Abortion doctor charged with 7 counts of murder in Philly

[Neil]

I don't really get how the picture is that graphic. If you go to the article itself, which is a mainstream U.S. news website, that same picture is right there for the world to see with no spoilers or warnings. I'd think if it's appropriate for the news website for a major American city, on the front page and with no "graphic images" warning, it should be fine for Languish.

I guess I forget not everyone has seen lots of fucked up bodies in their life. But this picture wasn't that crazy, no worse than pictures I've seen pro-lifers walking around town with.

It's the context.  I would have preferred that Beeb linked to it rather than hotlinking.  Or at least posted a picture of Martinus getting hit in the head or groin with a brick to lighten the blow.

If I saw a pro-lifer with those damn pictures, I'd have them lynched, after reading a Lettow essay about heroic Klansmen to figure out the best way to do it.

[derspiess]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

[DontSayBanana]

Generally for major dental work you're going to various types of specialist dentist like endodontists who often have more sophisticated surgical setups than regular dentists.

But arguing for more procedures to be like dental work is a bad argument. A surprisingly large number of people die from dental surgery, not like you should be in a panic about it, but more than most people realize. I for one would never allow a dentist to put me under for surgery (I actually have never had a cavity, and even had all my wisdom teeth come in without need of removal, so I've never had dental surgery of any kind) , I've read about the extra training on top of regular dental school that dentists have to go through in order to be certified to put you under. It's surprisingly not a lot, and it's not surprising that sometimes dentists make mistakes with it and kill people.

I'm not sure if NJ's just stricter about it or what, since I don't know the pertinent regulations offhand, but the last time I had dental surgery, the dentist had a separated licensed anesthesiologist on staff.  Which came in handy, actually (I've got a super-severe phobia of needles that triggers my fight-or-flight reflex *bad* with shots of pure adrenaline to boot, so they can't really just jam a needle in my gum for local anesthesia- I'm about as special a snowflake as a surgeon could ever hope to get ).

[OttoVonBismarck]

@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc. Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

[Razgovory]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Seconded.

[Razgovory]

@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc. Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

Is that what it was about?  I thought it was the about the right to walk waist-deep into the water and collect fish eggs.  Roe vs. Wade.

[Barrister]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

Dr. Gesnell was performing abortions well past 24 weeks.  Hell many of the ultrasounds were falsified to incorrectly label the baby as being 24.5 weeks. 

What was creepiest of all was a brief discussion in the grand jury report that Dr. Gesnell would do "the big ones" on Sundays, when no staff was present and he was only assisted by his wife.  Those Sunday "big ones" do not form a part of any of the charges since no records were kept of those abortions...

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

Dr. Gesnell was performing abortions well past 24 weeks.  Hell many of the ultrasounds were falsified to incorrectly label the baby as being 24.5 weeks. 

What was creepiest of all was a brief discussion in the grand jury report that Dr. Gesnell would do "the big ones" on Sundays, when no staff was present and he was only assisted by his wife.  Those Sunday "big ones" do not form a part of any of the charges since no records were kept of those abortions...

Based on what else was done during normal business hours it doesn't seem crazy to suppose maybe he was straight up killing children up to 6 months of age if brought in on Sunday.

[Ideologue]

@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc.  Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

1)You may not have read Roe in a while--Blackmun's opinion mentions it a fair amount, and the money quote there is something along the lines that fetuses aren't people in the full sense, something like that.  But you are correct about Casey--it is not discussed in Casey because that's not what Casey is about.  I doubt it was mentioned in Ayotte.  It's kind of alluded to in the pointless sections of Carhart that sit uneasily aside the legal analysis.  There are other USSC cases where maybe it's mentioned, maybe it's not, and zillions of lower court cases where I suspect it has been discussed, but I am not writing a law review article...

2)...nor was I discussing the legal precedents which have established the privacy rights and balance of interests that determine when it is constitutionally impermissible to prohibit an abortion.  I was, as you say, discussing the ethics of ending a life from a physical point of view.  Outside of a wacky moral system like Jainism or similar, the level of personhood (for lack of a better term) is the test by which killing crosses from a neutral to bad act.  That said, the legal basis for abortion is informed by such ethics: if a fetus could talk in the womb, I find it highly unlikely we would permit its destruction, regardless of the coverage of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the woman carrying it.

Viability is an inane way to test personhood, from that point of view, since it largely tests ability to breathe and keep a heart beating, none of which are sufficient indicators of personhood, as there are many viable organisms which we do not attribute personhood to.  But it is administratively convenient and serves as a stark legal boundary, and the potentialist argument holds significantly greater weight with a viable fetus, and these are not unimportant things.

[Fate]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

[CountDeMoney]

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

derspiess sponsors GORK wheelchair racing teams with quarter panel ads.

[Razgovory]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Anyone else you want to off?

[Martinus]

For the record, just to be clear, my opposition to late term abortions is limited to "abortions-on-demand". I do not oppose them when the fetus is badly damaged or mother's life/health are at risk.

[garbon]

For the record, just to be clear, oh wait I've run out of clarifying phrases that I recall.

[dps]

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Quite a bit of difference between aborting a healthy fetus at 24 weeks and making a decision not to expend extraordinary resources keeping preemies alive.