borndead1
15 years ago

I mean, it's just an ass, isn't it?

tailgater wrote:




Is it shaved?
tailgater
15 years ago


As for abortion...yes I think it is disgusting, inhumane, irresponsible, and it is murder. But should it be illegal? I say no. Why? Because it won't stop women from getting abortions. Abortion is something the human race has to evolve past, just like war, greed, racism, homophobia, etc. Laws can't force people to be moral, ethical, or responsible. You can't legally force someone to have a conscience.

borndead1 wrote:



Agreed.
tailgater
15 years ago

Is it shaved?

borndead1 wrote:



As if you'd say no if it weren't...
DadZilla3
15 years ago

And vice versa...anti-abortionists who are pro-death penalty. They're both murder IMO.

borndead1 wrote:


I find quite a degree of difference between killing an innocent unborn baby and the state putting a convicted murderer to death to pay for his or her crimes.
JadeRose
15 years ago
I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty for particularly heinous crimes....which is exactly what this sick ba$tard has been perpetrating. Make it slow and painful.
fishinguitarman
15 years ago
This is just sickening....The torturous murder of babies.....
jig+pig
15 years ago
this guy is sick! however, to compare this guy to a real dr. giving an abortion is idiotic!
IDIOTIC!
and to the people against capitol punishment....would you feel the same if someone raped and killed YOUR daughter?????????????????????????????????
i say we have a public stoning of this so called dr. and i would be first in line to throw a stone!
rfenst
15 years ago
What kind of scisors?
daveincincy
15 years ago

What kind of scisors?

rfenst wrote:



My mom would get upset at us if we used her sewing scissors to cut paper.
jig+pig
15 years ago

My mom would get upset at us if we used her sewing scissors to cut paper.

daveincincy wrote:



mine too Dave!!
daveincincy
15 years ago

mine too Dave!!

jig+pig wrote:



Well, there's two of us that turned out alright. Can't say the same about the guy in the article. He must have some deep-seeded issues with his mom when she scolded him for using her sewing scissors to make crafts.
jig+pig
15 years ago
yeah, i guess you're right. we didn't turn out too bad. the love of money is the root of all evil!!
i'm sure this guy loved the money.
JadeRose
15 years ago

What kind of scisors?

rfenst wrote:




I don't know but I bet he ran with them, too.
teedubbya
15 years ago

I don't know but I bet he ran with them, too.

JadeRose wrote:




By the swimming pool after a heavy meal
uncleb
15 years ago
At one point I was Pro Choice but, with all of the advancements/options that are now available in the areas of adoption and contraception, I have shifted to Pro Life. The issue now is changing the educational and informational communication processes to adapt to these changes. If Planned Parenthood is pushing abortion as the primary option nowadys (I don't know if they are or not) they need to catch up and quickly.
cbc812
15 years ago
Pro choice, pro death penalty here.

But I don't think this story is really relevant to the pro choice/pro life debate. This guy is a sadistic f**k and a criminal.
rfenst
15 years ago
I have read the article over a couple times and don't see where the babies were proven to be viable outside the womb at the time of the abortion. If they weren't viable outside the womb and the abortion ocured within the 24-week period under the law, I don't think they will be able to convict him for murder of the aborted baby. How, other than employees "rolling over on the doctor", will they even prove the babies were born alive and intact?

Look for the defenzse to be something like:

1. The abortion was performed during the foirst and second tri-mester as required by law;
2. None of the babies were born alive;
3. None of the babies were even viable (had they been born alive). The use of the "surgical scisors" as opposed to a scalpal was the fastess way to painlessly end the babies life; and of course
4. The mothers are to blame too for the death of their babies because they wanted the abortion.

As to the number of med-mal lawsuits that, in and of itself, could mean nothing at all given the doctor performs abortions, which include a much greater proportion of claims against doctors than in other areas of medicine.

Lastly, uterus damage/perferation is a well-known risk/complication of even the most [properly performed, safest abortion. I am not saying that negligence may be a cuse of it, just that ever perferation is not necessarily malpractice.

Now, if the only hardcore issue that can be proven is a terribly messy, unclean clinic, then look for a fine and the possible suspension or loss of the doctor's medicle license.

We'll see...
wheelrite
15 years ago

I have read the article over a couple times and don't see where the babies were proven to be viable outside the wound at the time off the abortion. If they weren't viable and the abotion ocured within the 24-week period under the law, I don't think they will be able to convict him for murder. How, other than employees rolling over on the doctor, they will even prove the babies were born alive and intact?

Look for the defenzse to be something like:

1. The abortion was performed during the foirst and second tri-mester as required by law;
2. None of the babies were born alive;
3. None of the babies were even viable (had they been born alive). The use of the "surgical scisors" as opposed to a scalpal was the fastess way to painlessly end the babies life; and of course
4. The mothers are to blame too for the death of their babies because they wanted the abortion.

As to the number of med-mal lawsuits that, in and of itself, could mean nothing at all given the doctor performs abortions, which include a much greater proportion of claims against doctors than in other areas of medicine.

Lastly, uterus damage/perferation is a well-known risk/complication of even the most [properly performed, safest abortion. I am not saying that negligence may be a cuse of it, just that ever perferation is not necessarily malpractice.



read it again..The babies WERE BORN ALIVE some in the 8th month and he KILLED them.

I believe you are just being contrary.

If not,you have issues..















rfenst wrote:


daveincincy
15 years ago
Reading #37 only confirms why it would be darn near impossible for me to be a lawyer. I am not saying that rfenst would defend this abortion doc, but defending someone like that would be reallly hard to do even if they stayed within the law [barely]. That goes for other criminals, etc, as well. Criminal defense would be tough for me, as I would be very picky about who I would want to defend. My problem is I would lean more towards common sense rather than law at times. 🤔
rfenst
15 years ago

read it again..The babies WERE BORN ALIVE some in the 8th month and he KILLED them.

I believe you are just being contrary.

If not,you have issues..

wheelrite wrote:




The article makes me sick too.

Just because the article says so doesn't make it true. Re-read what I wrote. See the word "proof"? Where is the "proof". Any phsical evidence? Any admissions by the doctor? Or, is there just the testimony of alleged co-conspiritors at best? (I was once a prosecutor. Also, I have watched and read how similar cases have gone down, including some participation in a trial against an abortionist.)

As to just being contrary, you can beleive whatever you desire, but you are wrong. (Maybe, your vigor concerning the issue is preventing you from claearly fathoming how the REAL legal sytem works.

As to having issues: You don't know the half of it!!!
Users browsing this topic