Oh, well, I would never trust a doctor who tells me I have to make a very large electronic deposit iinto his bank account before I am allowed to even meet him. Once you pay the money your basically stuck with whatever you get. It sounds like once you put a huge sum ofmoney in his account, then you travel to a secret location, and whether you feel confident of his services or not, your on the hook for all that money. I think that would make alot of women feel like once they manage to come up with all that money, alot of them probably feel they have to go theough with the procedure, whether they want to or not. That might be why he does it that way. Pay first before you come for the service. They cannot meet him it sounds like until they have the service done. Not like a real doctor where you meet and have a consultation BEFORE deciding to have it or not
Brown Eyed Girl, when I refer to viability, I don’t mean that it’s biologically independent, only that it has human rights at that point. The woman still takes precedence if her health is threatened, but she no longer has the right to just kill it for elective reasons.
He may have at some point earned a medical degree. Are you saying theres no such thing as a quack? Maybe I have a higher standard of what would qualify someone to be a real doctor, not a quack, however you want to put it. Any doctor who makes you deposit thousands into his bank account electronically, before you even meet him would not qualify as doing a legit medical practice. I cant imagine not.being able to meet with and have a consult with a doctor before going thru with it. If your so concerned about women this should concern you. Pay everything into an anonymous bank account, then show up and get the procedure. If you have a concern or second thought on the day of the surgery its too late. If this had anything to do with any other type of service, especially a medical service, you would undoubtedtly say thats absurd
I say it’s fucking insane, is what it is. And NOT in accordance with any sort of guidelines from licensing boards and/or board certifications, and any doctor operating in such a manner is probably doing so illegally and without insurance. I would fully expect this to be a total scam, and the address to be either a post office box or a shady warehouse with rusty tools out of pre Roe v Wade abortion horror story.
Several. Odd that none of them, apart from the single AP dispatch, were mentioned in the blog entry, huh? I wonder why that blog author did not mention the existence of these stories?
I’m going to go ahead and say the main reason this hasn’t been reported more is the same reason I read two of Bricker’s quotes, and then scrolled on past: This story is utterly horrific and no sane person wants to read about it.
It also has very little to do with abortion as a political issue in the US today. No one, absolutely no one, thinks what when on in that place is ok. He’s on trial for murder because that’s what he did; there’s no debate here. Sure, both sides can use it as a political football and try to make something out of it, but at it’s base it has as much to do with abortion as Jeffrey Dahmer had to do with cleanliness standards in restaurants.
The recent mass shootings were pretty horrific, but the MSM seemed to think sane people wanted to read about it.
I think the problem is that both sides can’t make something out of it. Only the anti-abortion side can make something out of it. And since, as mentioned, that doesn’t fit into a story the MSM wants to think much about, they don’t think about covering it. That’s not a conspiracy - more like a consensus.
The pro-abortion side and its allies in the media don’t want to talk about restrictions on abortion for the same reason the NRA doesn’t want to talk about “common sense” restrictions on gun ownership.
It should be obvious, but not biologically dependent on another human being to preserve its life. As in, not physically connected and reliant on another human to provide sustenance and a womb in which to incubate.
And with that, I’m going back to following the Boston bombing and I may come back later to follow up.
Can I offer a slight amendment? Not dependent on a specific, and only that specific human being, to preserve its life. That works for me, anyhow, as once a nurse and/or an adoptive parent can care for the infant, I’m good with not killing it outright. But as long as the mother is the only person on the face of the earth who can care for it through her own organs, I’m good with her right not to be pregnant outweighing the theoretical “right” of the fetus to use her as a slave against her will. I not pro dead babies, I’m pro right to not be pregnant.
That makes sense: it may be “medical waste” to me, but if someone else wants it that badly, well, let them have it. I (hypothetically) have the right to be rid of an unwanted pregnancy, but do not necessarily have the right to ensure that the resulting tissues are destroyed.
(Just so long as the other side makes the same concession regarding embryonic stem cells, eh?)
The coverage of the recent mass shooting didn’t go into detail about the disgusting details of the crime. Also, the details were nowhere near as bad as this Gosnell shit. I’m sorry, shooting a kid is bad, but jars of baby feet is worse. Both are awful, but one turns your stomach in a way the other doesn’t. I feel you;re being disingenuous to say otherwise.
And from my perspective there’s a lot more here for the pro-choice side than the forced-birth side. But probably because I’m pro-choice and projecting my own biases, which I can at least admit. Also, I read an absolute ton of feminist/lefty news, and I’ve been hearing about (and skimming past the details of) this story since it broke. So, if pro-choice people don’t want to report on it, someone forgot to tell all the pro-choice websites I read. :rolleyes:
Doesn’t that also apply to the recent school shooting?
I agree there’s a extra layer of horror in the Gosnell story, but I don’t agree that somehow that makes the school shooting anything other than something horrific.
No way am I getting into an abortion fight, but I will say this: My small-town newspaper, routinely reviled as “liberal” in local comments-to-the-editor, and which has a single full page of national news on a good day, has had several stories about the Gosnell clinic. I don’t know how many offhand, but several–that’s where I saw the first reference, and I just saw another story in the last couple of days.
It’s a horrible story, and I think that the whole awful situation is much, much more about money thank abortion.
Well, it’s about both. But, you’re right, it’s mostly money.
The clinic was walking distance from the best medical campus in Pennsylvania (according to rating sources like US News and World Report). Unlike many hospitals, it seems that the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) still does abortions, at least if this pro-life link can be believed:
Based on the above, Gosnell’s clinic (Lancaster Avenue) was doing more than four times as many abortions as HUP. I think this is because HUP is extremely expensive for self-pay patients. We often get bills where HUP’s Blue Cross charge is a tenth the original price that would be charged someone without insurance. That’s the other money scandal.
Viability means that the fetus/baby can live outside the uterus, that’s the definition. If a fetus/baby cannot live outside the uterus, then it’s nonviable. You are trying to redefine a word that already has an established meaning.
Which explains why no one has ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, because the MSM would never cover a crime if it was disgusting in its details.
But your perspective is interesting. It appears you believe that if instead of shooting an abortionist, someone kidnapped and tortured him to death over a period of days, the national media would bury the story on page 6.