Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Opens

[ComputerGeek25]

I’ve also heard the spin that illegal abortionists like Gosnell are inevitable when there are restrictions on abortion. In one story I recently read (it’s on NPR, from a woman who is now a case worker and had a Gosnell abortion in 2001), she lamented that a poor woman who wants an abortion needs time to find $300 to procure one, but the longer she waits the more expensive it gets. She gave a narrative of a young mother, who moved out of her cocaine-addicted mother’s house, had been homeless, and was relying on TANF, WIC, and other help to pay the rent, buy food for herself and her first child, and finish her degree. When she became pregnant again she sought an abortion to keep her life on-track, fearing that she’d not be able to get back into school again for years.

While my heart goes out to the expectant mother, I wish she would have turned to an agency besides the government and Gosnell. Catholic Charities, despite having a presence in North Philly, was never considered. Is that a social network thing (the woman was raised in the black evangelical churches), or a lack of available resources? I can picture many in her network telling her “you can’t kill your baby!” but few, if any, offering to take her in.

It’s hard for me to realize that people operate that way, showing a problem but not offering to help. Can it really be there’s no help available?

I come from a family where forgiveness is the rule and we take care of our own, as well as others who come for help. It was a rule, for example, in my grandfather’s house that anyone who came over three times was family - if you were over at suppertime, a place would be set for you. If you needed a place to sleep, a bed would be made for you. That’s on top of raising 5 kids, there was always an attitude of giving a hand. That continued with my father and his siblings - my Dad was told by kids in the youth group (who met once a week in his living room) that one of the high school boys was sleeping under the bleachers at night, thrown out by his stepfather. Dad went to find him, took him in, fed him, gave him a room. That boy, Tony, stayed with my dad for almost two years to finish high school. He visited often, and when he was out of work during a downturn Dad again offered him a bed for the few months he needed it. Tony’s now married and probably calls my Dad every day just to talk - he’s like another son to him. I realize not everyone can be that generous, but it’s an ideal that has stayed with me when witnessing to someone who needs help.

The heartbreak here - and the reality - is that, even if we were all so very generous. Even if we were able to provide - whether its families and parishes, or agencies and governments - everything that a struggling expectant mother would need in terms of food, clothing, healthcare, housing, child care, transportation and job training, there would still be opposition to ending abortion. When the arguments for abortion as a necessity were met by “we’ll provide what is lacking”, the argument shifted to “it’s my right”. And there will be some expecting women who do not want to be moms, nor even to be pregnant, for reasons from wanting to get away from an abusive boyfriend or husband, to not wanting to interrupt their career, education, or social life.

Should we do all that we can to help an individual mother? I think that’s a Christian imperative. I think it’s different, though, to provide for a person and to set up a policy of endless welfare spending. The difference is one of taking a person in, rather than merely throwing money at them. It is the former that a family, or a congregation, or an intentional community like a maternity home can uniquely do much better than a government can.

Here’s the problem with your story. She kept getting pregnant. Not to sound terse, but that is the root cause here. Maybe if people showed a little better self control, this whole debate would be rendered moot for obvious reasons.

 

[Tigg]

If Gosnell had shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news: Rep. Chris Smith

8 Reasons for the Media Blackout on Kermit Gosnell

Good comment on an adjoining link (emphasis mine) :

Regardless of such quibbles, about whether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb — as in a routine late-term abortion — is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.

The darkness and lack of logic can only come from one evil source.

 

[LisaA]

Here’s the problem with your story. She kept getting pregnant. Not to sound terse, but that is the root cause here. Maybe if people showed a little better self control, this whole debate would be rendered moot for obvious reasons.

Yep…but we now have promoted a culture within a culture where no personal responsibility is expected (or provided for the most part). This is nothing new…we see no fault divorce, contraception available, an ever expanding “safety net” that fosters a sense of irresponsibility. Particularly in minority communities the men impregnating the women have no further responsibility. The state has become the ‘husband and father’ and we see how well that is working out!

If anyone suggests a program that fosters self sufficiency, responsibility or HORRORS!!! abstinence, this is fought tooth and nail by the Left.

And what do we hear from POTUS? More contraception, more freebies, more abortions and hopefully soon openly at taxpayer’s expense (along with the abortion inducing drugs we’re already covering…blech)

We ARE David, fighting Goliath.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Clarification: 3 of the charges dropped are for infanticide (leaving 4 more infanticide charges). The charge for third-degree murder of the patient also stands.

The other six charges are related to theft for medical billing. These are less impactful.

It’s still discouraging. Most optimistic take I have is that the judge may simply think the jury is going to be too hung up that it’s a trial about abortion, and doesn’t want to lose the drug charges (which themselves are extremely serious).

Least optimistic is that, despite all the evidence, the prosecution did a poor job. I do find that hard to believe - in the first day of defense, Gosnell’s attorney has managed to toss out several of the most serious charges, despite weeks of prosecution.

Losh this is not unexpected. The prosecution made much that the clinic workers were untrained and had little or no medical education. Now the defense is taking that information and claiming that their testimony that the babies were born alive was also similarly flawed…that the movements the babies made were involuntary spasms or that they thought they saw movement. Without the bodies of the babies to prove that perhaps they took a breath or that they were beyond the legal age it’s one person’s word against another.

Far more important than what happens to Gosnell (who will face far tougher judgment than in court someday!) is that this evil is being exposed. As long as abortion could be kept “out of sight, out of mind” it was easy to ignore it. Now it will be increasingly difficult not only to ignore that abortion IS murder but that standards, restrictions and inspections ARE necessary. Even the pro aborts cannot claim otherwise. It was precisely the lack of inspections that allowed this horror to continue for decades.

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

I was had to get a referral from my PCP and parental permission to get my wisdom teeth pulled in the Oral Surgeons office. My case was routine and he had been doing that sort of procedure for decades. I also had to go to pre and post surgery consultations.

For some reason, we treat abortion as “different.”

I’m so sorry you were “punished” for deciding to get your wisdom teeth pulled. How “humiliating”…

Mind you, I’m sure the pro-choice advocates won’t notice how dumb those words sound when applied to other “medical procedures.” They prefer to move toward drive-through abortionaries to make it easier on the poor women who need to kill their children.

 

[LisaA]

Good one, Lisa. How about being penetrated by a partner that is not interested in being a father?

Somehow, people forget what causes pregnancy anyway. It’s not something you “catch.”

Thanks for pointing this out as well! Maybe they were impregnated through their belly buttons?

As to the humiliation of the trans vaginal ultrasounds, presumably most if not all of these pregnant women have encountered routine female exams and Pap tests which are pretty invasive. I didn’t realize that the point of a Pap was to humiliate me! I’ve had dozens of them by now. Oh and that colonoscopy! Little did I know the whole plan was to humiliate me…thankfully I was not awake to experience it although I got to see the pictures!

The pro abortion activists must not realize how ignorant they sound when making such claims…sheesh!

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

For some reason you have fixated on the proposed vaginal probe ultrasound requirement which was never put in practice, was related to one state only while simultaneously ignoring the ferocious effort to block any sort of required inspections, restrictions such as parentel notification, waiting periods, or even requirements that women be given ALL options, and the same level of information regarding the procedure that ANY medical procedure requires.

Like the Gosnell case, the law in Virginia is an example of an extreme case. The difference is that with Gosnell a private citizen was violating human rights, while in Virginia it was the state legislature.

There is a lot of similarity between groups like NARAL & the NRA. The NRA opposes everything as well. That’s their mission, but it doesn’t mean our only options are to support them across the board or oppose them across the board. In fact, since we have our own mission, we really should stick to that first.

I work in a medical clinic and our patients must be told of the options, risks and benefits of each option and they must SIGN that they received this informaiton. Further I had surgery last year and saw first hand how much information, how many options, and how many diagnostic tests (results given to me prior to surgery) for a routine appendectomy. Yet we know, not just from the Gosnell case, but from many former abortion clinic workers as well as patients that these clinics push abortion, do not provide information on the risks of the procedure, that they offer to circumvent the law regarding stage of pregnancy or underage patients who are allowed to avoid notification laws in certain states.

If you work in a medical clinic, then you should know that patients are not required to read anything, are not required to undergo medically unnecessary procedures mandated by the state, and can tell a doctor to shut up if they don’t want to hear what he/she has to say. Signing the documents is just to cover the doctors in case something goes wrong and the patient later wants to sue.

I have no problem with requiring abortion providers to follow the same procedures as other doctors or dentists or any other medical service provider. What I oppose on principle are “trap laws” that specifically target abortion clinics in order to shut them down. I oppose them because it is a dangerous strategy that can be used to persecute any group. If the Taliban were in power, they would use a strategy like this to shut down schools for girls.

As I said, do the math, follow the money. Planned Parenthood does not receive money from adoption referrals do they? Gosh it must be a COINCIDENCE that they only refer a few thousand women to adoption agencies but HUNDREDS of thousands receive abortions and millions in revenue.

I’m not making any excuses for Planned Parenthood. However, I know that the Catholic Church is pretty big and receives an awful lot of money from all sorts of sources. The only reason you may not find it intimidating is because you are a part of it and believe in its mission. So do I. Cardinal Seán says we have a lot of work to do to change the culture to regard adoption as a loving choice, but I think we can do it.

And yes after much public shaming even by their own constituants, the MSM is providing some coverage for the Gosnell case but your post with all of the excuses why they were not would have won a creative writing class. Even if there are no cameras and attorneys have a gag order (as in MOST CASES…duh???) this does not stop reporters from attending the trial and reporting on the witness statements. I have listened to a number of reporters as well as reading multiple articles. The information is there if reporters were interested in actually exposing this horror. Why not admit, just as many in the MSM have done, that they do NOT want to cover the story because it puts abortion in a negative light. The “babies born alive” claims that were called right wing myths are proven to be true.

I don’t know why they didn’t cover the story, but I think your explanation is too sensational in a “tin foil hat” kind of way. However, I was updating the thread to show that not only has the story broken into the main stream media, but the criticism of the media for failing to report on it has broken through as well. Both are positive signs and worthy of celebration.

I was more glad to see someone ask her the question and didn’t really focus on the answer. What I don’t understand is why you don’t see that as a victory for the pro-life side?

Oh and please tell me why women would find a trans vaginal ultrasound “humiliation” but don’t seem to suffer humiliation when the instruments and laminaria are inserted into their cervixes THROUGH THEIR VAGINAS. How do you think the dead babies are expelled? Through the woman’s belly button?

Are you saying that women who have abortions are immune to the humiliation or are you saying you don’t really care if they feel humiliation, because they deserve it? Do you believe this is a Christian attitude? Does it show civility and empathy?

It is not your place to decide whether a person feels humiliated or not. As Cardinal Seán points out, this type of attitude makes “many women deeply resent our pro-life movement which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental”.

Oh and NARAL stands for National ABORTION RIGHTS ACTION League. Claiming they want to support all choices is laughable at best.

ILisa

As a Christian I am ever hopeful that good things can happen.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I have no problem with requiring abortion providers to follow the same procedures as other doctors or dentists or any other medical service provider. What I oppose on principle are “trap laws” that specifically target abortion clinics in order to shut them down. I oppose them because it is a dangerous strategy that can be used to persecute any group. If the Taliban were in power, they would use a strategy like this to shut down schools for girls.

??Trap law? In your mind.

Anytime anyone suggests some regulation of the abortion industry, the pro-aborts cry foul.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thanks for pointing this out as well! Maybe they were impregnated through their belly buttons?

As to the humiliation of the trans vaginal ultrasounds, presumably most if not all of these pregnant women have encountered routine female exams and Pap tests which are pretty invasive. I didn’t realize that the point of a Pap was to humiliate me! I’ve had dozens of them by now. Oh and that colonoscopy! Little did I know the whole plan was to humiliate me…thankfully I was not awake to experience it although I got to see the pictures!

The pro abortion activists must not realize how ignorant they sound when making such claims…sheesh!

Lisa

Sadly they don’t.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

If you work in a medical clinic, then you should know that patients are not required to read anything, are not required to undergo medically unnecessary procedures mandated by the state, and can tell a doctor to shut up if they don’t want to hear what he/she has to say. Signing the documents is just to cover the doctors in case something goes wrong and the patient later wants to sue.

I have no problem with requiring abortion providers to follow the same procedures as other doctors or dentists or any other medical service provider. What I oppose on principle are “trap laws” that specifically target abortion clinics in order to shut them down. I oppose them because it is a dangerous strategy that can be used to persecute any group. If the Taliban were in power, they would use a strategy like this to shut down schools for girls.

What you consider “trap laws” may be good medicine and/or required for malpractice insurance in other instances or just plain common sense. For example, in my wisdom teeth example, the surgeon wanted X-Rays to make sure he knew what he was getting into. Also, since nitrous oxide was going to be used, he would not pull the teeth unless I had a ride home.

In regards to abortion, common sense would tell us that if Planned Parenthood was really concerned about women’s health, they would refer women to adoption, provide low cost/free ultrasounds and at least warn women what they are about to do. Especially since these women are vulnerable.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

??Trap law? In your mind.

Anytime anyone suggests some regulation of the abortion industry, the pro-aborts cry foul.

It’s sad because a teenager can get an abortion, no questions asked in some locales, yet will be suspended from school if they are caught with aspirin for headaches.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What you consider “trap laws” may be good medicine and/or required for malpractice insurance in other instances or just plain common sense. For example, in my wisdom teeth example, the surgeon wanted X-Rays to make sure he knew what he was getting into. Also, since nitrous oxide was going to be used, he would not pull the teeth unless I had a ride home.

In regards to abortion, common sense would tell us that if Planned Parenthood was really concerned about women’s health, they would refer women to adoption, provide low cost/free ultrasounds and at least warn women what they are about to do. Especially since these women are vulnerable.

BTW, most alternative pregnancy centers do offer FREE ultrasounds.

thrivestlouis.org/

superpages.com/bp/St-Louis-MO/Pregnancy-Resource-Centers-L0102017445.htm

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s sad because a teenager can get an abortion, no questions asked in some locales, yet will be suspended from school if they are caught with aspirin for headaches.

And now over the counter morning after pills. but not cough medicine.

 

[LisaA]

Like the Gosnell case, the law in Virginia is an example of an extreme case. The difference is that with Gosnell a private citizen was violating human rights, while in Virginia it was the state legislature.

There is a lot of similarity between groups like NARAL & the NRA. The NRA opposes everything as well. That’s their mission, but it doesn’t mean our only options are to support them across the board or oppose them across the board. In fact, since we have our own mission, we really should stick to that first.

If you work in a medical clinic, then you should know that patients are not required to read anything, are not required to undergo medically unnecessary procedures mandated by the state, and can tell a doctor to shut up if they don’t want to hear what he/she has to say. Signing the documents is just to cover the doctors in case something goes wrong and the patient later wants to sue.

I have no problem with requiring abortion providers to follow the same procedures as other doctors or dentists or any other medical service provider. What I oppose on principle are “trap laws” that specifically target abortion clinics in order to shut them down. I oppose them because it is a dangerous strategy that can be used to persecute any group. If the Taliban were in power, they would use a strategy like this to shut down schools for girls.

I’m not making any excuses for Planned Parenthood. However, I know that the Catholic Church is pretty big and receives an awful lot of money from all sorts of sources. The only reason you may not find it intimidating is because you are a part of it and believe in its mission. So do I. Cardinal Seán says we have a lot of work to do to change the culture to regard adoption as a loving choice, but I think we can do it.

I don’t know why they didn’t cover the story, but I think your explanation is too sensational in a “tin foil hat” kind of way. However, I was updating the thread to show that not only has the story broken into the main stream media, but the criticism of the media for failing to report on it has broken through as well. Both are positive signs and worthy of celebration.

I was more glad to see someone ask her the question and didn’t really focus on the answer. What I don’t understand is why you don’t see that as a victory for the pro-life side?

Are you saying that women who have abortions are immune to the humiliation or are you saying you don’t really care if they feel humiliation, because they deserve it? Do you believe this is a Christian attitude? Does it show civility and empathy?

It is not your place to decide whether a person feels humiliated or not. As Cardinal Seán points out, this type of attitude makes “many women deeply resent our pro-life movement which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental”.

As a Christian I am ever hopeful that good things can happen.

Bellasbane you’re great at setting up strawmen. Again why are you fixated on the transvaginal ultrasound law? Women CAN opt out of it. Further do you have evidence that it was established with the objective of humiliating women…? I didn’t think so.

Please provide documentation of “trap” laws that close abortion clinics. The media has reported a number of clinics being closed recently…for substandard conditions, for violations of laws, and for misrepresenting personnel as having specific medical training.Are these “trap” laws? Do you think laws requiring inspections might be a good thing? Have you read about the conditions in the Gosnell clinic? Cat feces everywhere, blood everywhere, reuse of instruments without sterilization. Gosh he might have been forced to close his clinic if required to actually clean up the place now and then.

As far as my “tin foil hat” I am quoting liberal/leftist media who admitted the failure to cover the clinic was due to the nature of the case and bad image of their sacred cow abortion. You have come late to this thread and obviously didn’t bother to read the previous posts where this was documented.

As to your other strawman, that I think women are ‘immune’ to humiliation if they want abortoins? That’s a good one! And having chided me for not being Christian without bothering to provide the slightest evidence for your conclusion, you retire in smug self satisfaction? Look, I merely pointed out the reality…if women are getting abortions, SOMETHING is going to be inserted into their vaginas and the dead baby is going to be expelled through their vaginas. Further the woman is subjected to other invasive procedures associated with the abortion. But for some reason the trans vaginal ultra sound (which is OPTIONAL) is done solely for humiliation but all of the other invasive steps are not? Right…

As to patients not having to read something. you’re right, they don’t have to read the material but they must attest that they DID read it. More than one of the Gosnell patients claim they did NOT receive or sign these disclosures. But you are wrong in saying that they can demand the conditions for their treatment and tell the doctor to take a hike. If the patient rejects the doctors advice they are free to leave and find another doctor, but they are not free to tell the doctor under what conditions they will accept the treatment.

Your defense of the abortion activists is obvious. Don’t think you are fooling anyone quoting Cardinal Sean. He is right, we must support the women, but in no way does HE promote or support murdering their babies.

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Your defense of the abortion activists is obvious. Don’t think you are fooling anyone quoting Cardinal Sean. He is right, we must support the women, but in no way does HE promote or support murdering their babies.

Lisa

In fact, Cardinal Sean O’Malley is in favor of making abortion illegal.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/omalley_draws_line_with_democrats/

BALTIMORE - Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates “borders on scandal.”

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O’Malley made clear that,** despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.**

“I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues,” O’Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O’Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, ‘Well, bishop, we’re not supporting [abortion rights],’ " he said. "I think there’s a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

 

[qui_est_ce]

As far as my “tin foil hat” I am quoting liberal/leftist media who admitted the failure to cover the clinic was due to the nature of the case and bad image of their sacred cow abortion. You have come late to this thread and obviously didn’t bother to read the previous posts where this was documented.

Lisa

From WASHINGTON POST.

Since late last week, a consensus has emerged: The national media has in large part ignored the trial of 72-year-old abortion provider Kermit Gosnell. Much less agreement, however, hovers over the question of why. Cameras aren’t allowed in the Gosnell courtroom, goes one theory. The details of the proceedings are too grisly for family-oriented media outlets, goes another prominent theory. Lefty media bias, goes yet another.

In a HuffPost Live segment today on the issue, host Marc Lamont Hill made clear where his theoretical thinking lay:

“For what it’s worth, I do think that those of us on the left have made a decision not to cover this trial because we worry that it’ll compromise abortion rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, I do think there’s a direct connection between the media’s failure to cover this and our own political commitments on the left. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s dangerous, but I think that’s the way it is.”

Strong words from a host on a left-leaning outlet.

 

[rlg94086]

In fact, Cardinal Sean O’Malley is in favor of making abortion illegal.

boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/omalley_draws_line_with_democrats/

I hope I didn’t “humiliate” or “punish” any Democrat Catholics who think Cardinal O’Malley is on their side.

 

[bellasbane]

Bellasbane you’re great at setting up strawmen. Again why are you fixated on the transvaginal ultrasound law? Women CAN opt out of it. Further do you have evidence that it was established with the objective of humiliating women…? I didn’t think so.

Please provide documentation of “trap” laws that close abortion clinics. The media has reported a number of clinics being closed recently…for substandard conditions, for violations of laws, and for misrepresenting personnel as having specific medical training.Are these “trap” laws? Do you think laws requiring inspections might be a good thing? Have you read about the conditions in the Gosnell clinic? Cat feces everywhere, blood everywhere, reuse of instruments without sterilization. Gosh he might have been forced to close his clinic if required to actually clean up the place now and then.

As far as my “tin foil hat” I am quoting liberal/leftist media who admitted the failure to cover the clinic was due to the nature of the case and bad image of their sacred cow abortion. You have come late to this thread and obviously didn’t bother to read the previous posts where this was documented.

As to your other strawman, that I think women are ‘immune’ to humiliation if they want abortoins? That’s a good one! And having chided me for not being Christian without bothering to provide the slightest evidence for your conclusion, you retire in smug self satisfaction? Look, I merely pointed out the reality…if women are getting abortions, SOMETHING is going to be inserted into their vaginas and the dead baby is going to be expelled through their vaginas. Further the woman is subjected to other invasive procedures associated with the abortion. But for some reason the trans vaginal ultra sound (which is OPTIONAL) is done solely for humiliation but all of the other invasive steps are not? Right…

As to patients not having to read something. you’re right, they don’t have to read the material but they must attest that they DID read it. More than one of the Gosnell patients claim they did NOT receive or sign these disclosures. But you are wrong in saying that they can demand the conditions for their treatment and tell the doctor to take a hike. If the patient rejects the doctors advice they are free to leave and find another doctor, but they are not free to tell the doctor under what conditions they will accept the treatment.

Your defense of the abortion activists is obvious. Don’t think you are fooling anyone quoting Cardinal Sean. He is right, we must support the women, but in no way does HE promote or support murdering their babies.

Lisa

Is that what you think I’m doing? Defending abortion activists? Really?

That’s such a distortion of everything I have posted on this thread that I’m wondering how to continue this dialogue with you. Clearly you are having a hard time distinguishing between what I endorse, what I report or explain, what I criticize and what I advocate.

I endorse anything that fosters a Culture of Life.
I report or explain as accurately and fairly as possible various opposing viewpoints in order to promote greater understanding.
I criticize anything that is immoral - even if it is done for a good reason.
I advocate for exactly what Cardinal Seán called for in his homily:
“We have consistently focused on the safety of the unborn child, while the pro-abortion activists focus on the woman in crisis. With almost one hundred abortions for every adoption, we have so much work to do. Obviously, we must never abandon our committment to the unborn child, a precious human being made in the image and likeness of God, but we must learn to focus more on the woman in crisis.”

Now that you understand, perhaps we can actually discuss things in a more straight forward and civil manner.

If this were a forum that included supporters of Planned Parenthood - then it would make sense to ask them some tough questions about why any woman would feel compelled to seek the services of a man like Gosnell. There are 10 diaries running on Daily Kos about this very topic.

However, since it is a forum that is frequented mainly by pro-life and pro-birth supporters - then it makes sense not only to ask the same tough question, but to ask what more can we do, what are we doing wrong, and what can we do better? The pro-choice side has a quick and easy answer to a crisis pregnancy. How do we compete with that?

I’ve offered some constructive ideas about this, but it seems like all some people want to do is deflect blame, complain about Planned Parenthood, and mock women who seek abortions. I don’t think Cardinal Seán would condone that sort of thing.

I’m not fooling anyone by quoting Cardinal Seán. People are fooling themselves by not listening to him. His homily speaks for itself. I have quoted him accurately and provided the link to the entire homily. People are welcome to dispute my interpretation of his message, but first they will need to at least take the time to listen to what he said.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’ve offered some constructive ideas about this, but it seems like all some people want to do is deflect blame, complain about Planned Parenthood, and mock women who seek abortions. I don’t think Cardinal Seán would condone that sort of thing.

People are questioning why Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide abortions are not held to the same standards as other medical organizations. If that were the case, maybe the Gosnell case would not be happening, or not be as bad.

No one is mocking women who are seeking abortions in this thread.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Is that what you think I’m doing? Defending abortion activists? Really?

That’s such a distortion of everything I have posted on this thread that I’m wondering how to continue this dialogue with you. Clearly you are having a hard time distinguishing between what I endorse, what I report or explain, what I criticize and what I advocate.

I endorse anything that fosters a Culture of Life.
I report or explain as accurately and fairly as possible various opposing viewpoints in order to promote greater understanding.
I criticize anything that is immoral - even if it is done for a good reason.
I advocate for exactly what Cardinal Seán called for in his homily:
“We have consistently focused on the safety of the unborn child, while the pro-abortion activists focus on the woman in crisis. With almost one hundred abortions for every adoption, we have so much work to do. Obviously, we must never abandon our committment to the unborn child, a precious human being made in the image and likeness of God, but we must learn to focus more on the woman in crisis.”

Now that you understand, perhaps we can actually discuss things in a more straight forward and civil manner.

If this were a forum that included supporters of Planned Parenthood - then it would make sense to ask them some tough questions about why any woman would feel compelled to seek the services of a man like Gosnell. There are 10 diaries running on Daily Kos about this very topic.

However, since it is a forum that is frequented mainly by pro-life and pro-birth supporters - then it makes sense not only to ask the same tough question, but to ask what more can we do, what are we doing wrong, and what can we do better? The pro-choice side has a quick and easy answer to a crisis pregnancy. How do we compete with that?

I’ve offered some constructive ideas about this, but it seems like all some people want to do is deflect blame, complain about Planned Parenthood, and mock women who seek abortions. I don’t think Cardinal Seán would condone that sort of thing.

I’m not fooling anyone by quoting Cardinal Seán. People are fooling themselves by not listening to him. His homily speaks for itself. I have quoted him accurately and provided the link to the entire homily. People are welcome to dispute my interpretation of his message, but first they will need to at least take the time to listen to what he said.

What you have done is set up straw arguments that pro-lifers are trying to humiliate women seeking abortions. You then say unless prolifers are willing to provide FREE unltrasounds, they are being disingenuous.

We have provided you with easily available alternative pregnancy centers that offer FREE ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, counseling, and place to stay to have the baby.

No one here on this board wants to humiliate people. No one on this board suggested “trap” laws were acceptable.

You are addressing non-issues with pro-lifers.