It's Not Abortion, Stupid. It's M-U-R-D-E-R!

'This is slightly tricky, but it should be pointed out even if the pro-lifers wil spew lies about what I’m saying. I’m used to their dishonesty. Yes, there was some real human suffering here, but real human suffering means real humans, not the fetuses intended to be killed anyway. That’s not human suffering.' 

- thuja on April 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM

Listen, luv, and try to wrap your mind around this:

Once a foetus is living separate and apart from its mum, iIt is no longer a foetus. It IS a human being. It IS a FULL PERSON under the law. It IS entitled to the EXACT same constitutional rights and protections under the law that you enjoy. It IS entitled to the EXACT same privileges and immunities under the law that you enjoy.

Any of the foetuses that were born alive in Gosnell’s clinic were EQUAL TO YOU UNDER THE LAW. You are not entitled to anything more than they were legally entitled to be afforded.

This case is NOT about abortion once those foetuses leave the mums’ bodies. This case is NOT about ‘choice.’ The mum and the physician are REQUIRED under the law to seek medical treatment for the child. Killing a live ‘foetus’ is not partial birth abortion or a ‘post-birth abortion.’ IT IS MURDER. Period. Story. End of.

 

 

You can have whatever opinion you want on abortion, but that opinion is IRRELEVANT here, toots.  However one feels about abortion in general is, frankly, irrelevant in the Gosnell case. He is charged with murdering 8 people, 7 of which were newborns. Yes, he more than likely broke Pennsylvania law by performing abortions on women carrying foetuses that were older than 24 weeks, but the primary charges concern his premeditated ‘foetal demise’ activities, i.e., stabbing human beings in the neck with scissors and cutting their spinal columns. If he had done that to a 3 month-old baby or an adult woman, no one would hesitate to label the action ‘MURDER.’ Well, the law makes no distinction between a 30 year-old woman, a 3 month-old baby boy, and a 5 minute-old newborn girl. NONE. 

You had better examine your conscience forthwith. With your kind of moral equivalence, you might find yourself facing the death penalty one day…just as Dr Kermit Gosnell is now.

BTW: Don’t EVER talk about how much you love the Constitution again. It is obvious that you are nothing more than a cafeteria constitutionalist.

'I encourage you to post that, often, so long as the topic is still being discussed. Often some on the right, blinded by their beliefs, don’t fully understand what this case is about. You explain it better than anyone.' 

- Schadenfreude on April 13, 2013 at 12:31 AM

Thx. I will. Also, I actually think that the Right would be well-served if it talked more about the infanticide than abortion, in general. This case is abhorrent and puts pro-aborts on the spot. They can either condemn or they are arguing the Dred Scott case, for all intents and purposes – a child born of a botched abortion is the property of the mum for her to dispose of it as she sees fit. This automatically results in a second-class citizen that is no different than a slave to be dealt with however the mother chooses.

If a newborn baby can be murdered because its mum wanted an abortion and ‘deserves’ a dead baby, then what is the limiting principle? Can she kill it when it’s a week old? A month old? 5 years old? Keith Olbermann living in mummy’s basement?

This case involves a bright line. Once a foetus is born and is alive, it is no longer a foetus. It’s a full human being with the same rights, protections, privileges and immunities as its mother.

From Gosnell's Abattoir...

Severed feet found in Gosnell's clinic