Abortion Clinic in Florida Facing Charges

[matt wade]

Really? Break that down for me. Just how is it disgusting?

dis⋅gust⋅ing [dis-guhs-ting, di-skuhs-] –adjective: causing disgust; offensive to the physical, moral, or aesthetic taste.

Thinking that a mother has no power to protect their child disgusts me. It is offensive to me.

 

[Aaron]

You may agree but I did not miss the point. I disagree with it. If the child is born alive the whole process should end and the child should be given every reasonable measure to live. Objecting to that is just disgusting.

And it is not surprising that the mother would have a change in heart once she sees the child born. And it is absurd to deny such.

Pehaps, but the real issue is being obscured by the circumstances of this case, and Gina did well to remind us of it.

 

[Revmitchell]

dis⋅gust⋅ing [dis-guhs-ting, di-skuhs-] –adjective: causing disgust; offensive to the physical, moral, or aesthetic taste.

Thinking that a mother has no power to protect their child disgusts me. It is offensive to me.

Your false disgust is most likely based on you refusal to admit your original argument was flawed. Rather than a sincere concern.

 

[Revmitchell]

Pehaps, but the real issue is being obscured by the circumstances of this case, and Gina did well to remind us of it.

Actually she misrepresented the situation:

Abortion is legal. As long as it is, then it's pretty stupid to charge someone with murder during an abortion if the baby dies.

Once the baby is delivered the "abortion" is over and the child should be given every reasonable opportunity and assistance to live. To continue to dismiss the child is irresponsible.

 

[matt wade]

Your false disgust is most likely based on you refusal to admit your original argument was flawed. Rather than a sincere concern.

So now you judge whether my disgust at something is real disgust or false disgust? And whether I am sincere? How about your wife? You needed to use her opinion before to say that I was wrong, does she also believe that my disgust is false? :laugh:

If you think my original argument is flawed, why don't you stick to explaining how it is flawed rather than attempting to discern my thoughts and feelings on things? I could do a lot of assuming about you as well, but it would be very becoming of me (or you for that matter).

 

[Revmitchell]

So now you judge whether my disgust at something is real disgust or false disgust? And whether I am sincere? How about your wife? You needed to use her opinion before to say that I was wrong, does she also believe that my disgust is false? :laugh:

If you think my original argument is flawed, why don't you stick to explaining how it is flawed rather than attempting to discern my thoughts and feelings on things? I could do a lot of assuming about you as well, but it would be very becoming of me (or you for that matter).

Maybe you should stick to the facts about this mother rather than trying to discern her thoughts and intentions you cannot know.

 

[annsni]

"Viability" is such a horrible term too... As I shared on another related thread, since abortion is legal until the attending physician's estimation of "viability," if that physician is an abortion doctor, of course he'll decide a baby's not yet "viable." But if the doctors you're dealing with are trying to save a baby of the same gestational-age, like in the case of accidental early labor, obviously he or she is viable, and they'll do everything they can to save him or her.

And, ask a parent of a three-year-old whether their kid is "viable outside the womb", and the answer's 'no'. Because children require assistance to keep them alive.

Whether that assistance is just feeding, changing and bathing, or whether that assistance includes a ventilator, NO child under a certain age is "viable outside the womb". So it seems to me the only difference between "viable" and "not viable outside the womb" is whether a baby is wanted or not, and the justification and rule for determining abortion's legality is flawed from the beginning.

That is such a huge argument for abortion. "As long as that baby depends on the mother for life, it's her choice whether or not to keep that life going." But I've had 4 children. My 6 year old still needs my help to live. Yeah, she can do a lot of things but as you said, a 3 year old certainly cannot live on their own so that argument falls apart.

 

[matt wade]

Maybe you should stick to the facts about this mother rather than trying to discern her thoughts and intentions you cannot know.

I can agree with you on that.

FACT: Mother went to a "clinic" to murder her child.
FACT: Mother gave birth to child in that "clinic".
FACT: Mother did absolutely nothing to stop "clinic" worker from murdering her child.

CONCLUSION: Mother is an accomplice to murder.

Yup..the facts speak for themselves.

Are any of those not facts? Don't bring up the "change of heart" thing. That's not a fact. There is no evidence to support that. If the woman would have attempted to stop the murder of her child then that could be admitted as evidence, but as it stands there is no evidence to support the "change of heart".

 

[Revmitchell]

I can agree with you on that.

FACT: Mother went to a "clinic" to murder her child.
FACT: Mother gave birth to child in that "clinic".
FACT: Mother did absolutely nothing to stop "clinic" worker from murdering her child.

CONCLUSION: Mother is an accomplice to murder.

Yup..the facts speak for themselves.

Are any of those not facts? Don't bring up the "change of heart" thing. That's not a fact. There is no evidence to support that. If the woman would have attempted to stop the murder of her child then that could be admitted as evidence, but as it stands there is no evidence to support the "change of heart".

I did not say she had a change of heart. I said you cannot know that she did not. You weren't there, you do not know all the facts and most certainly you do not know if she is just looking for a law suit. I merely offered suggestions as to why it is possible to not have that motive.

It is just as likely that she had a change of heart and it is unlikely that she had the physical ability to immediately get up off the table after just giving birth. Especially with the nurse rushing the child to a bio bag.

 

[matt wade]

It is just as likely that she had a change of heart and it is unlikely that she had the physical ability to immediately get up off the table after just giving birth. Especially with the nurse rushing the child to a bio bag.

Again, where is the evidence for a change of heart? The baby was out of the womb and the mother watched the baby for 5 minutes before the owner (not a nurse) did anything to the child. For 5 minutes this mother just sat there and didn't attempt to pick up her child, tell anyone that the child was there and alive, or tell anyone that she didn't want to go through with this. Then after 5 minutes she didn't raise a single objection to the owner murdering her child.

So, no I do not believe it is "just as likely she had a change of heart" when there is absolutely no evidence to support that and plenty of evidence to support the contrary.

 

[matt wade]

I did not say she had a change of heart. I said you cannot know that she did not.

You said "And it is not surprising that the mother would have a change in heart once she sees the child born. And it is absurd to deny such." Sounds to me that you are saying she had a change of heart. You are also saying that it is absurb if someone believes that she wouldn't have a change of heart.

 

[Revmitchell]

You said "And it is not surprising that the mother would have a change in heart once she sees the child born. And it is absurd to deny such." Sounds to me that you are saying she had a change of heart. You are also saying that it is absurb if someone believes that she wouldn't have a change of heart.

No problem with that statement. Neither is it an assertion of fact. It is absurd to deny, as you did, that it could not have happened.

 

[donnA]

Killing a child after a live birth is not legal. therefore, murder has been committed and someone needs to go to prison.

 

[Creyn]

easy...

For folks whose moral outrage is, understandably, prompting them to speculate on the mother's physical ability and thought processes at the time of the incident, and her reasoning since, I urge caution. I think its very possible that she was incapacitated, if not physically, then mentally by what truth confronted her at that moment.

My mom is a big pro-life advocate and has met many (too many) dedicated pro-lifers who came to their position through their own mistake of abortion. She says that you won't find a more dedicated pro-lifer than such a person, as they spend the rest of their life atoning for that sad, sad sin.

Let's not judge (and pray those close to her don't either) this woman's action so quickly, and so harshly, that she's not allowed to develop herself into such an advocate.

 

[donnA]

I was at each of my 3 grandchildren's birth, other then the doctor I was the first person to see each of their little faces, let me tell you, their mother would have fought tooth and nail to the death with ounce of energy she had to protect her children, even immediately after birth. I was there, I saw her.
the difference here is that this mother in the story didn't want her child, wanted her child dead. Not sure we need any speculation at all, she went to an abortion clinic to have her child murdered and thats what she did. Thats what an abortion clinic is for.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
snip
One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
snip
An autopsy determined Williams' baby — she named her Shanice — had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity

outright murder. no other arguement really matters.

 

[Creyn]

she went to an abortion clinic to have her child murdered and thats what she did.

Keep in mind though, according to the world and the "doctor" she was dealing with at the time, she was just "terminating a pregnancy", not murdering a baby. I'm sure deep down she knew, as all of us, saved or not, have a moral compass. But how do we expect the lost to behave? She WANTED to believe it was "just a fetus" and everyone in the clinic would've been telling her that's just what it was. Only when she met her daughter face-to-face, she could no longer deny the truth of the matter. At that moment though, the co-owner of the clinic, realizing they were on the verge of a malpractice suit probably said things like, "this happens all the time" and "you HAVE HAD an abortion".

I can't imagine sitting there, in a non-surgical environment, crying for help for my baby, and being told by someone in charge that the baby's "already dead" or whatever other lies they tried to make her believe...

All I'm saying is none of us know how it went down and, at the very least, she's a party in a lawsuit against a death-clinic and, ideally, God can use her going forward as a voice against the barbaric practice of abortion in general.

 

[Gina B]

You've missed her point. In the end, it really doesn't matter when and where the baby is killed. Once the idea is accepted that it can be killed at a certain time in a certain place, it's utter foolishness to be outraged that it be killed at another time in another place.

And I agree.

Exactly. You're the only one so far on any message board who seemed to understand what I was trying to convey.

 

[BigBossman]

Killing a child after a live birth is not legal. therefore, murder has been committed and someone needs to go to prison.

I agree. I think it is stupid that we even have to debate over whether or not a child is considered human before or after he/she has been born. I think prison is too good for the doctor. The mother needs to be tried as an accomplice.

 

[Creyn]

I agree. I think it is stupid that we even have to debate over whether or not a child is considered human before or after he/she has been born. I think prison is too good for the doctor. The mother needs to be tried as an accomplice.

No one (here at least) is debating whether the baby was a child before her birth... the question is whether the mother was complicit in her murder after she was born. Since we don't know what kind of lies she was told or threats she faced as the co-owner of the clinic took away that baby, I think, for now at least, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, c'mon... there's no doubt she was a sinner when she walked in there, but if she says she had a change of heart, I think that's between her and God. How did it happen that she still allowed her baby to be killed after that change of heart? I don't know, I didn't read the whole report.

Has anyone else here seen it or read it?

 

[Aaron]

For folks whose moral outrage is, understandably, prompting them to speculate on the mother's physical ability and thought processes at the time of the incident, and her reasoning since, I urge caution. I think its very possible that she was incapacitated, if not physically, then mentally by what truth confronted her at that moment.

My mom is a big pro-life advocate and has met many (too many) dedicated pro-lifers who came to their position through their own mistake of abortion. She says that you won't find a more dedicated pro-lifer than such a person, as they spend the rest of their life atoning for that sad, sad sin.

Let's not judge (and pray those close to her don't either) this woman's action so quickly, and so harshly, that she's not allowed to develop herself into such an advocate.

Absolutely right.