Eh, if you cared that much you'd be a major advocate for readily available first trimester abortions. If you think there's no difference between first and third trimester abortions there's not point to this conversation, since neither of us can understand the other's position.

It's sad no matter how you look at it and since we have to choose sides, I'm siding with women every time. I do think the way an abortion is carried out matters which is why the Gosnell case is so horrific.
Originally Posted by legends
Personally, I find them all equivalently egregious.

It is what I consider the hypocracy of pro-choicers in heartily supporing one type of abortion and a couple of weeks later calling it "sick" and "cruel" that I'm finding especially strange.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
You're conflating two different things. Yes some pro-choice advocates (not me, personally) draw the line at viability for reasons that should be obvious. And yes, most of people--even those of us who are not against later-term abortions--find Gosnell's actions sick and cruel. The two are not related.
Originally Posted by legends
For me, personally, the greater outrage stems from kiling babies - in utero and not.

His careless and unprofesional treatment of the mothers is bad also but sadly common in lower socioeconomic areas. But that kind of thing can be seen in a variety of settings...not just reproductive health.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG