• Larry

    “when Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder and other charges for performing hundreds of illegal late-term abortions, sometimes delivery the baby alive and then killing it”

    Kermit Gosnell’s clinic would not have existed if not for the state’s draconian restrictions on abortion clinics. On several occasions the state intervened to prevent professional medical organizations from stepping in to shut his place down. Patients would not have considered Gosnell’s clinic a viable option if there were more reputable ones around.

    The anti-abortion crowd using him as an example is woefully dishonest and pernicious. They created the monster and now use him to pretend that safe clinics, run without onerous restrictions, are the same as his.

    The pro-choice movement should use graphic images of Gosnell’s work, Savita Halappanavar’s corpse of and back alley abortions to show what will happen when abortion is severely restricted or banned.

  • Larry

    “The pro-life answer is to double down on abortion restrictions and outlaw the procedure wholesale, a move that would do little more than create many more Gosnell-style houses of horror.

    The Gosnell case is a story precisely because it is unusual. Before abortion was legal across the country, women dying from botched abortions wasn’t particularly newsworthy. Legal abortion in the United States is today one of the safest medical procedures around. It becomes dangerous when it’s outlawed or functionally illegal, and when women are desperate and shamed.

    Widespread adoption of pro-life laws created one Gosnell. We shouldn’t make more.”

  • John

    Another old school attempt to discredit the content of a story by attacking its methods and projecting unsubstantiated reasons to it. Nice try David. You will succeed with other gullible and blind liberals, but it is all too easy to see through your false arguments. Just for kicks, could you write an actual compassionate article about the content which this story reveals, meaning the baby (or fetus if you wish)? Do you have the slightest concern or understanding of the pro-life side, even a teensy bit?

  • Larry

    I see nothing of the sort here. Please clarify. The article appears to be a description on what seems to be a change of direction for anti-abortion rhetoric.

    The problem you have John is there is nothing inherently compassionate about the anti-abortion position. It relies entirely on hysterics and blatantly emotional appeals and most importantly on denigrating or minimizing pregnant women. There is never any consideration of the woman considering an abortion except to hurl epithets or deny her existence as part of the situation.

    Of course once one is born, the typical attitudes of the anti-abortion crowd is that the child should drop dead through hunger, privation and poverty. Its tough to show them as a compassionate bunch. There is so little compassion in them.

  • John

    You would have to be blind and gullible not to see the outrage from people over the nature of the conversations on the tapes. Wonder why that is? Perhaps they recognize something of humanity in the fetus and are moved to a certain compassion and outrage. That part is not hard to see nor understand, even for the cynic. Neither is it hard to see that the best way to discredit a story is to go after the person involved or the motives behind it. Again, you would have to be blind and gullible not to get that. This story by David is an attempt to focus on the tactic and cast it as an “in your face” or “gruesome” approach. Pretty ironic that the tactic is call gruesome as opposed to the truly gruesome act, meaning the sell of aborted fetal parts.

    As to your caricature of Christians being compassionless, you show your own ignorance of the vast amount of information on what Christians have done for society today and throughout history. Again, welcome to the blind and gullible…