Skip to comments.Why the Pa. Abortion Doc's Case Is About Poverty, Not Roe v. Wade (Barf alert)
Posted on 01/21/2011 6:41:36 AM PST by MNDude
Pro-choice and pro-life organizations are probably formulating reasons right now as to why this case is proof that the other side is wrong and dangerous. But the sad truth is that Gosnell's long-running practice probably has much more to do with poverty than with Roe v. Wade.
(Excerpt) Read more at healthland.time.com ...
Yes, let’s have more efficient prenatal infanticide chambers.
And be sure that the cleanup crews make everything look oh-so-sanitary.
That will fix the problem.
We are headed, at Mach speed, backwards to the worst part of the 1970s...
1) Higher welfare rolls, 2) Stagflation, 3) Higher taxes, 4) Incompetent military capability.
Wake up people.
Or just possibly because investigating complaints against any abortion provider is politically incorrect.
The left is running to defend this mass murderer?
Totally agree. And this time around, we don't even seem to be getting decent music to accompany the decline. The '70s had a range of vibrant pop musical styles; today, everything is crap.
I'm waiting for downtrodden, out of work young people to reinvent punk. But I think playstation is sapping all their time and energy.
If the Arizona shootings were about rhetoric, then this is absolutely about abortion.
Was any of this butchers work funded with taxpayer dollars? Did he live off the taxpayers paying for his work? Lots of folks would like to know.
And by Time’s reasoning, all criminals should be let out of the slam because it really isn’t THEIR fault they were in your house, stealing your TV. Society is to blame. But wait a minute...I thought LBJ had solved all of this with his Great Society and War on Poverty. How many trillions have been confiscated from those who actually WORK for a living and given to those who won’t?
I think abortionists should be tried and convicted for murder along with the consenting mother. The only “choice” a pregant woman should have is the choice between keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption. And, she can always choose to keep her legs together in the first place.
At best only half true. The pro-infanticide camp are instead turing out diversionary articles like the above.
“Pro-choice and pro-life organizations are probably formulating reasons right now as to why this case is proof that the other side is wrong”
Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer forgot to pick up Bart from soccer practice. At night when he was driving seething mad Bart home, Homer said “Come on Bart, we can be angry and try to blame who forgot to pick up who til the cows come home...”
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see....
How about you pump the Doctor’s stomach or his employees?
Also if there is tests that can prove someone ingested human remnants,I suggest you use them on everyone involved in that clinic.I kinda doubt you see that he kept the parts around just for decoration.
And no,if you have someone on welfare then they will have even more pressure to take one for our glorious system by aborting their child.
Abortion doesn’t in retrospect lead to euthanasia,it leads to infanticide and ultimately to killing women of child bearing age.It is that logical progression that makes such a policy anathema to freedom.
If they build “clean abortion chambers” they’d probably start sterilizing everyone who went there.