A report on the abortion clinic in PHILADELPHIA found

'Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling "house of horrors" with bags and bottles of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises. '

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/jury-finds-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-guilty-of-three-murders/story-fnat7jnn-1226641

well I suppose if he had of cleaned up it would not be so bad eh!

I remember the death in Ireland.
And hope we all do.
A woman died because abortion is illegal there full stop.
It has been said her life was not important in a country the Catholic Church has far too much control over.
A country that saw recent release of evidence of horrible sex offenses by dozens of Priests.
Some abortions are wrong, some are needed.
As should be the case in every law, justice, not religious extremism, should be the measure.
America has seen extreme right wing Christian fanatics MURDER folk in the name of God.
Lets watch as that country, increasingly, confronts bigots pretending/thinking they have God on side.
And in acting as they do, taking the country further away from their God.

One abortion clinic is found to be run with very poor standards and that becomes "the nature of the abortion industry exposed".

Thousands of priests, clergy, pastors, lay workers and other who claim Christ as lord are found to be cheating on spouses, sexually and or otherwise abusing children, ripping off the gullable, protecting abusers etc but thats not the nature of christianity exposed.

No group or grouping of people can or should be judged on the actions of a minority unless that group claims to have an all knowing infallable oversight.

R0bert

I remember an illegal abortion clinic directly opposite Wynyard station in Sydney (made getting there on the train easier)back in the late '70s.
The 'quack' only had a thumb and two fingers on his right hand (convenient?). He was the society darling of the day (no pill then). We busted him because the place was so filthy he killed the 'commissioners' daughter with 'staph'
I believe he got a job in 'Long Bay" running the hospital (reserved occupation)

I suspect that runner would not approve of an abortion clinic that was staffed by competent physicians and had the highest standards of sterility. runner's last comment was: "well I suppose if he had of cleaned up it would not be so bad eh!"

That's right, runner. If it had been cleaned up so as to make the procedure safer and more considerate to the women, it would not have been so bad.

The problem was that the facility was inadequate for the purpose - not that the facility existed.

<<dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.>>

In Latin America, cats are unwelcome because they are associated with the devil. This is probably because cats, unlike their canine cousins, have a mind of their own and it's harder to order them around.

The Herald-Sun link did not work, so I couldn't check the author's intentions more thoroughly - I just hope that this use of cats in a derogatory sense was not used as a pretext for a progrom on those sweet fury creatures.

Here's a story you might like Yuyutsu:

http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cu.aspx

Cheers,

Tony

Could also try this one.

http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=xOMmaOk3

Overall it looks more like the kind of problems you would expect when abortion is pushed underground rather than the result of legal and regulated abortion.

There seem to be a few relevant factors.
- a regulator which was not meeting its role
- a clinic and staff willing to operate well outside the law and any sense of hygene or care
- clients seeking late term abortions - an added complexity to the issue which is is not often discussed in context with other arguments.

The law has eventually acted. Too late to address some vile behaviours but I see nothing in this to suggest that the particular issues in this case are widespread or being covered up by the industry.

R0bert

well its seems people are more concerned with the killing of cattle than unborn children.

Dear runner,

One cannot kill an unborn child because a child is not a child until it is born. The word you refuse to use is fetus. You also don't seem to give a damn about the woman who has an abortion and her reasons for having an abortion. You take it upon yourself to decide what someone should do.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Just the same old bigotry and distortion from OLOs resident fundamentalist zealot.

david f

the nazis dehumanised the Jews by classing them less than human and abortionist have done the same to unborn children.

mikk

'Just the same old bigotry and distortion from OLOs resident fundamentalist zealot. '

not pleasant discussing the murder and tearing apart of young babies is it mikk. easier the demonise the messenger.

I have discussed it with you previously but you have a mind like a rusty steel trap. Firmly welded closed!

mikk

'I have discussed it with you previously but you have a mind like a rusty steel trap. Firmly welded closed! '

better than a heart so calloused that murdering unborn children means nothing to you.

I'm not so sure that there is nothing to see here. The facts of the case are disturbing especially the late term abortions that were seeming sought and performed.

In light of where the argument about backyard abortions that is frequently part of the debate about early term abortions I wonder what happens to that point for abortions that are not generally legal.

What arguments typically used to support abortion can no longer apply when the fetus is late term?

R0bert

*sigh* This is the third time I've seen Godwin's law play out in a discussion on this site today, you guys can't go more than a few posts without repeating some load of bollocks about Hitler, it shows a distinct lack of imagination and capacity for reason.
For the record, the National Socialists did not believe that anyone was "subhuman" nor did they classify anyone on the basis of "humanity", only race, "untermensch" doesn't mean "less than human" it means "low man" it's context is the same as the English words "poor" or "underclass". Go and read Mein Kampf or "The complete Hitler" before you start posts beginning "The Nazis thought...."
Runner your post is ridiculous, abortion was a criminal offence in Germany under the NS, they used to give parents medals and cash bonuses for having children, abortionists would have ended up in a concentration camp, or worse.
DR Kermit Gosnell allegedly kept a separate and far more sterile suite of rooms especially for White patients, the atrocities he committed were supposedly all against Black mothers and children, even the term "abortionist" is rubbery here since he's accused of inducing viable near term babies and then executing them by cutting their spinal cords with scissors shortly after delivery.
I'd say he did see some patients as less worthy of care than others based on race, though presumably he could charge White girls from the suburbs more for the better options in his two tier level of care.

Jay

I dare say you are just playing with words. So the Nazis see the Jews as only race, "untermensch" "poor" or "underclass"

Certainly the abortion industry see the unborn babies as disposable objects. The end result is the same as the murdered Jews and abortionist certainly put the same value on the unborn as Nazis did on Jews. No amount of weasel words change that fact.

If abortion was made legal, then chances are these types of clinics would not exist.

Personally, I would rather see a potential mother have a free abortion, than be forced to give birth to an unwanted child.

Now for those ani abortion people, better brace yourselves, cause the baby bonus has been shafted.

Here you go, runner.

Not particularly connected to the abortion debate per se. However, here's a glimpse of your preferred party's attitude to mothers in the advent of their needing to be with their child...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opposition-blocks-bid-to-be-with-sick-baby/story-fni0cx4q-1226643689970

I wonder what that says about Mr Abbott's woman-friendly blather, not to mention his paid parental-leave scheme.

Not a good look.

(I hope she enjoys his reply speech tonight)

Poirot,

at least you are allowed an opinion to display your abbottphobia no matter how inaccurate. The unborn have been denied such.

Au contraire, runner.

I would love an opportunity to laud Mr Abbott and his cronies.

Bur what sort of hypocrisy is this?

Would just add, that if my child was very ill, I'd give the fingers to whoever was trying to stop me going to their side - and I would go anyway.

>>no matter how inaccurate<<

You mean Ms Rowland really was granted a pair and allowed to attend to her child? Link please.

Cheers,

Tony

An update - apparently she has now been granted a pair.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/opposition-blocks-labor-mps-bid-to-be-with-sick-baby/4692814

(Notwithstanding that Chris Pyne tried to spin it saying that they didn't realise the sick family member was a child)

"I am writing to you in relation to your request toprovide a 'pair' for Ms Michelle Rowland, Member for Greenway due to her child being unwell."

They were aware that it was her child.

Nice try, Mr Pyne

Poirot,

you really need to get over Tony becoming PM. You try and paint him as totally uncompassionate blah blah. Who really cares. Others tried to paint him as an enemy to the indigeneous, woman hater etc. And of course Juliar's cry on spending other peoples money is genuine. What all this has to do with killing the unborn mystifies me except that Abbott at least in rhetoric opposes abortion. Personally I would vote for Penny Wong if she could stop the baby killin g industry. You really should try to look for one good quality in Tony. It will help you more than him.

I do try to see things from runner's point of view...

"well I suppose if he had of cleaned up it would not be so bad eh!"

No. The entire story and situation was and is appalling.

But if you had written, "well I suppose if He had of cleaned up it would not be so bad eh!"

Then the response would be yes.

But He didn't. So He must not care enough to do anything about it, don't you think?

That He didn't is also an ethical and moral dilemma.

Appalling.

Thanks for that, Tony Lavis.

runner, what do you mean by "no matter how inaccurate"?

I provided a link which contained a copy of the letter of refusal.

How is that inaccurate?

You really do skate along on a wing and a prayer don't you.

This is a woman who has chosen with her husband to have a child. A wonderful thing, I think you'll agree. The Coalition has aims to make having a child and working to be more family friendly - at least that's the impression they like to give.

Fall at the first hurdle...and Pyne spins a load of old cobblers to add insult to injury.

Fascinating.....

Poirot

'This is a woman who has chosen with her husband to have a child. A wonderful thing, I think you'll agree. The Coalition has aims to make having a child and working to be more family friendly - at least that's the impression they like to give. '

maybe she should consider looking after the child instead of expecting Parliament to be disrupted and the tax payer to fork out each time the child catches a cold. This would make mfar more sense. If you were running a business you would be spewing if a father asked you to pay return airtickets and time off to visit a son with a cold.

Such great lenghts and costs for a mother who chose to go into politics and have a baby in contrast to the total lack of value placed on an unborn child who can legally be butchered.

Got that, runner.

Infant suffering flu and severe fever.

That's flu and severe fever...in case you missed it.

Sometimes flu and severe fever is life-threatening in infants.

And what does runner say in response?

"maybe she should look after her own child instead of expecting Parliament to be disrupted and the tax payer to fork out each time the child catches a cold...."

That's...".....each time the child catches a cold...." for those who might have missed it.

You seem to be regarding this infant's quite severe bout of illness as of next to no consequence - and certainly nothing that should rouse a working person to slip off the job to administer care.

I wonder what you'd have said if it was a man wanting to be with his severely ill child?

The gosnell incidence is a solid first step to educating the masses about the primary injustice which undergirds modern Western culture. But we still have so far to go...so many more to save...so much more shrewdness to exhibit for we are sheep surrounded by wolves.

Discussing the anti-abortion stance in terms of the "modern" idea of 'the right to life' is futile because it takes it out of context. It is also inconsistent with that modern idea because the people opposing the murder of human babies do not similarly oppose the murder of adult members of other species who are more developed - physically, emotionally and mentally than a human baby.

The original spirit of the prohibition on abortions and the only context where it can be properly understood and make sense, is its use as a tool to make people think twice before having sex.

Encouraging people to conserve their sexual energy so that they can direct it towards higher purposes, is noble. Yet nowadays this particular means (prohibiting abortions) does not serve this end, for the following reasons:

1. Availability of contraceptives.
2. Spirituality cannot be acquired by force, only by free choice.
3. Most people in this age are not spiritually ready for a significant effort to limit their sexual expression, it's like asking a baby to run and write poetry before they crawl and talk. The toughest sexual discipline that the general public today is able to handle, is to refrain from having sex with others against their will, even that with difficulty. Asking them to wilfully limit having sex altogether is bound to erupt in violent ways, including towards oneself and becoming ill.
4. Dishonesty and fear: Instead of telling people straight why it is good to try to limit their sexual expression, it is covered up by the threat of having to have and raise an unwanted child.

Fear doesn't bring us closer to God - if one is to try to limit their sexual expression, then one should rather do so for the love of God, in order to preserve this energy for their Highest Beloved.

Julia Gillard and the handbag hit squad failed miserably in their efforts to demonise Tony Abbott as anti-women.

Now feminist guru Eva Cox has been very forthright in saying that Tony Abbott's parental leave policy is better for women than the Gillard government's version. Does that make Gillard and her Grrls sexist and misogynist?

The Gillard government's National Disability Insurance Scheme deliberately excludes the old, with people over 65 not being eligible. Not only does Gillard discriminate against the elderly, but she discriminates against women in particular, because women outnumber men in that group.

Facinating that PM Gillard sheds no tears for the disabled old, most of whom are women. On top of that Gillard wants to tip the old dears out of the family homes they raised their families in. Great for the entrepreneurs who see megabucks in redevelopments for Yuppies and DINKs I suppose, and great too for the other entrepreneurs who are developing flatette boxes on cheap land for the displaced elderly.

Returning to abortion, it will be interesting to see if the removal of the baby bonus by the Gillard government results in a spike in abortions. Such a spike is to be expected. After all, one of the compelling justifications given for legal, publicly funded abortion on demand is unplanned pregnancies of vulnerable, poorly educated and unemployed women who cannot afford to keep their children. Still, the Gillard government can easily cover the losses with the abundant adult male asylum seekers. Expensive 'diversity', but tres 'Progressive'.

The double-edged sword is that the Gillard government is always willing to bend over backwards to advantage educated middle class women in their careers and children. Middle class feminism.

Expressing his own views on abortion, President Obama stated, "I think President Clinton said it pretty well when he said abortion should be safe, legal and rare." A majority of Australians would agree with that view. The red flags that policy is not well framed would be anything outside of that. So, what does 'rare' mean in numbers and what about late term abortions, what rules should apply?

Come now, onthebeach.

The Howard government introduced the $5,000 baby bonus as an addition to their model of pork-barrelling middle-class welfare.

Btw, I agree with you that Gillard couldn't give a toss about women to any greater extent than Abbott. Some of her policies have made it a whole lot harder for women...just yesterday I was talking to a single mother who has been living "in her parent's backyard".(I didn't ask for details) She was telling me that she and her daughter are moving into the "two front rooms" of house owned by her friend whose husband is working fly-in-fly-out (ie, she can longer afford to rent a house of her own).

It's a lovely state of affairs, don't you agree? (sarc)

I was making hay out of this seemingly big slip-up by the Coalition. Ony because the party which champions paid parental leave should be more cognisant of the difficulties which sometimes arise with sick children, etc.

But all in all, I think both parties and their leaders are pretty much on the nose.

Dear Poirot,

You wrote: "But all in all, I think both parties and their leaders are pretty much on the nose."

Until you wrote that I assumed 'on the nose' meant exact or correct. Obviously you didn't mean that.

I looked up the expression and found:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+nose

on the nose (mainly American)
exactly right, often an exact amount of money or time We arrived at three o'clock on the nose. Her description of the play really hit it on the nose.

Apparently the same expression means something different in Australia than it does in the US where I am from.

This subject always brings oput the worst on both sides.
Those who unthinking find they need an abortion, almost as a lifestyle thing.
And the far right linked to religion as it never truly was.
Christ if he came back would not know some who use him as reason to murder Abortionists, just as much as he,based on his teachings, would not know the just too lazy to prevent pregnacy7.
Then again, some Church,s bar the pill too.

Poirot,

No, the baby bonus was introduced to assist young couples defray the initial and not small costs of a new child. The fertility of young Australian couples was low, they were struggling with the cost of living and the bonus helped. The population boom is migrant driven. The 'diversity' you have when you force your own young couples to put off having children indefinitely. Rightly, Costello tried to help them. Wrongly, this government has spent so much money elsewhere, including broadcasting dollars overseas as aid, that it cannot afford to help its own citizens.

Proof that the baby bonus helped increase the number of young Australian couples havng children is in the present prediction that its abolition will lead to a baby boom 10 months hence as couples try to get in before Gillard rips the bonus away from them.

But as most would recognise, the Gillard crew represent themselves: tertiary educated, elitist, middle class womyn. Eva Cox was right to remind them that Tony Abbott's parental leave would suit them $$better.

But what Eva Cox forgets is that so many of the leftie womyn on Emilys List are well over the hill already. They are now looking for affirmative action leg-ups to company boards to serve them into their dotage and are not interested in pushing for Australia in some labour ward. Hmmm, I wonder how many of them have Anna Bligh bobbleheads to remind them how to manage their super entitlements and career leaps post September '13?

onthebeach,

Yes, I realise Costello was egging us on to reproduce.

"Women" is spelled w-o-m-e-n.

David f,

Yup,... by "on the nose" I was meaning a bit whiffy.

By meaning "exact", I probably would have said "on the money" (although I think I have heard of "on the nose" as you first took it)...but these sayings often have multiple meanings, depending on where you're from.

Poirot,

As a man, Costello couldn't have been concerned at all about those young couples who were forced by economic circumstances to defer having children, now could he? He would HAVE to be directing womyn what to do with their bodies. LOL

Womyn is appropriate to the context, Emily's List et al.

onthebeach,

I'll leave you to luxuriate in your ongoing gender conspiracy.

Have fun!

It has nothing to do with conspiracies Poirot. Peter Costello was genuine in reflecting what the electorate wanted, "If you can have children it’s a good thing to do – you should have one for the father, one for the mother and one for the country, if you want to fix the ageing demographic".

At the time there was plenty of evidence from independent reports (still is!) that young couples were delaying fertility indefinitely for financial reasons and later could not have the children they planned for. Women forced to put off children until later add costs to the health system and places burdens on them as well.

Of course the self-loathing Left and the looney Greens see population sustainability in 'One World Government' terms, scolding young Aussies couples for desiring family and children. However the Left and Greens would throw open the doors to all-comers though in the vain hope of relieving overpopulation elsewhere in the world. No-one is prepared to compare the costs and benefits. Nutty.

Dear onthebeach,

The Greens would not throw open the doors to all comers. The Greens have a sensible population policy which maintains that the best way to relieve population pressure outside of Australia is by supporting family planning and education of women - not by inviting them all to come to Australia.

http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:
1. The current level of population, population growth and the way we consume are outstripping environmental capacity. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population and encourage and support other nations to do the same.
2. Our environmental impact and ecological footprint is not determined by population numbers alone, but by a range of factors including per capita consumption patterns and levels, distribution of resources, agricultural practices for domestic consumption and export, levels and types of industrial activity, urban design and transport options.
3. Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to:
a. ecological sustainability;
b. global and domestic social justice and equity, including women’s rights;
c. intergenerational equity;
d. multiculturalism;
e. international human rights obligations; and
f. decent wages and conditions for all workers.
4. Population policy should not be primarily driven by economic goals or to counter the effects of an ageing population.
5. An Australian population policy must consider the geographical distribution of human settlements rather than just concentrate upon population size at the national level.
6. Australia has an obligation to accept humanitarian migration including that resulting from climate change.
7. The continuing rapid increase in the human population has the potential to adversely affect national or international outcomes in environmental sustainability, human health and welfare, and other areas. Current rates of resource use are not sustainable and are compounded by inequitable distribution of wealth and power.

continued

continued

Aims
The Australian Greens want:
8. A reduction in Australia’s use of finite natural resources to a level that is sustainable and socially just.
9. Human settlements which are:
a. designed and built to minimise environmental harm and maximise social well-being;
b. located in areas where their ecological impact is minimised.
10. Full implementation by Australia of the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action, including:
a. increasing our contribution to programs that empower women and increase their access to a wide range of safe family planning options;
b. increasing our overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GNI;
c. ensuring that overseas aid to the world’s poorest, which often include women, is focussed on clean water and sanitation, education and high quality accessible health services, including sexual and reproductive health services;
d. community debate about population, acknowledging that there are complex issues involved in population policy, including:
• limits to unsustainable growth and resource use;
• the survival of other species and ecosystems;
• women’s rights and especially education and access to family planning;
• unsustainable resource use; and
• inequitable distribution of wealth and power.

All fine words, but meaningless in application.

The electorate is now able to judge the Greens by their behaviour in government where for example, they have frustrated so many government policies and at the same time always claimed any credit that was going. The Greens rolled logs in front of the government's policy on illegal immigrants and as a result people smugglers flourish and more people have died at sea.

Julia Gillard is weak in handling the exasperating, treacherous Greens and refers to them as a protest party without any interest or commitment to a broad coherent and coordinated policy for government. In this case she is right.

Dear onthebeach,

Regardless of what you of the Greens it is not Greens' policy for unlimited immigration to Australia as you claimed.

david f,

In that case you might like to state what population limit the Greens have decided, what annual immigration limit the Greens have decided and what illegal immigration target the Greens have decided.

The Greens talk about sustainable population, but apart from sledging young Aussie couples as 'breeders' for wanting families and children the Greens do SFA. Never have they expressed any limit for immigration. Always the same old same old cringeworthy worshipping of anyone and any cultural practice from outside.

Australia achieved and maintained zero population growth decades ago - at the behest of academics and government. However, government continually sought new records of immigration to serve the building industry's demand for more business and big business's demand for cheap, non-unionised labour. 'Growth' and 'Big Australia' say K Rudd and others.

Any over-population is directly and solely attributable to immigration and over-enthusiastic immigration at that. Yet the feckless Greens are only offended by Aussie 'breeders' and Aussie children. How does that figure?

Dear onthebeach,

It doesn't figure because it isn't true. You are not interested in the actual policies of the Greens. You dismissed them as just words. You have made your own picture of the Greens which has nothing to with reality.

david f,

Here again are the questions you ducked:

"In that case you might like to state what population limit the Greens have decided, what annual immigration limit the Greens have decided and what illegal immigration target the Greens have decided."

onthebeach:

You wrote: "Here again are the questions you ducked:

In that case you might like to state what population limit the Greens have decided, what annual immigration limit the Greens have decided and what illegal immigration target the Greens have decided."

I have ducked nothing. I posted the Greens' population policy in full, but you dismissed it as just words. I can just add my own views, but I have no authority to speak for the Greens.

david f

Without numbers it is the Greens policy that is just words, meaningless and pie in the sky. If the Greens say they are concerned about sustainability, OK then, so what should Australia's maximum population be and how soon should that be achieved?

Quite obviously the Greens don't believe that the population limit and the resources available have been exceeded or else they would be opposing immigration, or at least setting targets, wouldn't they? But even so, the Greens should be setting maximumum intakes from any source to ensure whatever limit of population they decree for Australia isn't over-run and generations to come have some flexibility.

What is concerning though, is that the only ones the Greens sledge as 'breeders' and allegedly responsible for 'over-population' are our own young Aussie couples. But it is easily demonstrated from Australian Bureau of Census numbers that young Aussie couples are not having the children they want because they can't afford to have them anyhow and it has been that way for years.

Nonetheless, where any foreigner is concerned, economic migrant or legal migrant alike, the Greens enthusiastically throw open the doors with no limits at all. Again, how does that figure?

Dear onthebeach,

You are doing the sledging. You say the Greens made statements about 'breeders'. Please state which Greens said it and if they were speaking for the Greens when they said it. For all I can see you are repeating garbage as though it is fact. Mud slinging is quite common in politics and in olo. It is much easier than substantiating one's statements. I am getting tired of your nonsense. I will reply if you provide evidence for your statements.