Abortion

happy jack wrote:

Now it's time for journalists report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic.

"Now"?...so, are you saying journalists did not report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic until now?
Please do explain.
Sure does look like you implied that there were not any journalists reporting on Gosnell, does it not?

Looks to me like you either lied about it or were ignorant about the coverage that in fact took place, yes?

Or is it that you were simply parroting right wing bullshit and lies without really knowing the facts?
Why yes, I think so, jack.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Now it's time for journalists report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic.

"Now"?...so, are you saying journalists did not report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic until now?
Please do explain.

No, I never said any such thing.
Why do you ax?

Looks to me like you did. Any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.

You know where.

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

No, I don't. Please enlighten me.

Oops, never mind - I guess you meant this.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345564/media-after-gosnell-john-fund
APRIL 15, 2013 4:00 AM

The Media After Gosnell

Now it's time for journalists report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic.

ByJohn Fund

If there were an award for Most Constructive Shaming of the News Media, the clear winner would be Kirsten Powers, the brave Fox News pundit and Daily Beast columnist. Last Thursday, she called out ….

I didn't write that - it's part of the article.

Thanks, that proves my point:
John Fund is a discredited right wing voter fraud conspiracy-monger and patholoigal liar who makes up bullshit.

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

Yeah,and now the troll is going to turn the thread into another one of his circle jerks. Please don't feed him.

Quote :

You're still disputing the 2000 presidential election results?

No, just pointing out that the garbage you posted was written by John Fund , a discredited right wing voter fraud conspiracy-monger and patholoigal liar who makes up bullshit, and the fact that you're gullible enough to believe it.
End of story, bah-bye.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

Yeah,and now the troll is going to turn the thread into another one of his circle jerks. Please don't feed him.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You're the one who's dead wrong,not me.

Precisely, what am I "dead wrong" about?
Please - be precise.
Please, be very, very precise.

Your words:

Quote :

You just can't help ignoring truth and reality, can you?
Show me where the New York Times published more than the one article on the Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and I will gladly tell you that you are correct.

The fact is that the NY Times posted more than your false claim of 1 article. Precise enough?

Link, please.

[b]Still waiting for that link.

I will post the the link which contains the same references that Edge pointed to,as soon as you agree to the following terms:You agree to write these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times and then post it in this thread and on this message board.

Another win-win situation for me.
1) You accept and you end up stepping on the rake and have to post what I laid out.
or 2)You refuse and once again prove that you are a coward and a liar.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

Yeah,and now the troll is going to turn the thread into another one of his circle jerks. Please don't feed him.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You're the one who's dead wrong,not me.

Precisely, what am I "dead wrong" about?
Please - be precise.
Please, be very, very precise.

Your words:

Quote :

You just can't help ignoring truth and reality, can you?
Show me where the New York Times published more than the one article on the Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and I will gladly tell you that you are correct.

The fact is that the NY Times posted more than your false claim of 1 article. Precise enough?

Link, please.

[b]Still waiting for that link.

I will post the the link which contains the same references that Edge pointed to,as soon as you agree to the following terms:You agree to write these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times and then post it in this thread and on this message board.

Another win-win situation for me.
1) You accept and you end up stepping on the rake and have to post what I laid out.
or 2)You refuse and once again prove that you are a coward and a liar.

Post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal.

Along with Artie's allegedly existent article about the ongoing Gosnell trial, here are some other things I can virtually guarantee did not (and will not) grace the pages of the New York Times.


http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf


IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION
IN RE : MISC. NO. 0009901-2008
COUNTY INVESTIGATING :
GRAND JURY XXIII : C-17
____________________________________________
REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY
__________________________________________
R. SETH WILLIAMS
District Attorney
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIAı
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

After the baby was expelled, Cross noticed that he was breathing, though not for
long. After about 10 to 20 seconds, while the mother was asleep, “the doctor just slit the
neck,” said Cross. Gosnell put the boy’s body in a shoebox. Cross described the baby as
so big that his feet and arms hung out over the sides of the container. Cross said that she
saw the baby move after his neck was cut, and after the doctor placed it in the shoebox.
Gosnell told her, “it’s the baby’s reflexes. It’s not really moving.”
The neonatologist testified that what Gosnell told his people was absolutely false.
If a baby moves, it is alive. Equally troubling, it feels a “tremendous amount of pain”
when its spinal cord is severed. So, the fact that Baby Boy A. continued to move after his
spinal cord was cut with scissors means that he did not die instantly. Maybe the cord was
not completely severed. In any case, his few moments of life were spent in excruciating
pain.
Cross was not the only one startled by the size and maturity of Baby Boy A.
Adrienne Moton and Ashley Baldwin, along with Cross, took photographs because they
knew this was a baby that could and should have lived. Cross explained:
Q. Why did you all take a photograph of this baby?
A. Because it was big and it was wrong and we knew it.
We knew something was wrong.
* * *
I’m not sure who took the picture first, but when we seen
this baby, it was – it was a shock to us because I never seen
a baby that big that he had done. So it was – I knew
something was wrong because everything, like you can see
everything, the hair, eyes, everything. And I never seen for
any other procedure that he did, I never seen any like that.
The neonatologist viewed a photograph of Baby Boy A. Based on the baby’s size,
hairline, muscle mass, subcutaneous tissue, well-developed scrotum, and other
characteristics, the doctor opined that the boy was at least 32 weeks, if not more, in
gestational age.
Gosnell simply noted the baby boy’s size by joking, as he often did after
delivering a large baby. According to Cross, the doctor said: “This baby is big enough to
walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

………

Baby Boy A was among the more memorable large babies that Gosnell killed,
perhaps because of the photographs, or because his teenage mother almost died too. He
was not, however, the only one. Ashley Baldwin remembered Gosnell severing the neck
of a baby that cried after being born. The baby had “precipitated” when the doctor was
not in the clinic. Lynda Williams placed the baby in a basin on the counter where the
instruments were washed and called the doctor to come.
Ashley heard the infant cry. She saw the baby move while it was on the counter.
She estimated the infant was at least 12 inches long. When Gosnell arrived at the clinic,
she recalled, “he snipped the neck, and said there is nothing to worry about, and he
suctioned it.”
If Gosnell was absent, his employees would kill viable babies. Ashley Baldwin
saw Steve Massof slit the necks of babies that moved or breathed “five or ten” times.
Massof, repeating what he had been taught by Gosnell, told her that that it was standard
procedure to cut the spine in all cases. Ashley testified:
Q. These larger babies, when Dr. Steve was there, did he
ever – was he ever there when any of the larger babies
precipitated?
A. Yes
Q. Babies that would move?
A. Yes.
Q. So, Dr. Steve – what would Dr. Steve do with babies
that moved?
A. The same thing.
Q. The same thing. And how many time did you see Dr.
Steve?
A. A lot. He told me that – don’t worry about it. They are
not living. It is just a reaction.
Kareema Cross testified that, between 2005 and 2008, she saw Steve Massof sever the
spinal cords of at least ten babies who were breathing and about five that were moving.
When Massof left the clinic in 2008, Lynda Williams took over the job of cutting
baby’s necks when Gosnell was not there. Cross saw Williams slit the neck of a baby
(“Baby C”) who had been moving and breathing for approximately twenty minutes.
Gosnell had delivered the baby and put it on a counter while he suctioned the placenta
from the mother. Williams called Cross over to look at the baby because it was breathing
and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them. After playing with the baby,
Williams slit its neck.
When asked why Williams had killed the baby, Cross answered:
Because the baby, I guess, because the baby was moving
and breathing. And she see Dr. Gosnell do it so many
times, I guess she felt, you know, she can do it. It’s okay.
Adrienne Moton also killed at least one baby by cutting its spinal cord. Cross
testified that a woman had delivered a large baby into the toilet before Gosnell arrived
at work for the night. Cross said that the baby was moving and looked like it was
swimming. Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck. Cross said the baby
was between 10 and 15 inches long and had a head the size of a “big pancake.”
Gosnell later measured one of the baby’s feet and said that it was 24.5 weeks.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

Yeah,and now the troll is going to turn the thread into another one of his circle jerks. Please don't feed him.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You're the one who's dead wrong,not me.

Precisely, what am I "dead wrong" about?
Please - be precise.
Please, be very, very precise.

Your words:

Quote :

You just can't help ignoring truth and reality, can you?
Show me where the New York Times published more than the one article on the Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and I will gladly tell you that you are correct.

The fact is that the NY Times posted more than your false claim of 1 article. Precise enough?

Link, please.

[b]Still waiting for that link.

I will post the the link which contains the same references that Edge pointed to,as soon as you agree to the following terms:You agree to write these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times and then post it in this thread and on this message board.

Another win-win situation for me.
1) You accept and you end up stepping on the rake and have to post what I laid out.
or 2)You refuse and once again prove that you are a coward and a liar.

Post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal.

You just changed the terms. Just what I would expect from a coward.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

You know where.

Yeah,and now the troll is going to turn the thread into another one of his circle jerks. Please don't feed him.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

You're the one who's dead wrong,not me.

Precisely, what am I "dead wrong" about?
Please - be precise.
Please, be very, very precise.

Your words:

Quote :

You just can't help ignoring truth and reality, can you?
Show me where the New York Times published more than the one article on the Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and I will gladly tell you that you are correct.

The fact is that the NY Times posted more than your false claim of 1 article. Precise enough?

Link, please.

[b]Still waiting for that link.

I will post the the link which contains the same references that Edge pointed to,as soon as you agree to the following terms:You agree to write these exact words "I,Happy Jack" am the Village Idiot of this message board" 50 times and then post it in this thread and on this message board.

Another win-win situation for me.
1) You accept and you end up stepping on the rake and have to post what I laid out.
or 2)You refuse and once again prove that you are a coward and a liar.

Post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal.

You just changed the terms. Just what I would expect from a coward.

What terms did I change?

The terms were:

You post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal, the deal being that I will post your ridiculous request 50 times.
It's really too bad that you cannot carry yourself with some slight degree of honesty, even once in a while.

happy jack wrote:

What terms did I change?

The terms were:

You post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal, the deal being that I will post your ridiculous request 50 times.
It's really too bad that you cannot carry yourself with some slight degree of honesty, even once in a while.

Review the thread,coward. Your latest request was just for the link. Then you added what I already explained to you was material that Edge had provided. Now go bang your head against the wall or crawl back under the baseboard but I'm through going around in circles with you.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What terms did I change?

The terms were:

You post the link showing that the New York Times published more than the one article on the ongoing Gosnell trial prior to April 15th and you have a deal, the deal being that I will post your ridiculous request 50 times.
It's really too bad that you cannot carry yourself with some slight degree of honesty, even once in a while.

Review the thread,coward. Your latest request was just for the link. Then you added what I already explained to you was material that Edge had provided. Now go bang your head against the wall or crawl back under the baseboard but I'm through going around in circles with you.

[b]This is getting kind of exhausting - I don't even know what you are talking about.

I already explained it to you,troll.

Quote :

Upon reviewing the thread I see that you claimed that articles referenced by 'Edge' that were published in 2011 didn't fit your idiotic criteria even though they referenced the upcoming trial. My link contained the same articles. It's obvious to me that you planned to weasel out using that as an objection and thus start another one of your circle jerks.

Now are you going to step up to the challenge on the Marathon thread or weasel out of that one too?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Upon reviewing the thread I see that you claimed that articles referenced by 'Edge' that were published in 2011 didn't fit your idiotic criteria even though they referenced the upcoming trial. My link contained the same articles. It's obvious to me that you planned to weasel out using that as an objection and thus start another one of your circle jerks.

Other than the March 18th, 2013 article, which I've already acknowledged, not a single one of the articles referenced by edge from the New York Times made any mention whatsoever about the trial, quite possibly because the other articles were from 2011, long before the trial began. Try figuring out what the hell you're talking about before you post.

The Times posted 2 other articles. The first being that the Grand Jury indicted him. In that article they included a link to a 281-page grand jury document. Now since the trial hadn't started yet you will claim that the article doesn't count although what is contained in that document is some of the evidence against the Dr and thus would be used in the actual trial. The second article on March 2nd refers to the prosecution seeking the death penalty. I would argue that the article qualifies since seeking the death penalty was definitely part of the upcoming trial and would have been noted in pre-trial appearances before the court.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Upon reviewing the thread I see that you claimed that articles referenced by 'Edge' that were published in 2011 didn't fit your idiotic criteria even though they referenced the upcoming trial. My link contained the same articles. It's obvious to me that you planned to weasel out using that as an objection and thus start another one of your circle jerks.

Other than the March 18th, 2013 article, which I've already acknowledged, not a single one of the articles referenced by edge from the New York Times made any mention whatsoever about the trial, quite possibly because the other articles were from 2011, long before the trial began. Try figuring out what the hell you're talking about before you post.

The Times posted 2 other articles. The first being that the Grand Jury indicted him. In that article they included a link to a 281-page grand jury document. Now since the trial hadn't started yet you will claim that the article doesn't count although what is contained in that document is some of the evidence against the Dr and thus would be used in the actual trial. The second article on March 2nd refers to the prosecution seeking the death penalty. I would argue that the article qualifies since seeking the death penalty was definitely part of the upcoming trial and would have been noted in pre-trial appearances before the court.

No, wrong again. This entire discussion was predicated upon this article I posted:

APRIL 15, 2013 4:00 AM

The Media After Gosnell

Now it's time for journalists report on the “meat-market style” abortions at a Delaware clinic.

ByJohn Fund

If there were an award for Most Constructive Shaming of the News Media, the clear winner would be Kirsten Powers, the brave Fox News pundit and Daily Beast columnist. Last Thursday, she called out the mainstream media for failing to adequately report on the ongoing trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who is charged with murdering seven newborn infants and a patient seeking an abortion.


It is crystal clear that what we have been discussing concerns the ongoing trial, not the grand jury indictment. I find it difficult to understand why you believe the articles you cited are about the trial, inasmuch as the word ‘trial’ appears nowhere in any of them.
(Incidentally, what good does it do to have a link to the grand jury document for those who are reading the paper in hard copy?)