong is drawn. It is probably much safer for the mother to deliver the (whatever) and then dunk it in acid, snip its spine or send it through a shredder. I am sure it can be all numbed up so that it doesn’t “suffer.”
An interesting event occurred on the Fox New Documentary about Gosnell. One of Gosnell’s “patients” was angry to learn that he had cut the foot off her aborted “kid” (that was the word she used) and kept it in a jar as a souvenir.
Consider that. The “mother” dumped a late term pregnancy and her moral compass is pointed at his “abuse” of the dead “kid.” That is symptomatic of where some in this society focus their sense of “outrage.”
I don’t know about you, but I measure pregnancies in months. Therefore, 24 weeks does not impact me with the same force as saying 6 months. Six months is half a year. That is a long time to be pregnant and be thinking over whether you (the mother) want to kill it or not.
So, at nearly 24 weeks, the mom can go get it killed, but if it comes out alive and doctor (first, do no harm) kills it outside of the womb it is “suddenly” murder. Is that how we, as a society, wish to see this? (Obama does and voted accordingly.) So, why can’t the mom go ahead and kill her own “property” if she wants to? Can’t she go get it delivered at nine months and then toss it in the river on the way home?
I shudder to think that we actually need this idiotic conversation, but the Planned Parenthood crowd seems entirely unwilling to confront the “nuances” of abortion. They have assiduously supported partial birth abortion (where legal) out of the conviction that if they give an inch, they will lose the entire issue.
ILC’s statement that the remark is “clueless” is too kind. They parsed their words in the exact fashion that Obama parses his when “terrorism” is the topic.
James Taranto wrote about Gosnell’s Mother’s Day Massacre in 1972 which was the model of women being forced to go to “back alley abortionists” that was featured in the Roe V. Wade 1973 Supreme Court case. How ironic.
It would seem to me, that having “won” their point, Planned Parenthood would be dedicated watchdogs for safe abortions. If for no other reason, it would be good business for the abortion leaders to crush the less than adequate competition.
One of the great weaknesses of Roe v Wade is that it goes off on a pseudo-science tangent. Premature birth survival rates have changed dramatically (for the better) since 1973. That, alone, means that Roe v Wade needs to have a modernization update, if nothing else. But, of course, Roe v. Wade is based on conjectures not found in the Constitution and to revisit it would mean that those conjectures would also be exposed to reexamination.
To those who may be confused by what I written above: I do not think that any doctor should be in the business of killing viable fetuses. I generally oppose the vast majority of abortions.
Full disclosure: I myself am OK with early-term abortions (say, first semester). But hey, you guys on this blog at least opened my eyes on late-term (or second semester). I’m a little more conservative on abortion, than I used to be.
Where to draw the line is indeed a thorny issue. I don’t think my position is perfect; I just know that if a woman can’t kill her rapist’s baby even in the first few weeks, we’re too far in the other direction.
Unless it’s a case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is at stake, I oppose them all (whatever the ‘trimester’).
And let’s cut the crap on this issue: the VAST MAJORITY of the millions of abortions performed in this country since 1973 have had NOTHING to do with rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
They’ve been performed as an ex post facto form of birth control.
It should also be noted that there was a time, not too long ago, when an abortion wouldn’t have been considered even where the life of the mother was an issue.
It’s inspiring to see that we’ve become such selfless, stalwart people.
Whenever I argue with a pro-abort, sooner or later, they’ll make the argument that they support abortion because the alternative is more of “those people” on welfare.
Yeah, and the thing that comes to light is something many have known for years: the so-called “Black Middle Class” brought forth by policies like AA has been maintained by the exploitation of its own poor. It’s the “middle class” and pro-abortionist creed: Kill ’em if you can, use ’em if you must, but NEVER let them go their own way.
V the K:
Why don’t these women utilize birth control or ask their partner to put a rubber on? That would solve the whole abortion mess. And yes, adoption is better, but too many women are so self centered, they do not even consider this option.