If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Activist judge dismisses jurors with pro-life bias   (lifenews.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting, activist judge, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, infanticides, abortion law, jury selection, abortions, death penalty  
•       •       •

2099 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 11:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 04:30:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I dismiss LifeNews as a source, too.  Rejecting pro-lifers is fine.   But elsewhere, it looks like Dr. Gosnell ran a butcher shop.

"Unlicensed doctor Steven Massof told the grand jury that he used scissors to snip the spines of more than 100 babies born alive. He worked for Gosnell for a few hundred dollars a week. He pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two babies allegedly stabbed by Gosnell while Massof assisted with the abortions. Gosnell's third wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist, pleaded guilty to performing an illegal, late-term abortion and other charges."

He also faces charges of running a painkiller pill mill that earned him millions.


Meh, better that than they're born into families that don't want them.
 
2013-03-08 04:46:53 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I dismiss LifeNews as a source, too.  Rejecting pro-lifers is fine.   But elsewhere, it looks like Dr. Gosnell ran a butcher shop.

"Unlicensed doctor Steven Massof told the grand jury that he used scissors to snip the spines of more than 100 babies born alive. He worked for Gosnell for a few hundred dollars a week. He pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two babies allegedly stabbed by Gosnell while Massof assisted with the abortions. Gosnell's third wife, Pearl, a cosmetologist, pleaded guilty to performing an illegal, late-term abortion and other charges."

He also faces charges of running a painkiller pill mill that earned him millions.


Thanks for the link.
 
2013-03-08 06:27:00 PM

Arkanaut: I was wondering about that -- I thought it's up to the prosecution or the defense to strike the jurors from the pool, not the judge.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.

It's actually a combination of both. Here's basically how it works, in at least most parts of the country:
* A pool of potential jurors is chosen.The jurors are given questionnaires, and interviewed (individually and/or as a group) by the attorneys and/or the judge.
* Each side gets a certain number of 'peremptory challenges'. In other words, each side can dismiss a certain number of potential jurors for any reason or for no reason at all (as long as it's not for an illegal reason -- notably, if one side seems to be striking, say, all the African-Americans from the jury pool, the other side can complain about that).
* In addition, either side can challenge any potential juror for cause -- there's a set of requirements that potential jurors have to meet, and either side can claim that a juror doesn't seem to meet the requirements. For example, if a juror is clearly having trouble hearing the questioning, that might be grounds for a challenge for cause, since the juror would probably have trouble hearing the trial testimony too. Or if a juror has a vacation scheduled in a week, that might be grounds for a challenge, since the juror might not be around for the whole trial. But unlike peremptory challenges, it's up to the judge to decide whether to grant challenges for cause.
* At some point, you whittle the pool down to the right number, and there's your jury. (There's a lot of variation here -- the jury might be the first twelve people who make it through the interviews without being successfully challenged, or it might be twelve people chosen randomly from the remaining pool, or whatever.)

So in a trial like this, the judge might grant for-cause challenges against strongly pro-life or pro-choice jurors (on the grounds that their feelings on a technically-irrelevant issue might bias their opinions on the case too much), or the parties might use their peremptory challenges to strike these jurors, or some combination of the two.
 
2013-03-08 07:10:14 PM

Dinjiin: FTA: and kill perhaps hundreds of babies in grisly infanticides by birthing them and "snipping" their spinal cords.

I assume this is Lifer-speak for a partial birth abortion.

In related news, doctors birthed my neighbor's heart out of his chest in order to violate it with various cutting tools.  Surgery in general is often a grisly and violent endeavor.


Comparing open heart surgery to a partial birth abortion is ridiculous. Equating a lifesaving procedure with pulling a viable human fetus halfway out of the birth canal before killing it is frankly disgusting. 

I think women have the right to choose to terminate their pregnancy, and that this is well justified from a utilitarian and personal autonomy standpoint. That doesn't mean that we should try to rationalize it by pretending that fetuses aren't babies.
 
2013-03-08 08:28:27 PM
Nor should we pretend that fetsues are babies.

As for the abortion butcher shop, every "pro life" voter I  the state, as well as the politicians and clergymen who control them, are guilty of creating an atmosphere where it could exist.  It's a good thing I don't decide how to handle it, because it would not be nice.
 
2013-03-08 08:51:33 PM

jcooli09: Nor should we pretend that fetsues are babies.


Going to have to disagree with you on that one. A fetus is viable outside of the womb by about 24-26 weeks when the lungs have had enough time to develop.

I'll agree with you that we shouldn't force women to go to butchers to end unwanted pregnancies, but we shouldn't try to whitewash our feelings by telling ourselves that it's just some cells.
 
2013-03-09 12:40:08 AM

reimanr06: Equating a lifesaving procedure with pulling a viable human fetus halfway out of the birth canal before killing it is frankly disgusting.


Which is why, in almost every state in the union, doing so has been flagrantly illegal for decades.  A second trimester fetus isn't viable (it can't survive outside the womb), and third trimester abortions are only legal if the fetus has fatal defects and/or there is no alternative to preserve the life or health of the mother.
 
2013-03-09 05:28:56 AM

Sir-Marx-A-Lot: Gosnell, whose squalid "house of horrors" abortion clinic and callous, has had almost flippant attitude toward his macabre abortion practices shocked the nation.

This is the poorest attempt at the construction of a sentence in English I've ever seen.

Go ahead. Try to read it.


You must have missed this beauty:

At that time, the abortion business was officially closed but would do its latest-term abortions possible.
 
2013-03-09 08:16:57 AM

Mithiwithi: reimanr06: Equating a lifesaving procedure with pulling a viable human fetus halfway out of the birth canal before killing it is frankly disgusting.

Which is why, in almost every state in the union, doing so has been flagrantly illegal for decades.  A second trimester fetus isn't viable (it can't survive outside the womb), and third trimester abortions are only legal if the fetus has fatal defects and/or there is no alternative to preserve the life or health of the mother.


Thanks for the heads up. Seems reasonable to me.
 
2013-03-10 04:09:00 AM

reimanr06: Comparing open heart surgery to a partial birth abortion is ridiculous. Equating a lifesaving procedure with pulling a viable human fetus halfway out of the birth canal before killing it is frankly disgusting.


You are aware that two-thirds of all US states and the majority of European countries prohibit elective late-term abortions, right?  Even where legal, many physicians or their clinics refuse to perform elective late-term abortions for ethical reasons.  As such, the overwhelming number of late-term abortions are due to health concerns.  You know, minor things like saving the mother's life from a pregnancy gone wrong.  Such restrictions account for the reason that in the US, less than 1.5% of all abortions occur between 20-24 weeks and less than 0.1% occur after 24 weeks.  So the comparison, IMHO, is almost spot on.

As for being disgusting, I couldn't agree more.  Most surgery is.  And violent, too.  But I think the term you're looking for is "immoral".  That is an area where pro-choice and anti-choice camps are going to differ.  And my answer to that is, if you find abortion immoral, then don't have one.
 
2013-03-10 03:59:29 PM

Dinjiin: reimanr06: Comparing open heart surgery to a partial birth abortion is ridiculous. Equating a lifesaving procedure with pulling a viable human fetus halfway out of the birth canal before killing it is frankly disgusting.

You are aware that two-thirds of all US states and the majority of European countries prohibit elective late-term abortions, right?  Even where legal, many physicians or their clinics refuse to perform elective late-term abortions for ethical reasons.  As such, the overwhelming number of late-term abortions are due to health concerns.  You know, minor things like saving the mother's life from a pregnancy gone wrong.  Such restrictions account for the reason that in the US, less than 1.5% of all abortions occur between 20-24 weeks and less than 0.1% occur after 24 weeks.  So the comparison, IMHO, is almost spot on.

As for being disgusting, I couldn't agree more.  Most surgery is.  And violent, too.  But I think the term you're looking for is "immoral".  That is an area where pro-choice and anti-choice camps are going to differ.  And my answer to that is, if you find abortion immoral, then don't have one.


I don't have problems with abortions in themselves. It's better for a woman to have an abortion than to have a baby she doesn't want or will not be able to care for. I certainly don't have a problem with obtaining an abortion to save the mothers life or if the baby has severe developmental defects. I just have a problem with the callous attitude expressed by you and others in this thread that equates a embryo/fetus (baby) with a tumor or other non-functioning organ.
 
2013-03-10 05:16:02 PM

reimanr06: I just have a problem with the callous attitude expressed by you and others in this thread that equates a embryo/fetus (baby) with a tumor or other non-functioning organ.


For those of us who deny the existence of a divine soul at conception and who have a slightly higher standard for defining what is human "life", it is classification we're able to make.  If anything, I'd argue that anti-choicers are guilty of the opposite - that they're too eager to call a fetus a baby.  You did it yourself with your parentheses around the word.
 
2013-03-10 06:39:18 PM

Dinjiin: reimanr06: I just have a problem with the callous attitude expressed by you and others in this thread that equates a embryo/fetus (baby) with a tumor or other non-functioning organ.

For those of us who deny the existence of a divine soul at conception and who have a slightly higher standard for defining what is human "life", it is classification we're able to make.  If anything, I'd argue that anti-choicers are guilty of the opposite - that they're too eager to call a fetus a baby.  You did it yourself with your parentheses around the word.


Lol. Who appointed you spokesperson for those of us that don't believe souls exist? Not I.
Obviously, we have different classification systems that arguing about isn't going to change. I will agree that a fetus is not a person in the full sense of the word, but then again neither is a newborn.
 
Displayed 13 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report