manderlyh Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 EL--you're saying that this person had NO BUSINESS in the clinic room--they weren't qualified. I don't care who you are, that's just plain stupidity to jump in and start doing things involving the life of another human being when you don't know what you're doing! Even if the doctor said it was okay for said employee to lend a hand in these procedures, they both know that it's not ethical, nor is it legal. The clinic should not have let any patients past the waiting room if there was no one medically qualified in the building. NOT even to take a person's temperature. There is a reason we require CNAs, LPNs, RNs, MDs, and medical assistants to take accredited training courses. Even a moron should know htat if they're not trained to do it, they shouldn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 EL--you're saying that this person had NO BUSINESS in the clinic room--they weren't qualified. I don't care who you are, that's just plain stupidity to jump in and start doing things involving the life of another human being when you don't know what you're doing! Even if the doctor said it was okay for said employee to lend a hand in these procedures, they both know that it's not ethical, nor is it legal.They both should know.The clinic should not have let any patients past the waiting room if there was no one medically qualified in the building. NOT even to take a person's temperature. There is a reason we require CNAs, LPNs, RNs, MDs, and medical assistants to take accredited training courses. Even a moron should know htat if they're not trained to do it, they shouldn't! This "unqualified" person relied on the judgement of a licensed physician, who she trusted, Dr. R. Now Florida has revoked Dr. R's license and they can shut down the clinic theoretically. Another licensed person could oversee the clinic if that were to happen. But Florida really should watch this clinic very closely if it is not shut down. Apparently Belkis Gonzalez has an arrest record in Florida for similar offenses, so she ought to have known better. Miramar, FL, Feb. 6/Christian Newswire/ -- Abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez pled guilty on December 20, 2007, to practicing medicine without a license at a Miramar, Florida, abortion clinic. By changing her plea, Gonzalez avoided trial. She was sentenced to 5 years probation and told she can no longer work in the medical field. However, according to a source that wishes to remain unnamed, that clinic continues to operate under the supervision of Gonzalez's 23-year old daughter, Natali Vergara. Gonzalez and her associate, Siomara Senises, were involved in the death of a baby born alive in July, 2006, at a Hialeah, Florida, abortion clinic, which is now closed. That death was discovered when an anonymous call was made to the police, who discovered that an infant was born alive during a late-term abortion, placed in a biohazard bag, and tossed onto the roof of the abortion clinic by Gonzalez in order to avoid detection. The mother of the dead baby girl, who was named Shanice Denise Osborne, has since come forward and corroborated the story. Senises faces trial later this month for practicing medicine without a license at the Miramar clinic. No charges have yet been filed in the Hialeah case. Gonzalez-owned mills have a long history of unlicensed workers. Medical student Kieron Nesbit fled to Trinidad rather than face charges of committing abortions without a license. His friend Robelto Osborne, also from Trinidad was convicted of four counts of the same charge. In addition, last year abortion clinic cleaning lady Adrianne Rojas was also convicted of practicing medicine without a license as was receptionist Joselin Collado, a relative of Senises. "Gonzalez and Senises are abortion predators who need to be held accountable for the death of Baby Shanice. The fact that Gonzalez is on probation for a lesser infraction is no consolation," said Sullenger. "These people have no respect for the law and even less respect for life. There is little doubt they will be back in the abortion business at the first opportunity, if they are not put in jail. Baby Shanice's murder case has dragged on for a year and a half without progress. That is unacceptable. We encourage the public to contact the prosecutor and ask for a grand jury to investigate Gonzalez and Senises for the death of Shanice Denise Osborne." Miami-Dade Prosecutor Katherine Fernandez Rundle 305-547-0535 E-mail Ms. Rundle's office at CommunityOutreach@miamisao.com http://thesop.org/index.php?article=9631 According to the Florida Department of Health's website, Robelto Osborne's license is currently revoked. He was arrested on June 16, 2005. Previously on September 12, 2000 he had either been placed on probation or received some other major penalty. Also, although the media reports that his license is revoked, according to the Florida Department of Health's website Dr. Pierre Renelique's license is currently "EMERGENCY RESTRICTION ACTIVE - the licensed practitioner is restricted by emergency order of the department. The licensed practitioner may practice in Florida, but has restrictions specified by emergency order. The practitioner is obligated to update his/her profile data." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 This news story is the epitome of why I am pro-choice. It's an example that takes the legal abortions back to what commonly happened before they were legal--women having terribly botched abortions with people present who were NOT qualified to do such procedures. I don't care why the doctor wasn't in that clinic. He had a patient who he has started the abortion process--that patient was HIS responsibility. If you have a patient who is seeing you and you're in the middle of a medical procedure, you had better be in that clinic when you are supposed to--THAT'S YOUR JOB! I don't care WHY that Gonzalez person put that baby in a biohazard bag. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD MISTAKE A LIVE BABY FOR A DEAD ONE IF IT'S BREATHING! I don't think a small child would make this mistake. It's illegal to dispose of a dead human in a biohazard bag--counties and states explicitly say that you must bury them! At 24 weeks justation, that baby was a BABY--not a ball fo cells or a fetus, (which brings me to a totally different abortion debate that I'm not touching today). Women had abortions before they were legal in the United States. They had them everywhere in the world before they were legal--and probably since the beginning of time. Many women died when they got back-alley abortions. Many fetuses survived abortion attempts, having injuries that could even be mentally disabling and physically disabling from such botched attempts. We had women dying in back alleyways and their families didn't know where they were. We had women giving birth to children who were the product of rape and incest; and there are children in this world today that live their lives knowing that they were the product of rape and incest. We had women in this world who were accidentally pregnant though they knew that childbirth would kill them. Though I personally do no believe that I could ever have an abortion, I know plenty of people who have had them. Many of them regret the choice they made, but at the same time, they weren't even close to being able to raise a child in a way that every child deserves to be raised. Many people I know say that their abortions were "the best choice I could make at that time." With legal abortions, we are supposed to have qualified medical personnel to attend to such procedures. With qualified medical personnel, the chances of these horribly botched procedures will be greatly reduced. I am a Pro-life advocate for this reason--for the safety of our women, (this is NOT the only reason I'm an advocate, but it is the biggest). PS--I don't think that abortions are a form of birth control that we should use--we have extraordinary birth control these days--things that women could have never dreamed about 60 years ago...I think that if you're having sex and not attempting to use any birth control, you're stupid if you think you won't end up with an unplanned pregnancy. Here are some quotes and facts: A quote from Dr. Mary Calderone, one of the most vigorous proponents of legal abortion. This article appeared in the American Journal of Public Health, July 1960, prior to Roe vs. Wade. She "estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions (1960) are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians trained as such, and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise only eight percent, or from the few who go to a non-medical abortionist." Words from the mouth of someone who supports abortion. So prior to legalization, the number of women having non-medical supervised illegal abortions was a very small amount. Then there are the statistics on how many women died from illegal abortions. These statistics were obtained not from the illegal abortionists of course, but from the ethical physicians who tried, but failed to save the lives of the women who suffered from these illegal abortions. These statistics are from the US Public Health Service's National Center for Health Statistics, beginning in 1940, the first year they published maternal deaths from abortions. 1940: 1,400 maternal deaths (4,000,000 births that year) 1950: 200 maternal deaths (less due to discovery of penicillin and sulfa drugs to treat infections) 1966: 120 1972: 39 due to illegal abortions (the year before Roe vs. Wade) 1972: 25 due to legal abortions as several states had already legalized abortions So the argument that legalizing abortion saves women from "back alley botched abortions" is not founded on valid statistics and is just used to bring sympathy to the cause of KILLING living human beings. There can be NO argument to justify this killing, even in the case of rape, etc... Life begins at the moment of conception. Just because one chooses not to call a fetus a "baby" does not make it anything less than a living person. Anyone (medical personnell, doctors) who performs an abortion is breaking their medical vows of the Hippocratic Oath. Their actions are deplorable. A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is only growing and developing inside the mother's body, in the womb (look up the definition of "womb"), like a parasite, if you will. It is a separate human entity, not belonging to the body of the woman. Therefore, a mother does not have any rights to terminate that separate person's life under any circumstatnces. The law should uphold this developing human's right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The two are connected by an umbilical cord. There may be some unforeseen circumstances that develop. It's probably better simply to reduce the volume and frequency of abortions, and provide better oversight rather than be too rigid and divisive on this issue. One way would be to restrict zoning for clinics so they must be within proximity of the NICU. Another would be to make prenatal care more available and provide better support for anxious mothers-to-be. If pre-natal care were as easy to obtain as abortions are, women would abort less often. It is important to maintain quality and accessibility in medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyLane Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The statistics regarding back-alley abortions, since this was illegal at the time, were estimated 1.2M per year. Even though there is not an accurate account between 1800's and 1973, many women were harmed as a result of illegal abortions. Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care. Some women were able to obtain relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors. This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. The rate of reported abortions then began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations. If interested to read more about the history of abortion, go to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/hi...y_abortion.html Edit for spelling error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 And rather than go backwards, education and medicine should improve people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The statistics regarding back-alley abortions, since this was illegal at the time, were estimated 1.2M per year. Even though there is not an accurate account between 1800's and 1973, many women were harmed as a result of illegal abortions. Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care. Some women were able to obtain relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors. This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. The rate of reported abortions then began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations. If interested to read more about the history of abortion, go to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/hi...y_abortion.html Edit for spelling error. All propoganda. Used to find some justification for the killing. My statistics are from the US Public Health Service, National Center for Health Stataistics. Even Dr. Mary Calderone, proponent of the atrocity, said "the death rate is as low as it is". Not a significant number of women in the United States have died of complications from illegal abortions. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyLane Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 This was the information for back alley abortion rates when abortions were illegal. Today, the abortion rates are low even though pregnancy among teens are high in certain States in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Plant Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Life begins at the moment of conception. A woman shared her story about her little boy who grew up to become a successful inventor. When she got pregnant with him they were told by their doctor that the child could have a potentially brain-damaging syndrome and she was to abort the baby in its best interest. She chose to keep the baby. Another woman was diagnosed of cancer just as she was into the 2nd term. She chose not to undergo chemo as she did not want to terminate her pregnancy. She delivered the baby but sadly no hope for her. What more could be greater than a mother's love.... We do not have the right to deny a child its right to live no matter what. PRO-LIFE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 A woman shared her story about her little boy who grew up to become a successful inventor. When she got pregnant with him they were told by their doctor that the child could have a potentially brain-damaging syndrome and she was to abort the baby in its best interest. She chose to keep the baby. Another woman was diagnosed of cancer just as she was into the 2nd term. She chose not to undergo chemo as she did not want to terminate her pregnancy. She delivered the baby but sadly no hope for her. What more could be greater than a mother's love.... We do not have the right to deny a child its right to live no matter what. PRO-LIFE! The child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure. This child will become The first African-American president. Also look at Tim Teebow, Florida quarterback and Heisman trophy winner. His parents were missionaries in the Phillipines. When pregnant with Tim, his mother contracted a life-threatening amoebic disentary infection and was in a coma. The medication used to save her life had potential mutilating effects on her unborn baby. The doctors recommended that she have an abortion. But she refused. She delivered a health baby boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe you can be too rigid on this issue. To argue that a child has a right to live and a mother doesn't have a right will naturally cause a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Plant Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe you can be too rigid on this issue. To argue that a child has a right to live and a mother doesn't have a right will naturally cause a problem. What would you have done had you been in that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe you can be too rigid on this issue. To argue that a child has a right to live and a mother doesn't have a right will naturally cause a problem. The goal is to save both. Obviously, if the mother dies and the baby is not developed enough to survive outside of the womb, then both will die. There are very few situations where a baby in the womb is life-threatening to the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The goal is to save both. Obviously, if the mother dies and the baby is not developed enough to survive outside of the womb, then both will die. There are very few situations where a baby in the womb is life-threatening to the mother. Factoring the suicide rate into the equation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert's Plant Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Factoring the suicide rate into the equation... Define suicide in this situation. So like a soldier could have run from an ambush but chose to stay in the line of for his comrade is that suicide too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Define suicide in this situation. So like a soldier could have run from an ambush but chose to stay in the line of for his comrade is that suicide too? Mothers are sometimes suicidal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyLane Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe its a woman's choice to choose to have an abortion or not, no matter what the situation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe its a woman's choice to choose to have an abortion or not, no matter what the situation is. And it is important to make life easy for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docron Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I don't think you can make it one way or the other... really it's more suited to be a case-by-case thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I believe its a woman's choice to choose to have an abortion or not, no matter what the situation is. It is still murder!!! The taking of a life. It is against all morality. No one has the right to "choose" to end another human being's life at any stage in that person's life from the moment of conception to natural death. Just because our laws permit abortion does not mean that is is morally OK to do so. The Nazi's laws permitted them to murder the Jews in the Holocaust. It was still morally wrong, even though their society made it "legal" to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 And it is important to make life easy for her. Life would be easier for me if I had a million dollars! But I am not going to kill someone or rob a bank to get the money to "make my life easier". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Life would be easier for me if I had a million dollars! But I am not going to kill someone or rob a bank to get the money to "make my life easier". It's not about you. It's about her and her baby and whether those around her can prevent her from becoming suicidal, and keep her smiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 It's not about you. It's about her and her baby and whether those around her can prevent her from becoming suicidal, and keep her smiling. "She" could be "me". Thoughts of suicide doesn't give me, or "her", or anyone the right to kill another living being. This argument is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 I'm quite conservative – I know, many of you are surprised to hear that :lolo: – but I actually do believe that abortion should be available in the case of rape, incest and when pregnancy truly threatens the mother's life. That being said, while these are the most common arguments for proponents of abortion, they actually make up an extremely small percentage of abortions performed overall. The vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women for none of those reasons. And that's my biggest problem with "pro-choice" – the "choice" was already made to have unprotected sex, and to delay the choice until after conception at the expense of a life is selfish and, quite frankly, lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanadu Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 It is against all morality. No one has the right to "choose" to end another human being's life at any stage in that person's life from the moment of conception to natural death. Just because our laws permit abortion does not mean that is is morally OK to do so. Usually in societies where people are well informed about contraception and family-planning, and where single parents get enough support, abortions and teenage pregnancies become naturally pretty rare even when abortion is relatively free. On the other hand in conservative societies where abortion is illegal and teenagers don't recieve proper sex education, teenage pregnancies and dangerous abortions are much more common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.