Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing. She had irreversible brain damage. Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions? That is not living. Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She should not have been kept so long like that. She should have been freed long before.
No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it


Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.
Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.
[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is? :dunno:
Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you. And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
These ghouls don't see anything wrong with it at any stage of development. They're down will gassing the weak, halt, lame, and poor.
 
Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner. Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
They were available. More baby killing lies.

Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion. But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
Gosnell is from Philly, PP is all over Philly
Women went to gosnell because planned parenthood funneled them there.
And I'm sure they didn't realize untrained and uncertified staff would be hacking them up and leaving baby remains in their womb with the blessing of the local state government.
 
If a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy she will find a way to do it. If it's not safe, legal and available she will probably die in the process. The people who pretend it's "all about the woman's health" are lying - to themselves, to the public, to the women they pretend to serve. It's not about the woman's health - it's about ending abortion by making it as inaccessable and restrictive as possible.

Regulating the industry - and it is already regulated - doesn't mean adding even more stringent requirements (requirements that similar clinics are not forced to meet) - it's by enforcing the ones that exist so that clinics like Gosnell are closed down. But that is not what they care about.

Defunding PP is part of the attempt to close down PP and in doing so, ensuring that poor women will have an even more difficult time getting healthcare or getting an abortion. Rich people have options, poor people don't. And they are the ones who will be disproportionately affected because they are one who can least afford to have more children. Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them.

But..."it's all about women's health".

---
Good post. Agree with your view:

"Rich people have options, poor people don't. ... Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them"

Those opposed to abortion seem to focus on their own religious preference rather than the plight of unfortunate/poor women with limited choices.
It's sad that these egocentric "pro-life" nazis don't realize their hypocrisy.
 
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
 
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.
 
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.
 
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1438872663.639313.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.

---
I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his very limited resources, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.

That's where PP comes in ... To provide better, safer options to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
 
Last edited:
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.


JacksonGurney98072013.jpg


Ambulance Transports Woman from Troubled Jackson Mississippi Abortion Clinic
 
And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.

Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.

---
I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his very limited resources, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.

That's where PP comes in ... To provide better, safer options to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.
 
No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it


Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.
Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.
[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is? :dunno:
Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
 
Yes they were. His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America. Nothing more, nothing less.

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.

---
I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his very limited resources, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.

That's where PP comes in ... To provide better, safer options to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.

Who is it who keeps baby corpses in jars as trophies?
 
What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

---
The "atrocities against women" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.

Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.

---
I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his very limited resources, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.

That's where PP comes in ... To provide better, safer options to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.

Who is it who keeps baby corpses in jars as trophies?

Kermit Gosnell did.
 
Tube is artificial feed. Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath. Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days. This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells. She really was not alive.
Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.
[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is? :dunno:
Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
 
Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.
[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is? :dunno:
Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.
 
[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is? :dunno:
Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.

Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.

Then Gosnell, or whomever was in charge of that clinic, needs to be in prison.
 

Forum List

Back
Top