March 19, 2013

"Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere – because they were too pregnant."

"For Dr. Gosnell, they were an opportunity. The bigger the baby, the more he charged."
[Adrienne ] Moton, the first employee to testify, sobbed as she recalled taking a cell phone photograph of one baby left in her work area. She thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. She had measured him at nearly 30 weeks....
Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said.

90 comments:

edutcher said...

Murder, most foul.

Basil said...

But its a woman's right, under the Constitution of the United States to kill her baby, with the help of the abortionist. I am outraged that this doctor is being put through this show trial. Free Dr. Gosnell!!!

AJ Lynch said...

Gosnell loved money - and he made a bundle running these death panels for kids.

Inga said...

That is disgusting. May he burn in hell.

I'm pro choice, but there are limits. With the accuracy of early pregnancy testing, a woman should be able to decide the fate of her baby long before the end of 18 or so weeks. Abortions after that should be illegal ( IMO) except for well documented cases in which the mother's life would be in danger if she were to carry to term.

bpm4532 said...

Future voter suppression.

AJ Lynch said...

Interesting that this happened in Philly. One Philly congress critter, Allison Schwartz also loves abortion. I think she is a veteran of Planned Parenthood and is planning to run for governor. I wonder if Schwartz ever met Dr. Gosnell?

Maguro said...

I am with Inga on this one.

TMink said...

Our triplets were born at 30 weeks.

They are 10 now.

Honor roll students.

No disabilities.

God forgive us.

Trey

TMink said...

Our triplets were born at 30 weeks.

They are 10 now.

Honor roll students.

No disabilities.

God forgive us.

Trey

AJ Lynch said...

No,he should feel a lot of pain long before he gets to hell

Tim said...

"I'm pro choice, but there are limits."

Intelligently, no.

The aborted child, whether three weeks or 30 weeks, is still killed.

The only difference is, at what point can you no longer delude yourself it is a human being killed?

29 weeks?

28 weeks?

27 weeks?

25 weeks?

.

.

.

At how many weeks are you entirely comfortable in allowing mothers to kill their unborn children?

And why?

Erika said...

I know you've been told this eight million times, but Inga, it's no less murder because the fetus is smaller. I used to think like you--abortion was OK early on, before it was, you know, a baby baby--but I reconsidered my position. I think you may find this essay relatable and interesting.

Unknown said...

your president has no issue with what this abortionist did

Unknown said...

your president has no issue with what this abortionist did

wyo sis said...

I have a very difficult time imagining the thought processes of a young woman who could cut through the necks of newborn babies.

Inga said...

At 23 weeks the baby has developed enough to feel pain. A 20 week baby is viable with medical help. A born alive situation after an abortion is horrendous and need not ever happen with early abortion.

Abortion has been around since biblical times, it won't stop happening.

Tim said...

18 weeks?

So, what does our murder victim look like at 18 weeks?

From Smartmomma (presumably mom's who are smart enough to not to kill their babies):

http://www.smartmomma.com/Pregnancy/weekly_fetal_dev_18.htm

"Week 18 shows your baby measuring about 5 ½ inches long, with a weight of almost 7 ounces. Along with the lanugo (downy-like hair covering baby’s body), your baby has accumulated vernix (a white cheese-like protective coating) on her body. This protects your baby’s skin by keeping it moisturized in your amniotic fluid.

Is your baby going to be the next American Idol? This is the time when her vocal cords are forming, and she begins to practice vocalizing. She will begin to cry, although without air, no sound will escape her. This is strictly for practice.

If you have a pregnancy ultrasound this week, the technician should be able to make out the baby’s heart well, including the ventricles and chambers. Her brain is growing rapidly as well, and all the major areas will be differentiated. She is starting to respond to stimuli, and in the coming weeks, she will love hearing your voice.

An ultrasound will also now reveal your baby’s sex, unless she is shy and has her legs crossed. A girl will have her uterus and Fallopian tubes formed, along with her genitals and a boy will have pronounced genitals as well, visible with an ultrasound."

So. 5 1/2 inches, 7 ounces. Vocal cords. Heart. Brain. Soon able to her her killer's voice. Genitalia.

But, to pro-choicers, just more meat for the butcher's knife.

Inga said...

Erika, abortion is never OK.

Erika said...

Permissible, then.

edutcher said...

Unknown said...

your president has no issue with what this abortionist did

He's not my President, but he is the President.

More's the pity.

Jane said...

A person's a person, no matter how small.

Jane said...

A person's a person, no matter how small.

augustus said...

In a culture where sex is just self gratifying recreation and some people are disposable for convenience we should not be surprised when rapes are live-blogged and baby's necks are cut by people who claim not to know their actions are wrong.

augustus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
heyboom said...

Inga, a viable baby doesn't have to be aborted if it's a danger to the mother's health. It can simply be delivered naturally or by C-section. It doesn't make any difference if it's alive or dead when it comes out, as long as it is out.

Anga2010 said...

"Abortion has been around since biblical times, it won't stop happening"
And I think it's a travesty that this fine doctor is being railroaded for providing the abortions to those upstanding citizens! How in the world could those poor women have possibly known that her fœtus was 8.9 months old?
I want to make it so that abortions can be provided free for the poor and minorities.

Methadras said...

Is this the definition of disenfranchisement or not? This is evil on a level that would make Mengele proud.

Big Mike said...

Inga and I are in full agreement on this.

Do I hear ice skates down in Hell?

sydney said...

Abortion has been around since biblical times, it won't stop happening.

You could say the same about murder, but we don't go around making that legal and subsidized by taxes.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote;
I'm pro choice, but there are limits. With the accuracy of early pregnancy testing, a woman should be able to decide the fate of her baby long before the end of 18 or so weeks. Abortions after that should be illegal ( IMO) except for well documented cases in which the mother's life would be in danger if she were to carry to term.

Actually that's not really that pro choice.

jr565 said...

I love the red bags of babies body parts. It's like something out of Jeffrey Dahmer's house. I don't love it as a fact of life, but I do love it as a reminder of what is actually occuring with abortions and how fetuses are treated.
They are meat in a garbage bag. Your babies. Fucking sick.

Commuter said...

With the accuracy of early pregnancy testing, a woman should be able to decide the fate of her baby long before the end of 18 or so weeks.

--------------------------------

Looking into the abyss.

n.n said...

Abortions after nervous system activity can be detected (i.e. emergence of consciousness) is unconscionable. There is no excuse to have an abortion beyond the first month of pregnancy, which gives women a definite two week window where neither they nor the abortionist are violating the unalienable right to Life. However, in order to preserve the value of human life, abortion of a developing human life can never be sanctioned without cause and due process under equal protection of the law.

Saint Croix said...

Why did Dr. Gosnell kill newborn infants? Because giving birth is safer for a woman than a D&E abortion, which is quite dangerous. The Supreme Court acknowledges this in Carhart.

"The D&E procedure carries certain risks. The use of instruments within the uterus creates a danger of accidental perforation and damage to neighboring organs. Sharp fetal bone fragments create similar dangers. And fetal tissue accidentally left behind can cause infection and various other complications.”

And since these women do not want to have a baby, and the D&E abortion is (now) acknowledged to be dangerous, several Supreme Court Justices argue there is a constitutional right for doctors to kill babies outside the birth canal.

So that is why Dr. Gosnell got into the habit of killing babies outside the birth canal. He was worried about injuring his patients by doing a D&E abortion.

The murders committed by Dr. Gosnell are a direct result of the logic used by the Supreme Court in the first Carhart case. When a doctor deems an abortion too dangerous to do, the pregnancy is aborted by birth instead of surgery.

And since the baby is dehumanized, and still defined as sub-human, she is killed outside the birth canal.

So why is Dr. Gosnell being prosecuted for murder, when his abortions are so similar to the Carhart abortions?

Saint Croix said...

Or, perhaps a better question, how come nobody on the Supreme Court has been fired over this clusterfuck?

Dr. Gosnell makes an abortion mistake, and he's charged with murder.

Justice Kennedy makes an abortion mistake, and, oh well, let's just skip it.

MayBee said...

The Democratic Party platform in the last election supported legal abortion all the way through birth.

I don't recall even one democrat being asked about this, but Todd Akin was a hot topic.

Illuninati said...

MayBee said:

"I don't recall even one democrat being asked about this, but Todd Akin was a hot topic."

I don't know the man, but I suspect Todd Akin intended to become the hot topic. Ever since Reagan the consensus among Republicans is that there should be an exception for rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is in jeapordy. Todd Akin didn't like the consensus and started a crusade against it. In my opinion he hurt Republicans and the prolife movement badly in the process.

kentuckyliz said...

Getting the milk for free has a high price.

damikesc said...

Abortions after that should be illegal ( IMO) except for well documented cases in which the mother's life would be in danger if she were to carry to term.

...except childbirth is a "life-risking activity" no matter how perfect it goes.

Nice little loophole there, huh?

A born alive situation after an abortion is horrendous and need not ever happen with early abortion.

The man you voted for President disagrees with you.

MayBee said...

Illuminati-
I don't have a problem with Akin being a hot topic. I have a problem with the lack of similar attention to the Democratic Party platform.

They support what Carson did, except they want the taxpayers to pay for it. That deserves attention.

MayBee said...

Sorry Gosnell.

H said...

Didn't Roe v. Wade give states freedom to regulate (i.e. outlaw) abortions in the third trimester?

Was that part of Roe v. Wade overturned in subsequent decisions?

So isn't this a question of why hasn't Pennsylvania prohibited these abortions? Has any state prohibited these abortions?

Mitchell the Bat said...

The Philadelphia area can be an interesting place.

Not too long ago a nearby Chinese restaurant got busted for butchering deer.

It's a good thing that abortionists should be licensed by the government.

Chris said...

inga - so abortion has been around since biblical times, does it makes us more civilized than they or less because we still murder our babies?

Chris said...

inga - so abortion has been around since biblical times, does it makes us more civilized than they or less because we still murder our babies?

ed said...

@ Inga

"I'm pro choice, but there are limits. With the accuracy of early pregnancy testing, a woman should be able to decide the fate of her baby long before the end of 18 or so weeks. Abortions after that should be illegal ( IMO) except for well documented cases in which the mother's life would be in danger if she were to carry to term."

Amusing enough your position is in opposition to that of Obama.

Illuninati said...

MayBee said8

"I don't have a problem with Akin being a hot topic. I have a problem with the lack of similar attention to the Democratic Party platform."

I realize that Akin is no big deal, so please excuse me for continuing the discussion. We prolifers do need to learn from our mistakes.

I agree with you at one level, that it was unfair to talk about Akin and to ignore the Dems position. However, the fact that Dems are proabortion is not new, so no one except Republicans cared to talked about it. Perhaps they made some changes to their platform about abortion?

Akin's statement was bound to get attention and he surely must have known it since he broke from the long standing conservative consensus. That is legitimate news for everyone and deserved a discussion.

I'm quite sure that his statement about "legitimate rape" was a mistake only in the sense that he expressed an opinion he had held for many years. After he received blowback he tried to brush it off but the damage was already done.

Edward Lunny said...

Why is this man on trial at all ? He hasn't performed a procedure any different than that performed by every other abortionist. That a purely arbitrary event, the crossing of an arbitrary geographic plane on the body had occurred is irrelevant. Morally and ethically irrelevant. This prosecution is evidence of the fraud that is the argument of every "pro choice" advocate. Further proof of that fraud is the deliberate inaction, acceptance, of this doctors "service" by area hospitals and the state and city health departments.

Saint Croix said...

Didn't Roe v. Wade give states freedom to regulate (i.e. outlaw) abortions in the third trimester?

No. Here's a nutshell of what the Supreme Court did.

Roe v. Wade defined unborn babies as unprotected by our Constitution. The Court said they are non-persons. These babies are defined as property. They are human beings who are unprotected by any homicide or death statute. Thus the life or death question was deemed irrelevant. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."

This part of the opinion has been chipped away some, for instance by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (which excluded abortion doctors, but otherwise defined unborn babies as people).

After defining the baby as sub-human, the Court issued three rules about abortion.

1) States cannot regulate abortion in the first trimester. At all. Not even to protect women. For instance, non-doctors had a right to do first trimester abortions. States could not require a doctor's license. States could not require that an abortion takes place in a hospital. States could not require that an abortion clinic be licensed. States could not do health inspections of abortion clinics. The Supreme Court wanted an "abortion free of interference from the state" in the first trimester. It utterly deregulated the abortion industry during the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy.

2) In addition, Roe also said a woman had an absolute right to receive an abortion up until the point the baby could survive in a neonatal intensive care unit.

3) In addition to that, Roe also said that a woman had an absolute right to an abortion up until birth for any health reason. And health was defined quite broadly. You could have an abortion in the ninth month for your psychological well-being. You could abort in the ninth month if you were suffering the stigma of unwed motherhood.

So those are the legal standards of Roe v. Wade

Was that part of Roe v. Wade overturned in subsequent decisions?

No. The part of Roe v. Wade that was overturned by Casey was rule #1. States can now regulate abortion to protect the mother's health, unless the health regulation is an "undue burden" on the right to have an abortion.

The rest of Roe still remains law.

AllenS said...

He called the prosecution of his client, who is black, "a lynching."

They always say that don't they?

Inga said...
Abortion has been around since biblical times, it won't stop happening.

I have no way of proving this, but I'll bet it hasn't. My guess is that if a child wasn't wanted back during biblical times, it simply was disposed of after birth. Thereby saving the health of the mother.

I remember back in the 1950s and early 60s most young unmarried girls simply went somewhere, had the child and then the child was orphaned off.

I'm sure there were exceptions, but not many.

AllenS said...

I have a 4th or 5th cousin born in 1945 that was adopted (sold through an adoption agency) shortly after birth. He's now searching to find out his real last name. I'll bet that abortion was very risky back then. While it was certainly used, probably rarely.

Illuninati said...

Saint Croix, your analysis is the most stark and sobering presentation of Roe vs Wade I've seen in awhile.

If our country ever regains its moral compass I can imagine future generations looking back at us with the same horror we look back at slavery or the worst aspects of the inquisition.

Saint Croix said...

So isn't this a question of why hasn't Pennsylvania prohibited these abortions? Has any state prohibited these abortions?

Pennsylvania makes it a crime to do an abortion after 24 weeks.

Planned Parenthood claims this statute violates Roe v. Wade. (It does!) Pennsylvania makes no exception for health abortions.

But when Planned Parenthood sued Pennsylvania (in the famous case that would become Planned Parenthood v. Casey), the non-profit abortion group decided not to sue over the 24-week limitation.

Why not? Planned Parenthood was afraid that the Supreme Court would rewrite Roe and uphold the 24 week limitation. So they decided not to sue on that issue.

Dr. Gosnell is charged with multiple counts of doing abortions after 24 weeks.

Dr. Gosnell is also charged with murder, since he killed newborn infants in his abortion clinic.

The born/unborn distinction is quite severe. If you're unborn, you are property, and it's "right" to kill you. If you're born, you are a person, and it's murder to kill you. This is true even if the unborn baby is healthier than the newborn.

For instance, a six pound unborn baby in the ninth month is defined as property. But a six ounce preemie in a neonatal care unit, clinging to life, is defined as a person.

In Carhart the Supreme Court actually expanded the "non-person" rule. According to Roe, unborn babies were non-persons. Now partially born infants are non-persons, too.

I think the most critical part of Roe v. Wade was the rhetorical device of referring to an unborn baby as a "fetus." That's a Latin term that actually means "newly delivered." (The Romans killed newborns all the time). So the Supreme Court used Latin to hide the homicidal nature of its opinion.

Jim said...

AlanS 7:43

Actually abortion wasn't as uncommon as you might think, or as unsafe.

For example, read The Voice. Frank Sinatra's Mom was an abortionist. Under Obamacare, she might be considered a nurse practitioner.

Dessert Survivor said...

Why link to a British paper? Doesn't the American press cover this trial adequately?

My favorite comment at the Daily Mail:
"The fact that people are comparing this to actual, real abortions is what is sickening. The fact that most abortions happen before there is even a body to be "snipping" should be hint enough that these are not demonstrative of the actual medical community surrounding abortion needs. All of YOU need to be educated as to how real abortions happen. There is certainly no snipping of necks."

I am relieved to learn that what Gosnell did were not real, actual abortions, but I am left wondering what it was that he was doing.

Saint Croix said...

My guess is that if a child wasn't wanted back during biblical times, it simply was disposed of after birth. Thereby saving the health of the mother.

That's largely right. Killing newborns was legal and widely practiced in Greece and Rome. The Greeks and Romans referred to killing newborns as an abortion, by the way.

In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun cites Plato and Aristotle for his viability doctrine. But the ancient Greeks did not have neonatal intensive care units. So what did they mean by "viability"?

The Greeks used viability to defend the practice of abandoning a baby to die. She could not survive on her own. She could not feed herself. She could not shelter herself. She is weak. She is helpless. Her inability to take care of herself marked the newborn infant as outside the law. That's why it was not a crime to abandon her. It was not murder. It wasn't anything. You had no obligation to take care of your child.

So Justice Blackumn incorporates this reasoning into Roe v. Wade, without bothering to mention that Plato and Aristotle were talking about killing newborns.

Surgical abortion in ancient Greece and Rome was quite dangerous to women. There was no anesthesia. Doctors did not know to wash their hands. This is why Hippocrates forbid abortion. Many women died from the surgery.

The surgery consisted of a) swallowing poison and hoping the baby would die and the mother would not or b) jamming items up the vagina.

Married women would wait until birth and then the father would kill the baby. Baby girls in particular were often killed.

Prostitutes were the only women who would risk the abortion surgery. And they would do so because lots of men will not pay to have sex with pregnant women. So these women were starving to death. They needed an abortion so they could go back to prostitution. And they would immediately get pregnant again.

Remember, ancient Greece and Rome was a place where orgies were quite common. And prostitution was legal.

Judeo-Christianity, by the way, was so hard on sexuality because of all the infanticides that were going on. There was no birth control 2000 years ago. So the much harder option--wait until marriage, and no adultery--was the religious norm. And the pagans were despised as people who hated babies and women.

Jason said...

Inga: I'm pro choice, but there are limits.

Why? Be sure to show your work.

Vitamin Z said...

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what the big deal is. I mean, if we can legally dismember babies in the womb at virtually any stage of pregnancy, is what this guy did really all that different? Why all the faux shock and outrage? Seems grossly inconsistent to me.

Saint Croix said...

There is certainly no snipping of necks.

People should read Carhart before they opine.

most abortions happen before there is even a body to be "snipping"

It's ridiculous to talk about abortion as if it is indistinguishable from birth control. In a surgical or medical abortion, there is always a body.

But what I really hate is the sloppiness of that "most." Even if Roe v. Wade is 99% right, we can still be upset and unhappy about that 1%. There have been about 60 million abortions in our country since 1973.

1% of 60 million is 600,000 infanticides.

You kill six people, you're Jack the Ripper.

If you're a Supreme Court Justice, and you execute an innocent person on death row, it's simply no good telling us how "most" of those executions are just fine. You are responsible for that innocent person you killed.

Greg Hlatky said...

According to the Democratic party, this is a sacrosanct Constitutional right. Your owning a gun, not so much.

Saint Croix said...

Recognizing that a baby in the womb is a person would not outlaw all abortions, by the way. It would simply outlaw all the abortions that are homicides under state law. The brilliance of equal protection is that it's a procedural guide.

All 50 states have rules in regard to when people die. And it's the same rule: complete and irreversible brain death. So we know with absolute certainty when you or I die. All equal protection says is that we should apply the same biological criteria we use for you or me, to babies as well.

There is no legal basis for the idea that California or New York can violate its own laws and make it a right to start killing people.

The reason we have modern day John Browns shooting abortion doctors, and this abortion doctor facing a murder prosecution, is that our highest legal authorities have shown blatant disrespect for our Constitution, and for their oath of office.

They are to blame.

It's a homicide to kill a baby if she has activity in her brain. That activity starts six weeks after conception, and eight weeks after the last menstrual period.

MadisonMan said...

The phrase 'too pregnant' seems odd to me.

Typical that the Defense Attorney calls it a lynching.

lemondog said...

Ugh, ugh, ugh, ugh

there.are.no.words........

MayBee said...

. "I don't have a problem with Akin being a hot topic. I have a problem with the lack of similar attention to the Democratic Party platform."

I realize that Akin is no big deal, so please excuse me for continuing the discussion. We prolifers do need to learn from our mistakes.

I agree with you at one level, that it was unfair to talk about Akin and to ignore the Dems position. However, the fact that Dems are proabortion is not new, so no one except Republicans cared to talked about it. Perhaps they made some changes to their platform about abortion?


I'm not pro-life. I'm pro choice. And I'm tired of conservatives getting painted as having some radical, anti-women stand on abortion. Most Americans don't agree with free abortions until the moment of birth. If we are going to have elections in this country based own issues, I'd prefer the issues are fairly represented to the voters.

Obama should have been asked about Gosnell and Tiller.

n.n said...

Saint Croix:

The details are important. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. There is no issue other than general devaluation of human life which can be considered causative for other forms of denigration, including individual dignity and liberty. The concern here is for both the loss of an innocent human life and a progressive corruption of individuals and society, which will be a threat to all but a fortunate few.

BaltoHvar said...

Using abortion purely as a means of birth control is abominable. It cannot be justified in the absence any other factors. This is the question pro-choice has to ignore to justify the all-encompassing position.

There ARE SERIOUS Medical circumstances that DO require intervention and are MORALLY arguable, if not completely self-evident. Vanishing Twin Syndrome. Two Lives are threatened by a third "fetus" that itself has NO CHANCE of survival.

I have a niece born at 26 weeks and she is now 2 and is perfect. However at 25 weeks her sibling had to be terminated because although "he" did not "disappear," he did partially develop, but nothing above the waist. What was present had an increasingly negative and mortal impact on his sister. He was dependent on her systems of nutrition and circulation. As she continued to develop, this impact would have been fatal to her as the pregnancy progressed. The Mother's health would also be risked.

The question is was my Niece's sibling/twin aborted or terminated, because I truly believe there is a definitional difference that is absolute.

glenn said...

Anyone who even thinks about kindly ol Dr Gosnell as anything other than someone doing the right thing for these unfortunate young ladies is a racist. As a matter of fact if you have even read anything about the case or posted on this thread you are a racist. Eveybody but meee of course.

mrbill said...

We solved that problem here in Wichita when they gunned down Tiller in his own church. And any new ones trying to start up have been put on notice...they will be hunted down. Seems to have put the business on hold.

mrbill said...

We solved that problem here in Wichita when they gunned down Tiller in his own church. And any new ones trying to start up have been put on notice...they will be hunted down. Seems to have put the business on hold.

heyboom said...

@BaltoHvar

That's where viability comes into play. In the case of your niece, her twin had no chance of survival. That termination is justified.

SeanF said...

Saint Croix: All 50 states have rules in regard to when people die. And it's the same rule: complete and irreversible brain death. So we know with absolute certainty when you or I die. All equal protection says is that we should apply the same biological criteria we use for you or me, to babies as well.

When you apply this rule to the unborn, of what import is the word irreversible?

Jason said...

Mr. Bill is a terrorist sympathiser.

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Illuninati said...

MayBee said:
"I'm not pro-life. I'm pro choice. And I'm tired of conservatives getting painted as having some radical, anti-women stand on abortion. Most Americans don't agree with free abortions until the moment of birth. If we are going to have elections in this country based own issues, I'd prefer the issues are fairly represented to the voters."

I agree with you on that.

Uncle Pavian said...

Ever notice that an alarming number of the people who claim to be outraged at news of school shootings also think "Dr." Gosnell is a hero and his behavior ought to be encouraged?

Geoff Matthews said...

Slippery slope argument.If you outlaw these abortions then only outlaws will give these abortions.

Geoff Matthews said...

I believe that abortion for convenience (I'm too young, too poor, I want to finish school, I don't love the father . . .) is evil, regardless of the age of the fetus. Convenience makes up most abortions (~90%, from a stat from the late 80's).
Having said that, I'm willing to let people damn themselves with the law's support, but good God, this is horrific.

SJ said...

Did Dr. Gosnell also do anything which harmed the pregnant women who came into his clinic?

Not to mention homicides of babies who survived abortion, and breaking the 24-week rule as set by Pennsylvania.

Saint Croix said...

Hey Sean,

I'm not sure of the importance of the word "irreversible." I do know the standard is not brainwave activity (which happens later in pregnancy). Under the law, if you have any activity in your brainstem, you're alive.

A baby at 6 weeks (8 weeks after LMP) has blips of activity in her brain stem. I believe this coincides with the baby's movement.

Death occurs when the blips of activity stop and do not come back. I guess that's what they mean by "irreversible."

microcorsair said...

Abortion is the 21st-Century slavery: it is a monstrous evil that intelligent, educated people twist themselves into pretzels to support.

I fervently hope that one day we will see abortion-supporters in the same light we see slavery-supporters.

microcorsair said...

Notice that pro-abortion people think of unborn babies as women's property, the same as slave-owners referred to slaves as their property.

Slavery didn't usually involve killing; abortion always does.

Audrey said...

I was wondering if the American media were ever going to get the cojones to cover this issue so I was not surprised that the article link was to a British paper. This trial is tailor-made for the Nancy Gray treatment but because is it a negative portrayal of abortion and a black man, there will be no airing of this trial on American TV.

This tale is a searing indictment of the state of oversight of abortion clinics in this country. This monster's exploits went unnoticed for years because no one in the state government wanted to interfere with a minority doctor serving a minority population. No other invasive medical procedure gets so little attention. Abortion is protected from routine medical oversight by devoted activists/acolytes who fear a crack in the wall will bring the whole corrupt edifice crashing down. This is what happens when everyone looks the other way.

Audrey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

One of mine was born at 28 - 30 weeks.

Now a Major in the United States Army. Flies a Black Hawk.

Is an amazing person.

Since I don't use the more coarse profanity, those of you who do may insert it here.

SeanF said...

Saint Croix, I didn't really ask about the definition of irreversible, I asked about its importance.

In the case of an adult in a hospital bed, the "irreversibility" is of paramount importance - regardless of how we define "brain activity", the question is the likelihood of it existing in the foreseeable future, not merely whether it exists now.

If, as you said, "we should apply the same biological criteria we use for you or me, to babies as well," then that certainly wouldn't be, "It's okay to kill 'em if they will have brain activity in a couple of weeks but don't right now."

Saint Croix said...

Hey Scott,

Fair enough. An embryo who does not have brain activity is different from a person who's brain activity has stopped (i.e. died). I'm not arguing that an embryo is dead. Clearly a live embryo is alive, as a zygote is alive or a sperm is alive.

The point of a death statute is to define the relevant biological criteria for human death. And that's so doctors can avoid being prosecuted for murder.

If loss of brain activity is the relevant criteria for death, then you have to have brain activity to be alive under the law.

Same with stopping of a heartbeat, or whatever the relevant criteria is for death.

What you are talking about is the importance of future life (or what the Supreme Court calls "potential life"). My point is that we have specific legal criteria in regard to when people die. And the Supreme Court has ignored that criteria because it has defined the baby as property.

And understand that everybody on the Court--including Scalia and Thomas--have defined the baby as property. This is a horrible mistake.

The argument is that we should just overturn Roe v. Wade and send this fight back to the states. I agree we should. But I also think our Constitution forbids any abortion that would qualify as a homicide under state law.

And I don't think pro-lifers should argue that our Constitution forbids every abortion. I think that's bad tactics, but also a bad reading of our Constitution.

Got to run back to work.

SeanF said...

Saint Croix: Hey Scott...
Okay, I have a brother named Scott, so I've been mistakenly called that name more times than I can count.

Doesn't often happen on the Internet, though. :)

The point of a death statute is to define the relevant biological criteria for human death. And that's so doctors can avoid being prosecuted for murder.

If loss of brain activity is the relevant criteria for death, then you have to have brain activity to be alive under the law.


But loss of brain activity is not the relevant criteria. The relevant criteria, as you noted, is permanent loss of brain activity.

What you are talking about is the importance of future life (or what the Supreme Court calls "potential life"). My point is that we have specific legal criteria in regard to when people die. And the Supreme Court has ignored that criteria because it has defined the baby as property.

I don't agree that I'm talking about "potential life" or "future life," but I certainly do agree that SCOTUS has arbitrarily defined the unborn out of "personhood," and I agree that that's horrible.

Saint Croix said...

But loss of brain activity is not the relevant criteria. The relevant criteria, as you noted, is permanent loss of brain activity.

Okay, you're on the operating table. Your brain ceases function. And then it comes back. And then it ceases function again. And then it comes back. And then it ceases function and it doesn't come back.

That's when you are dead, right there.

And it's a similar case at the beginning of life. You brain starts function (blip), and then it goes away. And then it comes back (blip) and then it goes away. And then it comes back (blip) and then it goes away.

You are alive at the moment of the first blip.

Saint Croix said...

The Supreme Court says birth is the important point. Inga says pain is the important point. Lots of pro-lifers say conception is the important point.

All these people want to dictate their rule, because they think their rule is right.

Justice Scalia is very Catholic. Doesn't use birth control, has a bunch of kids. He probably thinks conception is a good point. And yet he doesn't want to dictate "life begins at conception." He thinks it would be unfair for him to dictate his belief to our country. It would be dictatorial.

I think that's right.

But his mistake is to think that our law cannot help resolve this dispute. Total brain death is not my rule. It's our rule. It's the rule in all 50 states. We like the rule for us.

The Constitution is process-oriented. John Hart Ely wrote a book on it. The Constitution doesn't say anything about conception or pain or birth or brain activity or heartbeat.

But what the Constitution does say is that whatever rule we use for you, I should get that rule too.

Equal protection.

So total brain death--unlike every other suggested point on the slippery slope--actually has a basis in our law and our Constitution.

This is not to say that a state can't change it's laws in regard to when people die. Of course it can! Merely that whatever law the state picks, has to apply to everybody.

damikesc said...

Who else is shocked that the press has less than zero desire to cover this trial?

AprilApple said...

What does Obama think? Anyone in our pathetic media want to ask him about this?