Kermit Gosnell has been convicted of killing three babies and may be sentenced to death.
(From CNN) "Monday's first-degree murder conviction means Gosnell, who is not a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist, could be sentenced to death.
Gosnell also was accused in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died of an anesthetic overdose during a second-trimester abortion at his West Philadelphia clinic. In that case, the jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
Gosnell was also found guilty of 21 counts of abortion of the unborn, 24 weeks or older."
Click here to follow the story as it develops.
Ariel Castro might face the death penalty for causing five miscarriages by punching one of his captives in the stomach whenever she became pregnant. In Ohio this is legally considered murder, but if it happens at Planned Parenthood and somebody pays for it, then it's fine.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty said, "The death penalty is applicable under Ohio law for the "most depraved criminals who commit aggravated murder during the course of a kidnapping."
So we are being told that a fetus is both a human being and not a human being, at the same point in time. It is a life and it is also not a life, at the same time. It is a complete and obvious contradiction, but the courts ignore it. Shouldn't abortionists be put on trial and face the same penalty for killing an unborn baby as Ariel Castro is now facing? After all, they're done it many more times than Mr. Castro.
White House Photo: Pete Souza
"Heaven forbid if you are forced to live on when you want to die. I would wake up feeling increasingly bad knowing that [treatment] was all being paid for by the government. The problem won't be solved unless you let them hurry up and die."
-Taro Aso, Japan's Finance Minister
I've heard that Japan has a high average lifespan, but I always assumed that was a good thing. Apparently, not so much. According to Mr. Aso old people are just a burden on society. They need to get a move on and pop their clogs already before they run the government out of money. It reminds me of what somebody else said about "end-of-life" care.
Believe it or not, this is not a joke. It is an actual ad put out by the "Center for Reproductive Rights" to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Over 55 million children dead, it's time for a party!
Of course jobs are important, but in reality whoever is elected president has very little effect on the economy. Where the president's power to sign or veto a bill is much more influential is on issues like abortion. For some reason the murder of millions of children in our country, condoned by our own laws, is being largely ignored by even the candidates that claim to support life.
The most vocal candidate on the topic however, seems to be Barack Obama. While he was in the Senate, Obama voted three times against the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act". While there is a war being waged against unborn (and already born) children, Obama is talking about a "War on Women". Lest we forget the millions of women that are being killed every day, a practice supported by Obama.
Let's face it, old people are expensive. They need medical care far more often than younger folks. They need assistance to do chores around the house. It all costs money, lots of it.
Why should we have to deal with them? I mean, if you want to spend your time and money to take care of some old person, that's your choice, but who are you to tell anyone else that they can't abort their old people? They're paying to support that person so it is essentially "their body", and shouldn't we always allow people to make their own decisions? Your morals might say it's wrong to shoot your relatives that walk too slow now, but what if mine don't? I shouldn't be put in jail just because I have made the difficult decision to no longer have an old person. Did I ask to have an old person? No. Did I ever agree to support this person? No. Is this person going to have an ideal life? We don't know, it could be horrible. Why not just get rid of them so we don't have to deal with the problem anymore?
So should we have a max age for the elderly, or should we just decide that once somebody is too old to live unassisted they are longer considered a "person"?
_I was reading an article about late-term abortions from the Washington Post's website and this one paragraph got me thinking:
"Perhaps, then, it’s not surprising that many abortion restrictions target late-term abortions. This year alone, five states banned abortions after 20 weeks. Even Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that protected first-trimester abortion, only protects third-trimester abortions when the life or health of the mother is at risk."
Sure, the way the author uses "protected" makes it sound really biased but that's not what caught my eye. It was where it pointed out that even Roe v. Wade in 1973 didn't allow third-trimester abortions under normal circumstances. It also says that, "Just 10 percent of Americans think abortion ought to be legal in the last three months of pregnancy". I was surprised when I read this because I've always thought that since Roe v. Wade late-term abortions were more accepted and that with new medical research more debate has arisen as to the ethics of these late-term abortions. Almost 20 years ago abortionist Martin Haskell wrote a paper describing the Dilation and Extraction method says that it is easier to do and he had at that point performed over 700 of them. We can only imagine how many more he has done since. My point though is that if there has always been more restriction on late-term abortions, then why is enforcing the restrictions taken so lightly? Is it even done at all?
I know that at Haskell's abortion clinics in Ohio he has been allowed to avoid laws governing health regulations. I doubt that anybody is checking to make sure that he isn't aborting babies past the deadline past by the state. How do we know he's not doing any kind of procedure he wants to? We've all heard stories of babies that were strangled or just thrown out to die as trash, and how do we know that's not still being done at abortion clinics today?
_Recently I set up an ad campaign for the blog with Google AdWords, well tried to set up anyway. Facebook let us advertise with no problems and it was really helpful to let everyone know about the blog and everything. Google was very different. First we had to get special permission to use certain keywords since they thought we might be an online pharmacy, and ultimately the ad was just rejected altogether. A lot of work went into it and they just threw it out, but why?
I thought that the issue might be that somebody had read the name of the site and misunderstood it so I wrote an email to the AdWords salespeople to clarify what it meant and what the blog is about. I got an email back, part of which said...
"I went through the account and confirm that the reason the ad has been disapproved is for unacceptable content. A site/ad should not advocate such thoughts, even if it is to illustrate an argument and to make an impact."
It amazes me what Google allows advertizing for and then rejects an ad for this site.
a ProLifeBlogs member