Kermit Gosnel: guilty

The ones which crossed the line or the ones which some here agree with and have no problem with? I've seen many here defend the concept of using abortion for birth control purposes, in fact many here define it as a right to destroy another human life and say that it is perfectly OK for one person to have the power of life and death over another human life and they do it on a regular and continuing basis.

All I have said is that those who defend the indefensible will next be attempting to scare everyone into believing that without access to destroy human life on a whim, the conditions in Gosnell's little shop of horrors is what any woman who has made the decision to destroy the distinctly separate life her body contains will face unless we continue to make an exception to the general rule that a single individual should never have sole power of life and death over the life of another.

I think that is a false perception.

Photo-fish wrote: I think that is a false perception.

I think he's right... nothing good came out of this trial for the pro-abortion crowd. Just look at how much time MSNBC spent on it... ZERO. So since it was damaging to the cause, they have to find a way to twist it and further justify this sick man-made practice. I'd rather they look for ways to truly make abortion safe, legal, and
















RARE

Photo-fish wrote: I think that is a false perception.

You'll have to be a bit more specific than "that". It's a false perception that abortion on demand is primarily used as post conception birth control? It's a false perception that the abortion on demand crowd isn't going to attempt to scare people into believing that Gosnell's little shop of horrors isn't what is waiting in the wings for women if Roe is overturned? It's a false perception that our system of justice demands that no one person should be given sole power over the life and death of another human life?

What, precisely, do you mean when you say "that"?

The man is 72. Think they should give him the death penalty or just put him away for life?
Put him away for life in the general population. I think that would be the best justice.

FredHayek wrote: The man is 72. Think they should give him the death penalty or just put him away for life?
Put him away for life in the general population. I think that would be the best justice.

I don't support putting this guy to death because it's hypocritical. We as a society, can't give the green light to kill babies in the womb, and then give an abortion doctor death because he killed the baby outside the womb. Both accomplish the same sick thing.

We give cops the authority to kill bad guys... but if a cop kills an innocent person because he was sloppy and not acting the way a properly trained officer should, he should be punished, but we would never give him a death sentence.

Gosnell killed countless babies over his "career' and most could have been performed in an "acceptable" way for all we know. The fact that he killed some of them outside the womb isn't much more sick than killing them inside the womb. If we as a society accept the practice of abortion as a form of birth control, we can't then justify killing the executioner just because he is a bad one.

Killing the most defenseless, innocent human life is the most strong argument for the death penalty over any other argument that may be made.

Arlen wrote: Killing the most defenseless, innocent human life is the most strong argument for the death penalty over any other argument that may be made.

I agree it's a strong argument for people like you and me who see abortion as the killing of an innocent life, but since it's legal, you can't give death penalties for some who are just not as good at it.

But these children were born (by a Frankenstein methodology) and breathing on their own. Their murder was not abortion but rather infanticide. The doctor was not convicted of abortion, but murder.

Fox News thinks he will get the death penalty. He also got second degree murder for over medicating/ODing a patient.