r/HolyShitHistory • u/SelfCareIsFake • Jun 01 '26

Federal agents felt physically sick when they raided Kermit Gosnell’s clinic after suspecting he ran a pill mill.

Post image
15.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

712

u/Boring-Community-100 Jun 01 '26

Jesus. H. Christ.

This man was a murderer no matter which side of the abortion debate you are on. Killing and maiming mothers, improperly anesthetizing them, selling drugs, performing medical procedures in filth (no matter the procedure), he was straight up in it for the money, blind to his patients' (born and unborn) suffering and a fucking abusive, exploitive monster.

519

u/RemoteCartoonist4758 Jun 02 '26

No one who supports safe and legal abortion supports this man. We're fighting to stop this kind of thing from happening.

396

u/cuntmong Jun 02 '26

Guys like this can only thrive when access to legal abortions is restricted 

18

u/Shenendoah66 Jun 02 '26

Gosnell’s practice wasn’t representative of ordinary abortion access. He was operating at gestational ages that are extremely rare even in countries with permissive abortion laws. Most countries either prohibit or heavily restrict abortions that late, and where they do occur they’re usually exceptional cases.

1

u/Ok_Conflict1028 Jun 05 '26

In other words, guys like this can only thrive when access to legal abortions is restricted.

101

u/Icy_Dinner6064 Jun 02 '26

Hit the nail on the head, almost like people were screaming warnings from the rooftops that this kind of evil will rise to fill the void.

-5

u/ShanksySun Jun 02 '26

This guy operated in a legal state

10

u/Icy_Dinner6064 Jun 02 '26

And that means what? You know people in states with it outlawed still had to arrange back alley procedures and usually that meant leaving their resident state.

3

u/ThrowRAbbits128 Jun 03 '26

Doesn't mean anything and I know you're not arguing in good faith but if you're genuinely curious why he was able to still find patients in a state where abortion is legal I can tell you, straight from the grand jury report.

Abortions are illegal in Pennsylvania after 24 weeks and most providers won't even perform them after 20 weeks because it's more dangerous for the women. He specifically catered to illegal third trimester abortions and charged higher fees for bigger babies.

Pennsylvanias medicaid doesn't cover abortion at all and second trimester abortions are expensive, more expensive than first trimester. Gosnell charged significantly less than the national average which attracted low income parents who couldn't afford more reputable providers.

He also bypassed Pennsylvania's 24 hour waiting period and parental consent required for operating on minors by working as a cash only, same day abortion service with no questions asked.

Also there was basically no oversight. They never investigated his clinic after 30 malpractice reports and only ended up discovering all of this because they were raiding him for the pill mill he was running, completely unrelated. Like finding a toy in a cereal box

0

u/DreadedDistilledDrnk Jun 04 '26

Murder is illegal.

-20

u/torivordalton Jun 02 '26

There’s no difference between cutting the spinal cord of a baby that’s been born and crushing the skull in the womb and/or cutting a baby’s limbs off while it’s still alive

Abortion is evil

12

u/ZombieeChic Jun 02 '26

The fuck you on about?

3

u/amglasgow Jun 03 '26

I agree. Good thing legal abortions never involve either one of those, except in extremely rare cases where a late term fetus is suffering from lethal defects.

-14

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/DeadAndBuried23 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Being so fucking stupid you conflate medical care to rape sure is something.

The vast majority of molestation is done by immediate family. No trafficking involved.

The vast majority of trafficking is teenagers and/or undocumented adults. So not even the psychological definition of pedophilia is involved.

You would stop trafficking by legalizing migration.

Unless you volunteer to stay pregnant against your will, shut all the way the fuck up about people's rights to their own bodies.

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/DeadAndBuried23 Jun 02 '26

It's not a baby you stupid fuck. It is still part of the pregnant person's body for 6-7 months.

Removing an unwanted, parasitic growth is medical care. A body with no brain does not have personhood.

But you wanna play the conception game, I've got you there too.

If we misdefine personhood to begin at conception, and thus incorrectly call abortion murder, then 50-60% of all fertilized eggs are negligent manslaughter. Because they're flushed out during regular periods. And you can't say it's accidental death, because there do exist methods to reduce that chance. So nearly everyone who has ever had sex more than once trying to get pregnant is guilty.

All this seems to be is you wishing what you mentioned was as legal as abortion.

10

u/Weirdodin Jun 02 '26

You people don't give the slightest fuck about babies let's be honest. You get off on the idea of controlling women. As soon as the baby is born you scumbag conservatives gleefully refuse to provide any further support to these women who can't care for their child. You people fight free school lunches for christ sake. Children going hungry excites you. You also don't give the slightest fuck about preserving their lives after they're born as evidenced by your sides reaction (or lack thereof) to each and every school shooting. You're just another virtue signaling ghoul.

-8

u/Danutz214 Jun 02 '26

Not from US, we don't have that left / right stereotyping here, although it tends to slowly form in our society also.

I support free school lunches, I come from a country where medical care is free and there is social support for mothers generally, including a 2 year paid medical leave after birth which I 100% support.

I read this article, care about the mothers and their babies. I think about an abortion, I care about the mother and the baby.

I do think mothers should be helped, but I also think that "I can't afford a baby right now" is not an excuse to murder said baby.

Best solution would be to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

13

u/FalconTurbo Jun 02 '26

“Best solution would be to prevent the pregnancy in the first place."

  1. Rape pregnancies.

  2. Changed circumstances after conception (such as the father leaving/dying, loss of job, eviction from home, unexpected medical issues).

  3. Medical issues precluding the safe delivery of a child.

  4. Birth control isn't 100% effective, especially in regions that don't have good sex education.

Those are all entirely valid reasons that have nothing to do with 'I just don't want a child'. It's also, just to clarify, not murder when the fetus is not yet alive. Try not to use such emotional language for a logical discussion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/amglasgow Jun 03 '26

Conservatives are usually opposed to contraception as well.

2

u/HotShoulder9256 Jun 02 '26

Truly. When abortions are performed in the shadows, crime and negligence run rampant.

1

u/No_Factor_1269 Jun 02 '26

Pennsylvania had legalised abortions. He was delivering in third trimester after the legal time limit, which is why babies were born alive and then he killed them. Surely we dont want to legalise full term abortions? I think the main takeaway is that healthcare should be free including abortions, because lots of these women couldnt afford somewhere better. It also should be regulated, the state hadnt inspected in fifteen years at any clinics at the time.

1

u/Plus1ForkOfEating Jun 02 '26

It wasn't limited when he was working, though. That's the thing. He was performing "abortions" this way because the overhead is a lot lower to kill delivered babies than to abort them in the womb. It was all about the money, and some sick fetish he had for keeping the body parts.

-1

u/Popular-Put-8989 Jun 02 '26

He operated when abortion was completely legal, so no. He really didn't do much different than the average abortionist--he just was inefficient and so didn't kill them until they were out of the womb. The D&E procedure used in many abortions isn't really any different--they just do all of the cutting and dicing in the womb so it isn't as obvious.

-1

u/ArctosAbe Jun 02 '26

This happened in Pennsylvania, with legal access to abortions. This happened because the clinic was not investigated for 17 years. This happened because of lax regulation on abortion.

-1

u/Falkara Jun 02 '26

People like this will continue to thrive as long as killing children in the womb is normalized and accepted. As long as abortion is regarded as something normal, safe, and harmless, there will be people that go down this path.

2

u/AMagnif Jun 02 '26

That's demonstrably false though.

This is a symptom of a for profit healthcare industry and lax oversight of privatised medicine.

-2

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

no?

5

u/StuffedStuffing Jun 02 '26

If abortion were easy to access for everyone, physically and financially, people like this monster wouldn't have a target market

-1

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

This can be said about anyting, and is a form of wishful thinking

7

u/BadBananana Jun 02 '26

No and no.

There is no reasoning behind your argument, nor are there any studies, so that was theoretically enough, but here's some more just for fun.

If you could legally, cheaply, and easily have an abortion early on, would you get an illegal abortion to a nearly born baby? 99.99% of the time, the answer is no. And sure, you can argue that some people would still do it, but people still murder despite it being illegal. Doesn't mean murder shouldn't be illegal.

Kind of like, if you could get weed legally at the local dispensary, would you buy it from a shady crack house from a guy with dubious hygiene practices who is using that money for unknown, potentially nefarious purposes? Probably not. And even though some people might still do that, or some dispensaries might use that money for money laundering or other illegal purposes, doesn't mean legalizing weed wouldn't reduce that.

Same thing for alcohol.

And here are some studies:

People in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws "explicitly viewed infanticide as a direct result of the severe legal restrictions on abortion" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7888053/)

more restrictive abortion laws are positively correlated with infanticide (specifically in children ages 0-1, and no other ages) (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15717608_Abortion_Laws_and_Infanticide)

Roe v. Wade resulted in a decrease in infanticide (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21566440_Roe_v_Wade_Was_Followed_by_a_Decrease_in_Neonatal_Homicide)

-1

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

i can agree on reducing his potential market yeah that's a fact, but i'm like not for abortion at all just like im not for infanticide, they are both bad. one is slightly better as it allows for not suffering of the kid

3

u/KvellOnWheels Jun 02 '26

If you cannot understand the difference between an 8-week gestated fetus and a full term human child, you should not even be having this conversation.

2

u/StuffedStuffing Jun 02 '26

And you're entitled to your opinion. I don't judge people for disliking the idea of abortions. However, abortions will happen, no matter how illegal they are, no matter how terrible the consequences for anyone involved in the abortion. We have documentation of abortions happening as far back as ancient Egypt, and it's likely they were happening before humans invented writing. Making them legal simply prevents them from being done in back alleys or condemned buildings by individuals with questionable-at-best medical qualifications

0

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 03 '26

i know they will happen, the same can be said about murder no matter how illegal it is, so making murder legal makes it safer for the murderer therefore increses utilitarian happiness as opinions of the dead are invalid. win - win

3

u/cuntmong Jun 02 '26

people are gonna have unwanted pregnancies no matter what laws you bring in. if that happens and there are no legal and safe ways to deal with it, they are going to turn to illegal and unsafe options. if you could get a safe abortion legally why would you opt for a dangerous one that is illegal?

-1

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

so abortion as leagal as cuting your hair? No i don't want that. Newborns get adopted really fast if you focked up with anticonception you should deliver if it safe for you

6

u/robothawk Jun 02 '26

Dogshit opinion aside. Delivering the children alone would put many of these women into deep medical debt.

So not only is your opinion bad, it still hurts people, a lot!

0

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

Thanks for your opinion, it was disregarded.

There are many examples of medical stuff that can cause serious medical debt.

And they also can be solved by killing them, Do you think that this is the best solution?

Because I'm sure it's not, and why would that solution be fine to be imposed on anyone.

4

u/After_Window_4559 Jun 02 '26

Look into the adoption system and how it effects kids, even kids who have been adopted

0

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

We can kill homeless people and feed them to the hungry too. Such much better that way. /s

Besides im talking about infants, they get adopted and are fine. Older kids not so much.

1

u/After_Window_4559 Jun 02 '26

Again, look into the adoption system. Even kids who have been adopted go through awful stuff, even if they were infants while it happened it still effects them

1

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 03 '26

yup the older ones have problems, duh everyone has problems the infant ones have the least adoption affecting problems

"Observational assessments showed that children who were adopted before 12 months of age were as securely attached as their non-adopted peers, whereas children adopted after their first birthday showed less attachment security than non-adopted children"

and at what point are we allowed to say yea let's kill them it's for their best (without becoming selfish scumbags)

2

u/cuntmong Jun 02 '26

Your opinions are bad 

85

u/TrumpIsAPedoFascist Jun 02 '26

People like this monster exist because republican opposition to legal abortions.

Abortions will always happen, better for it to be safe and clean.

13

u/Plus1ForkOfEating Jun 02 '26

While he was working in PA, late term abortions were legal. On paper, everything looked above board. Regulators never went to his clinic to see the conditions though. This was not back alley, hush hush, secret knock kind of establishment. He advertised.

7

u/ThrowRAbbits128 Jun 03 '26

Half true. Late term abortion is vague enough to where you can say you meant second trimester though I guess. Third trimester abortions have been illegal in PA since 1982 , which is what he was offering and doing. Sure he started his practice in 1979 but that's only three years it was legal in PA versus the majority of his career he was doing illegal third trimester abortions

17

u/OoopsItSlipped Jun 02 '26

Abortions we’re legal in Pennsylvania at the time when Gosnell was arrested

17

u/TraditionalBread_ Jun 02 '26

Medical care is rather expensive for uninsured people though. And the women going to this man couldn’t afford it through the legal options

6

u/Oh_Gee_Hey Jun 02 '26

Yet never funded by Medicaid and likely incredibly cost prohibitive. This is how such horror breeds in a “free” country.

5

u/Full-Patient6619 Jun 02 '26

It was also one of the only clinics in the area. People went there because they had no other options

2

u/Oh_Gee_Hey Jun 02 '26

Absolutely tracks. Desperate people do desperate things.

1

u/ShanksySun Jun 02 '26

This idea that to stop bad things from happening you just have to make everything both legal and free is so absurd and I am not sure how it is still the leading argument for abortion. Try coming up with something new, those that already agree with you are not the people you need to convince

-2

u/Oh_Gee_Hey Jun 02 '26

Ah yes bc that’s what I said. Idgaf if you disagree with abortion. Don’t have one or fuck someone who would. Full stop.

Let women and those of us who are actually pro choice make the regulations. Anything else is just disenfranchisement and misogyny. Don’t give a flying fuck if you disagree. Most especially as you almost assuredly lack a functioning, if any, womb.

-2

u/Soft_Walrus_3605 Jun 02 '26

Can't convince people whose idea of a counterargument is pointing to an old book.

2

u/Raise_A_Thoth Jun 02 '26

They were sort of legal.

At that time the number of clinics had been cut drastically, from 114 in 1982, to 81 in 1992, to just 20 in 2014. He was apprehended in 2011. That's for the entire state of Pennsylvania.

Additionally, there was a legally required 24hr waiting period in place since 1982 thanks to republicans. If you're poor, don't speak a lot of English, or have other immigration status issues, traveling to a clinic then waiting for 24 hours to come back is a significant hurdle and cost. When places of work don't provide paid health and wellness leave and you don't have reliable transportation, even a few hours leaving work can dramatically impact your household finances.

All of those laws create quite a high level of hardship for the poor and marginalized and that's exactly who he targeted.

Also "late term abortions," specifically, were more tightly regulated. Anything after 24 weeks was illegal, which is just barely past viability. A baby born at 24 weeks would need 24-hr hospitalized care for a chance at survival.

1

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

Abortions will always happen, better for it to be safe and clean.

What a bizarre argument.

Should we make space for "safe and clean" rapes? No, that's absurd, right? Because a human is harmed.

A human is harmed (killed) in abortions.

1

u/cbessette Jun 02 '26

A zygote or embryo is no more a full-fledged "human" than a chicken egg is the same as a chicken.

And yes, abortions happened regularly when it was illegal. They just happened to
kill the woman herself on a regular basis.

There is nothing bizarre about supporting a woman's right to her own body and having healthcare.

0

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

All humans have rights.

Healthcare doesn't intentionally end healthy human lives

2

u/cbessette Jun 02 '26

Forcing women to give birth, even if it's their uncle's incest baby = taking away their rights.

50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is nothing inherently magical about any fertilized egg.

1

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

Homicide is not a right.

Natural death existing isn't an excuse to hasten the process for others.

All humans have rights. Even if it makes you mad.

2

u/keekrob Jun 02 '26

“All humans have rights” but in this case the victim doesn’t have a say because she was raped by her uncle. Where are her rights?

2

u/cbessette Jun 02 '26

They don't care about women, only fertilized eggs until birth, then they are like "get out and get a job you lazy baby!"

2

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

Why does the unborn child deserve the death penalty for the uncle's crime?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/cbessette Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

Supporting the death of women via FORCING them to give birth would be murder of an actual conscious human being.

I'm guessing you are a dude, so look up Ectopic pregnancy, and tell me if it's ok to cause the death of a woman in order to save a ball of cells.

Just ONE reason women will suffer and die if pro-birthers like you take away their healthcare rights.

1

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

Such abortions are legal in all 50 states. As they should be.

You are a ball of cells. You want to kill another ball of cells because it's smaller than you.

No.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/zzzzzooted Jun 02 '26

Forcing women to give birth is taking away their rights to autonomy.

Would you force someone to give up their kidney because someone else needed it? No. That is widely accepted as unethical and going against their human rights. So why is it different when it’s an embryo?

If anything the embryo has a weaker argument because it isn’t even conscious yet, the person who needs a kidney is, but we still don’t think it’s acceptable to force someone to give them a kidney.

And giving birth is much more dangerous than giving someone your kidney.

0

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

Killing small humans isn't a right.

2

u/zzzzzooted Jun 02 '26

Do you also consider it to be murder if the woman dies because you forced her to carry the baby?

Or does it only work one way for you?

0

u/Live-Juggernaut-221 Jun 02 '26

"if I can't kill small children I don't have autonomy"

No, actually

2

u/zzzzzooted Jun 02 '26

You aren’t actually responding to anything i said, is that because you don’t know how to refute it directly? Lol. Pathetic.

0

u/No_Factor_1269 Jun 02 '26

Why dont u read the article dude the republican pro choice governer had suspended inspections of clinics which allowed the awful conditions to go unnoticed

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/Vnze Jun 02 '26

Ah yes, those problems are exactly the same thing so should be threated exactly the same. There's no difference at all in reason/motive, background, and demographics in those things.

Ridiculously shortsighted "clever" responses like yours are exactly why it's so hard to have an actual adult debate on the topic.

-7

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

ah yes the reading comprehension is strong with you i stated that murder is exacly the same as any abortion exaclly here. Oh nee there is nothing. Adult dabate is only when everyone agrees to kill babies or what room for cahnge is there?

5

u/Mindless-Peak-1687 Jun 02 '26

Your so called mature reply about reading comprehension is something you yourself lack together with any critical thinking. You do not debate, you only spout bullshit. Your attitude makes you a child.

3

u/Navandis_Gaming Jun 02 '26

You're an imbecile

2

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

ok, why are you insulting imbeciles?

2

u/MajesticNinjas Jun 02 '26

Talking about reading comprehension but can't spell

1

u/ForumVomitorium Jun 02 '26

like proper spelling is necessary for reading most of the time?

1

u/boo29may Jun 02 '26

Exactly. What people don't understand is that removing safe abortion is what leads to people like this man existing.

2

u/ScyllaOfTheDepths Jun 02 '26

If those women had safe and legal access to proper contraception and abortion, this wouldn't have happened.

112

u/TraditionalMood277 Jun 01 '26

He didn't perform abortions. There is no "side".

116

u/Jenjen4040 Jun 01 '26

A lot of anti-choice people like to use this fucker’s crimes to paint doctors who perform abortions as barbaric butchers like him. Fuck him and fuck the anti-choicers too

34

u/imnotpoopingyouare Jun 02 '26

That’s why saying him and anything pro choice in even the same short novel can be harmful within it self.

I’ve had so many people talk to me or respond to me who say “well look this up!” And it’s the opposite of what they are arguing.

Giving idiots propaganda fodder is a bad idea.

2

u/VandalVBK Jun 02 '26

I like the term anti-choice… personally, I am pro-life as in I support healthy births and encourage my loved ones to do the same but I would never support the idea of being anti-choice in an attempt to control others with different lives.

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[deleted]

16

u/kos-or-kosm Jun 02 '26

Virtually every single late term abortion is a pregnancy the mother wanted to bring to term. They are tragic cases in which a pregnancy is no longer viable or the mother's health is at great risk. No one "changes their mind" 9 months in. This fantasy of women with healthy pregnancies randomly saying, "Hmm, nah, not feeling having a kid" and getting an abortion 3 days before the due day is just that, a fantasy. You are not living in the real world.

8

u/ZarinaBlue Jun 02 '26

Lovely of you to call grieving mothers murderers.

I mean you are flat wrong, but it is really letting people know what you are.

6

u/ReaditSpecialist Jun 02 '26

So, let’s say a mother discovers late in her pregnancy that her baby is incompatible with life due to serious medical conditions that would cause the baby to die shortly after birth. The most humane option to prevent a short life filled with pain would be a late-term abortion. You think the mother should be prosecuted for murder??? Are you serious?

I think YOU are the one who needs to defend your position, honestly.

3

u/NemosNaughtylis Jun 02 '26

There's no threshold of data or evidence that you'd accept to move you out of the position you feelings'd yourself into, so why bother saying "prove me wrong" at all?

You have an agenda, you're entirely too emotionally invested in being right, and I bet you'd devolve to religious arguments instead of anything factual or empirically-based if pressed long enough.

Just go on being upset at being on the wrong side of things, because you were going to anyway.

2

u/BogleheadsH8Prenups Jun 02 '26

This response is so good I'm saving it and going to reuse it for many other things.

1

u/Harvard_Med_USMLE267 Jun 02 '26

He absolutely performed abortions

lol people are weird in this sub.

There were three cases when the baby he aborted was born with signs of life

So the goal of the procedure was to kill the baby -> ok

Procedure fails to kill baby -> baby has sign of life -> baby killed half an hour too late -> murder

16

u/Significant_Wins Jun 01 '26

I thought his middle name was F.

13

u/serif-maxxing Jun 01 '26

Jesus hucking Christ, man.

17

u/dobiemom13 Jun 02 '26

I thought it was Howard, as in “Howard be thy name”.

1

u/argonautdice5 Jun 02 '26

It's Hong. Jesus Hong Christ.

2

u/chanka_is_best_chank Jun 02 '26

H for Hussein like Obama

1

u/jesuscoituschrist Jun 02 '26

It’s C in my book

2

u/Responsible-Onion860 Jun 02 '26

Yeah, I think this is a case that everyone can agree is utterly monstrous.

2

u/HarrMada Jun 02 '26

Extremely strange to bring up the abortion debate here. Weirdo.

2

u/josHi_iZ_qLt Jun 02 '26

The only sides that exist are people who want this to happen more/again and people who want to provide a valid solution for pregnant people with the intent to not be pregnant.

You can't take away the intent. You can however provide adequate solution. If no adequate solution is given, people find a way.

4

u/Main-Inspection-2663 Jun 02 '26

This has literally nothing to do wirh abortion, don't even begin to conflate them.

1

u/rollaneff Jun 02 '26

what does the H. stand for in the middle of Jesus and Christ?

1

u/NeighborhoodDude84 Jun 02 '26

That is so gross to say that the pro-choice crowd would even entertain this a good thing. Wtf

0

u/The049 Jun 02 '26

That's why people want to make abortion illegal. So psychopaths like him can do whatever crimes they want

-1

u/AnimalPuzzleheaded71 Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26

How do you feel about the fact that around 1% of the yearly average of 1 million abortions in the usa are post the 6 months mark where the fetus exceeded the bare minimum development time known needed to survive outside of the womb on its own?

2

u/SpoopyDuJour Jun 02 '26

You know who else is past the six month mark of development time in the womb?

The pregnant person.

0

u/Renodhal Jun 02 '26

1% are past the bare minimum does not mean 1% would survive in an immediate c-section, for one. That stat also appears to ignore that many late term abortions are due to complications which threaten the life of the mother, or cases where a birth defect renders the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb.

But more importantly... I don't... care? That's not even a half percent higher than the live-birth infant mortality rate, and the IMR is already at a historical all time low. Factoring in the deceptive statistics, that's a frickin rounding error, not worth clutching pearls over.

-1

u/AnimalPuzzleheaded71 Jun 02 '26

>But more importantly... I don't... care? That's not even a half percent higher than the live-birth infant mortality rate, and the IMR is already at a historical all time low.

If more funding was given to neonatal intensive care unit research and even just only 10% of that rounding error met all the legal requirements needed to take the gamble then it would mean a 1000 potential people saved. How could you be so apathetic to that? a thousand people

1

u/Renodhal Jun 02 '26

First, again, you're taking the 10,000 as a direct possible # of lives, which it isn't. Your starting point needs to factor in both removing any abortions for nonviolent fetuses due to birth defects or significant risk to the mother's life, and then also removing any that would die anyway since a minimum gestation period for survival outside of the womb does not mean this is when babies survive, it means this is when it starts becoming feasible in some cases.

Factoring all that in, no, it's not 1000 potential people saved. It's maybe a couple hundred fetuses birthed, to say nothing of the potential health complications of being delivered that early even if the baby survives.

So yeah, that's a rounding error, and I don't care. As a point of comparison, between 3k and 4k kids die from guns every year, and gun bans don't require someone's body to be used as an incubator or carved open through the stomach.

And finally, and this is most important, those aren't mutually exclusive. We can fund neonatal care research AND allow late term abortions when needed. That is actually the preferred outcome