[yucky]

He didn't go to prison for the 39 week abortions, he went to prison for the 41 week abortions, you know - the ones you were in favor of.

You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him.

So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy? What is the argument against that? Nobody is arguing against it if they're medically necessary, I'm asking specifically about elective abortions beyond the point of viability. That's it. That's where the breakdown occurs for most people.

[feet]

>211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed consent law

Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing

And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions

>The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

So again, you pick out one guy who should not have been a physician who did not inform his patient of what he was doing

And this detail is pretty important, these were not abortions but murders after birth

>They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive

Pointing this guy out is like pointing out that old veteran who's like 110 years old and smokes and drinks every day and claiming nobody gets cancer from smoking and drinking

You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

[yucky]

>You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

Only the "41 week old abortions" were treated as murder, the 39 week old ones weren't. My question is - what's the difference? In your mind, how do you justify a 39 week old elective abortion?

[feet]

He induced birth then killed the baby

That's not an abortion

[SideburnsOfDoom]

And now you're playing the fools game by engaging with the Gosnell nonsense, giving angry debate about "shocking" things that they have changed the topic too.

Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

[feet]

Thank you for being a voice of reason. You're right, I shouldn't engage that nonsense but I got sucked in. I don't know what we can do about people spreading such FUD

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Sadly that account has a track record of repeating their inflammatory talking points. Even after they are debunked, they just move an and try it on someone else again.

[yucky]

It's called Intact Dilation & Extraction, and is absolutely a type of abortion.

And you still haven't answered - what is your logic for not having a problem with a 36, 37, 38 week etc elective abortion? What is the argument for allowing them?