Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Jan '11 09:06
    Dr Kermit Gosnell 'killed babies' at abortion clinic

    A Philadelphia doctor performed thousands of illegal late-term abortions and murdered newborns after inducing labour, prosecutors have said.

    Dr Kermit Gosnell, 69, was charged with murder and other offences in the deaths of a patient and viable babies born as late as the eighth month of pregnancy.

    Prosecutors said he made millions of dollars treating and sometimes maiming mostly poor minority women.

    Nine clinic workers are also charged with murder and other counts.

    The defendants have not yet responded to the charges.

    Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12233616
  2. 20 Jan '11 10:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Dr Kermit Gosnell 'killed babies' at abortion clinic

    A Philadelphia doctor performed thousands of illegal late-term abortions and murdered newborns after inducing labour, prosecutors have said.

    Dr Kermit Gosnell, 69, was charged with murder and other offences in the deaths of a patient and viable babies born as late as the eighth month of pregnanc ...[text shortened]... responded to the charges.

    Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12233616
    i dunno if my stomach could take that link Kazetty
  3. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Jan '11 10:35
    The guy was acting against the law. I don't see why this means we need taxpayer-funded abortion clinics.
  4. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Jan '11 10:44
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Dr Kermit Gosnell 'killed babies' at abortion clinic

    A Philadelphia doctor performed thousands of illegal late-term abortions and murdered newborns after inducing labour, prosecutors have said.

    Dr Kermit Gosnell, 69, was charged with murder and other offences in the deaths of a patient and viable babies born as late as the eighth month of pregnanc ...[text shortened]... responded to the charges.

    Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12233616
    Flame Bait
  5. 20 Jan '11 11:02
    Originally posted by Palynka
    The guy was acting against the law. I don't see why this means we need taxpayer-funded abortion clinics.
    Because:

    A: then doctors will not strive for profits but for curing patients (and in this case, performing abortions as required), removing any incentive to break the law for profit (assuming doctors are not paid according to the number of treatments they perform, as it should be).
    B: it allows better government oversight.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Jan '11 11:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Because:

    A: then doctors will not strive for profits but for curing patients (and in this case, performing abortions as required), removing any incentive to break the law for profit (assuming doctors are not paid according to the number of treatments they perform, as it should be).
    B: it allows better government oversight.
    But surely then you'd have to nationalize every sector that needs safety regulations as people die from profit-seeking incentives to break the law by not providing such (costly) safety measures.

    So far there's no reason to believe there's an epidemic of these cases so I don't see why such a drastic measure needs to be taken.
  7. 20 Jan '11 11:20
    Originally posted by Palynka
    But surely then you'd have to nationalize every sector that needs safety regulations as people die from profit-seeking incentives to break the law by not providing such (costly) safety measures.

    So far there's no reason to believe there's an epidemic of these cases so I don't see why such a drastic measure needs to be taken.
    Not every sector, of course there are other reasons to nationalize health care, this is an additional one.
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Jan '11 11:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Not every sector, of course there are other reasons to nationalize health care, this is an additional one.
    I don't see why everything in the health care sector should be nationalized. If the care provided is due to a lifestyle choice (like most abortions, cosmetical surgery, eye surgery) then I don't think it should be subsidized.
  9. 20 Jan '11 11:35
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I don't see why everything in the health care sector should be nationalized. If the care provided is due to a lifestyle choice (like most abortions, cosmetical surgery, eye surgery) then I don't think it should be subsidized.
    I agree concerning cosmetic surgery and eye surgery, but not abortions, because there is a collective interest in providing abortions free of charge.
  10. 20 Jan '11 11:36
    I don't want my tax money used to fund abortions. Your assertion that this would stop this kind of thing is laughable. Abortions are already regulated which is why this guy is being tried.
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Jan '11 11:42
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I agree concerning cosmetic surgery and eye surgery, but not abortions, because there is a collective interest in providing abortions free of charge.
    If you're talking about the Freakonomics thing then the evidence is pretty flimsy.
  12. 20 Jan '11 11:50
    Originally posted by dryhump
    I don't want my tax money used to fund abortions. Your assertion that this would stop this kind of thing is laughable. Abortions are already regulated which is why this guy is being tried.
    What incentive would an abortion doctor have to perform illegal abortions if he is not paid more for performing more abortions?
  13. 20 Jan '11 11:50
    Originally posted by Palynka
    If you're talking about the Freakonomics thing then the evidence is pretty flimsy.
    Not necessarily, I just don't think this kind of decision should be decided by your bank account.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    20 Jan '11 11:56
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Not necessarily, I just don't think this kind of decision should be decided by your bank account.
    Fair enough, but that would be a whole new argument for which this case matters little.
  15. 20 Jan '11 12:00
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Fair enough, but that would be a whole new argument for which this case matters little.
    It matters because it is an additional advantage.