It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[GeekyBugle]

Reminder for the pro-abortion, follow the science types:

96% of biologists, regardless of their position on that issue agree; Life begins at fertilization.

So, since it's you who are arguing for a magical moment when the zygote, fetus, etc suddenly becomes a human life... Care to point exactly when?
https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/

I'm no biologist, but I'd think that life doesn't begin at conception. It's an unbroken chain leading back billions of years. You could, theoretically, create a geneology chart for every organism back to the first microbes. For a specific organism, life "beings" at the production of the egg and sperm cells that combine to form a zygote. Those two gametes are living things with the potential to become a human being.

Anywhodle. The problem is I can see the merits in both sides of the argument. And I don't think the overturning of Roe v Wade is going to be the end of it. If you believe that a fetus deserves the basic human rights of a child, are you going to be cool with the state next door making it legal to murder them?

The core issue, to my thinking, is that we need a federal decision on what the legal status of a fetus is. Roe v Wade sidestepped this, and that's what led to it's inevitable challenging by the SCOTUS.

Relying on federal law for abortion rights would mean flip-flopping status over the years as Democratic congresses and Republican congresses pass competing laws that change them. Many other core rights have relied on court decisions, like the right to inter-racial marriage. That had been in the hands of state legislatures, but the piecemeal and back-and-forth of state laws made it extremely difficult for couples - such that the Supreme Court took it out of legislatures' hands.

For my two cents on "life starts at conception", I think it makes no sense to call a zygote a person. What makes a person a person is their conscious mind and soul, not their DNA. We regularly create life by growing human tissue samples or creating zygotes for in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is never considered abortions or murder. If someone has their head blown off, we consider them dead, even if we could keep their heart beating - because what defines a person is their thoughts and feelings. A single cell can be alive - but it isn't anywhere close to a person.

Further, zygotes have never been considered people legally or even religiously in the past. If someone discovers they are pregnant, they cannot immediately claim an additional dependent on their taxes. The zygote is not issued a social security number, or registered at all. In short, it is not considered legally a person for anything *except* being killed. Historically, in Christian churches, a pregnancy was not immediately given a Christian name -- and if there was a failed implantation or miscarriage, the expelled tissue was not christened, baptized, or buried on hallowed ground.

Regarding the other topic of responsibility, I feel the primary responsibility is to care for children who are born. The majority of those seeking abortions are already mothers - typically someone whose birth control with their partner failed, who feels that they cannot care for an additional child, and are trying to be responsible to the child or children they already have.

Notice how the one making religious arguments is YOU. No one else is talking about the soul. Because I don't need to, 96% of biologists on both sides of the abortion question say life begins at conception, but "follow the science" jhkim here disagrees because he's a "christian" that is pro abortion.

Blacks weren't considered persons once upon a time jhkim.

Nice, lets punish the innocent for the carelessness of the mother/father... How "Christian" of you.

At what point must a human embryo be terminated and not used anymore for experimentation and why? I don't remember the exact week but it's because "it's experimenting in humans". You monsters have deluded yourselves into believing there's a point where magically what wasn't a human being becomes one. Well biology sorta agrees with that, you just don't like the when because you're in favor of murdering babies.

[Effete]

Though also - keeping this on topic - I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade would increase the incentive of either blue states or red states to secede. People in blue states would experience no change in rights since state law would keep abortions legal, while red states would outlaw abortion.

Except we're seeing interstate migration at rates we haven't seen in decades. Specifically, people are leaving poorly-managed democrat strongholds for "redder" pastures. There is a cultural awakening happening with the normies, and it's evidenced by things like Netflix collapsing, Disney losing revenue, and the overwhelming support of Daddy Musk buying twatter. It's clear people are getting tired of woke trash, and since humans are invariably a social species, those people will tend toward conservatism a bit more (e.g. AWAY from progressivism).

I'd say the recent trends with population shifts is a good indicator that certain states will galvanize certain voter bases. Blue states will become more blue, red states more red. If this happens, and all the crazies get clustered closer together (left or right) it becomes much more likely someone is going to put secession on the table. The only question is, who will do it first?

[Ratman_tf]

Though also - keeping this on topic - I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade would increase the incentive of either blue states or red states to secede.

I agree. I think this will actually relieve a tiny bit of pressure, as some will view it as getting what they want.

People in blue states would experience no change in rights since state law would keep abortions legal, while red states would outlaw abortion.

I think some blue states will get even more permissive of abortion, even allowing it for a short time post-birth.
And if you think that's crazy, just a few years ago people were laughing at the idea of The Left believing that men could get pregnant. And now it's a talking point.

And I think red states will still permit abortion in case of danger to the mother, I don't think I've ever heard even the most conservative conservative argue against that.

And I think a lot of states will continue where we are at now. With abortion permitted in the first trimester, prohibited in the third trimester, and waffling about in the second trimester on where teh line should be drawn.

[jeff37923]

Though also - keeping this on topic - I don't think overturning Roe v. Wade would increase the incentive of either blue states or red states to secede. People in blue states would experience no change in rights since state law would keep abortions legal, while red states would outlaw abortion.

Except we're seeing interstate migration at rates we haven't seen in decades. Specifically, people are leaving poorly-managed democrat strongholds for "redder" pastures. There is a cultural awakening happening with the normies, and it's evidenced by things like Netflix collapsing, Disney losing revenue, and the overwhelming support of Daddy Musk buying twatter. It's clear people are getting tired of woke trash, and since humans are invariably a social species, those people will tend toward conservatism a bit more (e.g. AWAY from progressivism).

I'd say the recent trends with population shifts is a good indicator that certain states will galvanize certain voter bases. Blue states will become more blue, red states more red. If this happens, and all the crazies get clustered closer together (left or right) it becomes much more likely someone is going to put secession on the table. The only question is, who will do it first?

Likewise, with abortion in particular, I think that this will become a part of interstate commerce if Roe vs Wade is overturned. People wanting abortions in states prohibiting that will just travel to states that allow abortions and get them there.

[Effete]

Likewise, with abortion in particular, I think that this will become a part of interstate commerce if Roe vs Wade is overturned. People wanting abortions in states prohibiting that will just travel to states that allow abortions and get them there.

Without a doubt. About 15 years ago or so, my state had laws prohibiting sales of alcohol on Sunday. Me and my buddies were more than willing to make the ~3 hour roundtrip drive over the border just to buy a couple cases of beer. And it's not like we were as gung-ho about drinking as some of these women are about abortions. I never picketed the Capitol building wearing a beer-helmet with bottlecaps taped over my nipples.

I could also see it going the other way and people just making smarter decisions about their body. In all honesty though, I don't think RvW is getting overturned. This just seems like another distraction to whip people up before the midterms. For example, a couple of the fundraising sites had secured their domain names weeks before the memo was "leaked." With everything else that's happened in the past two years, I no longer believe in coincidence and go straight to conspiracy.

[jhkim]

For my two cents on "life starts at conception", I think it makes no sense to call a zygote a person. What makes a person a person is their conscious mind and soul, not their DNA. We regularly create life by growing human tissue samples or creating zygotes for in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is never considered abortions or murder. If someone has their head blown off, we consider them dead, even if we could keep their heart beating - because what defines a person is their thoughts and feelings. A single cell can be alive - but it isn't anywhere close to a person.

Because I don't need to, 96% of biologists on both sides of the abortion question say life begins at conception, but "follow the science" jhkim here disagrees because he's a "christian" that is pro abortion.

At what point must a human embryo be terminated and not used anymore for experimentation and why? I don't remember the exact week but it's because "it's experimenting in humans". You monsters have deluded yourselves into believing there's a point where magically what wasn't a human being becomes one. Well biology sorta agrees with that, you just don't like the when because you're in favor of murdering babies.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You sound like you're arguing that "life begins at conception" and therefore a zygote itself is a person. There is a scientific standard (but not a legal one) to only work with embryonic cultures for 14 days, but by your "life begins at conception" argument, any embryonic culture is murder. The 14 day standard argues *against* the idea that life begins at conception.

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

[oggsmash]

For my two cents on "life starts at conception", I think it makes no sense to call a zygote a person. What makes a person a person is their conscious mind and soul, not their DNA. We regularly create life by growing human tissue samples or creating zygotes for in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is never considered abortions or murder. If someone has their head blown off, we consider them dead, even if we could keep their heart beating - because what defines a person is their thoughts and feelings. A single cell can be alive - but it isn't anywhere close to a person.

Because I don't need to, 96% of biologists on both sides of the abortion question say life begins at conception, but "follow the science" jhkim here disagrees because he's a "christian" that is pro abortion.

At what point must a human embryo be terminated and not used anymore for experimentation and why? I don't remember the exact week but it's because "it's experimenting in humans". You monsters have deluded yourselves into believing there's a point where magically what wasn't a human being becomes one. Well biology sorta agrees with that, you just don't like the when because you're in favor of murdering babies.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You sound like you're arguing that "life begins at conception" and therefore a zygote itself is a person. There is a scientific standard (but not a legal one) to only work with embryonic cultures for 14 days, but by your "life begins at conception" argument, any embryonic culture is murder. The 14 day standard argues *against* the idea that life begins at conception.

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

    Should be a state decision.  If people want a federal decision do so through congress, not on a bench.

[GeekyBugle]

For my two cents on "life starts at conception", I think it makes no sense to call a zygote a person. What makes a person a person is their conscious mind and soul, not their DNA. We regularly create life by growing human tissue samples or creating zygotes for in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is never considered abortions or murder. If someone has their head blown off, we consider them dead, even if we could keep their heart beating - because what defines a person is their thoughts and feelings. A single cell can be alive - but it isn't anywhere close to a person.

Because I don't need to, 96% of biologists on both sides of the abortion question say life begins at conception, but "follow the science" jhkim here disagrees because he's a "christian" that is pro abortion.

At what point must a human embryo be terminated and not used anymore for experimentation and why? I don't remember the exact week but it's because "it's experimenting in humans". You monsters have deluded yourselves into believing there's a point where magically what wasn't a human being becomes one. Well biology sorta agrees with that, you just don't like the when because you're in favor of murdering babies.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You sound like you're arguing that "life begins at conception" and therefore a zygote itself is a person. There is a scientific standard (but not a legal one) to only work with embryonic cultures for 14 days, but by your "life begins at conception" argument, any embryonic culture is murder. The 14 day standard argues *against* the idea that life begins at conception.

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

Yes, life begins at conception, 96% of biologists agree, since the zygote is a human zygote it follows that said life is a human life. But you will rationalize your anti-Christian position to satisfy your lust for murdering babies.

Go and murder a pregnant woman and see if you don't get charged with TWO counts of murder. So your feelings don't matter, you can do all the mental gymnastics you wish to justify murdering babies.

Yeah PETA fuckers and other various animalist idiots are a great moral standard we all should adhere to.

[3catcircus]

For my two cents on "life starts at conception", I think it makes no sense to call a zygote a person. What makes a person a person is their conscious mind and soul, not their DNA. We regularly create life by growing human tissue samples or creating zygotes for in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is never considered abortions or murder. If someone has their head blown off, we consider them dead, even if we could keep their heart beating - because what defines a person is their thoughts and feelings. A single cell can be alive - but it isn't anywhere close to a person.

Because I don't need to, 96% of biologists on both sides of the abortion question say life begins at conception, but "follow the science" jhkim here disagrees because he's a "christian" that is pro abortion.

At what point must a human embryo be terminated and not used anymore for experimentation and why? I don't remember the exact week but it's because "it's experimenting in humans". You monsters have deluded yourselves into believing there's a point where magically what wasn't a human being becomes one. Well biology sorta agrees with that, you just don't like the when because you're in favor of murdering babies.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. You sound like you're arguing that "life begins at conception" and therefore a zygote itself is a person. There is a scientific standard (but not a legal one) to only work with embryonic cultures for 14 days, but by your "life begins at conception" argument, any embryonic culture is murder. The 14 day standard argues *against* the idea that life begins at conception.

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

The problem isn't with the concept of abortion. The problem is with how "safe, legal, and rare" has turned into "even though it looks like a little human I'm going to bury my head in the sand and call it fetal tissue so I don't have to face the truth of what I'm doing; let's use abortion as a primary means of birth control so we can reward bad behavior and bad choices; let's abort up to and beyond birth; let's let children get abortions without parental knowledge; let's do as many abortions as possible so we can sell the remains for dubious research and keep the money flowing in."

It's a microcosm of the overall greed, stupidity, and laziness that Western society is rife with - partly because western society has no real hardship anymore for most people and partly because regulatory governmental agencies would have to actually investigate.  In the extreme case of Kermit Gosnell, the PA dept of health chose to not stop him - they simply wanted to not know what was going on so they didn't have to act and it took an investigation into potential drug dealing by him that a light was shined on his little shop of horrors...  https://www.globalblackhistory.com/liberal-racism-the-case-of-dr-kermit-gosnell/

So that's where we're at - we've allowed the abortion industry to proceed so far beyond what was reasonable (let alone legal), that we *need* the pendulum to swing as far back in the opposite direction as possible...

And Gosnell isn't an isolated case... https://www.newsweek.com/dc-abortion-pictures-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-opinion-1698021

[Spinachcat]

A nation divided cannot stand and the cultural divide is too extreme.

I hope the new abortion kerfluffle creates a soft secession.

The more divergent laws between Red vs. Blue states, the better chance we can move toward complete Secession.

[Effete]

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

If the benchmark is "conscious thought," then would it be alright to abort/kill fetus that develop with severe mental retardation or other congenital defects of the brain? The problem with using "conscious thought" is that it's far too subjective. Even you gave a very pisspoor interpretation when you alluded to dogs possibly not having conscious thought. Perhaps you meant sapience (human-like intelligence), because dogs definitely have "conscious thought."

I would place the bencemark at a heartbeat. The heartbeat/pulse is a universal sign of seeing whether someone is "alive," and it doesn't require anyone to fall down the rabbit hole of judging personhood by how well (or poor) someone can think.

Heartbeats develop around the 4th week, meaning stemcell research using live embryos can continue. Women concerned they have become pregnant have a window to get tested, and an objective standard of human life (heartbeat) provides a legal definition for imposing restrictions.

[jhkim]

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

The problem isn't with the concept of abortion. The problem is with how "safe, legal, and rare" has turned into "even though it looks like a little human I'm going to bury my head in the sand and call it fetal tissue so I don't have to face the truth of what I'm doing; let's use abortion as a primary means of birth control so we can reward bad behavior and bad choices; let's abort up to and beyond birth; let's let children get abortions without parental knowledge; let's do as many abortions as possible so we can sell the remains for dubious research and keep the money flowing in."

In the extreme case of Kermit Gosnell, the PA dept of health chose to not stop him - they simply wanted to not know what was going on so they didn't have to act and it took an investigation into potential drug dealing by him that a light was shined on his little shop of horrors...  https://www.globalblackhistory.com/liberal-racism-the-case-of-dr-kermit-gosnell/

So that's where we're at - we've allowed the abortion industry to proceed so far beyond what was reasonable (let alone legal), that we *need* the pendulum to swing as far back in the opposite direction as possible...

And Gosnell isn't an isolated case... https://www.newsweek.com/dc-abortion-pictures-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-opinion-1698021

Gosnell isn't a sole case, but he is in no way representative of the typical abortion - which happens during the first trimester at around 8 weeks, from a mother who has decided they cannot care for an additional child. In general, the trend of abortions in the U.S. has been this:


Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/19490/us-abortion-rate-guttmacher-institute/

The rate of abortions has decreased to around half of the peak rate in 1980.

Internationally, the U.S. has roughly similar rates to abortions in most other First World countries - and much less that the post-Soviet countries (especially Russia) - but higher than India or countries where abortion is illegal (like much of Latin America).

[oggsmash]

   I think the folks who want to kill their kids should be able to.  I also hope for their sakes hell is not a thing.

[jhkim]

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

If the benchmark is "conscious thought," then would it be alright to abort/kill fetus that develop with severe mental retardation or other congenital defects of the brain? The problem with using "conscious thought" is that it's far too subjective. Even you gave a very pisspoor interpretation when you alluded to dogs possibly not having conscious thought. Perhaps you meant sapience (human-like intelligence), because dogs definitely have "conscious thought."

I would place the bencemark at a heartbeat. The heartbeat/pulse is a universal sign of seeing whether someone is "alive," and it doesn't require anyone to fall down the rabbit hole of judging personhood by how well (or poor) someone can think.

You criticize that I use conscious thought as a criteria because dogs have conscious thought - but then you propose heartbeat, when even fish or snails have heartbeats. It feels like you're not reading my question. In a science fiction story, if a new life form is encountered - would the determination of whether it is a person or not hinge on whether they have a heartbeat? Or would it be something else?

Within real-world medicine, while heartbeat is the easiest to measure, it isn't the ultimate criteria. If a person's heart fails but they still have a working brain, then doctors try to give them a replacement or artificial heart to continue their life. However, if someone is for sure brain dead then they are put to rest even if their heart is still working.

What defines us as people is our thoughts and feelings, not our blood circulation. Yes, it can be unclear where to draw the line - like when to declare a patient brain dead as their brain function goes away. But there are clear limits. If an infant is born with no brain whatsoever, like extreme anencephaly, then there is no question of trying to save the child.

[3catcircus]

It's logically *required* that there is some point when there is a threshold that is crossed from material being "not a person" and "a person". You just claim that the "magic" happens at the point of fertilization. I think it's nonsensical to call a single cell a person. The threshold clearly has to be much later.

I think the question is more general:  What would make any life form a person to the point that ending it is murder? I would say that is judged on the capacity for conscious thought - though how that is determined is fuzzy, it's clearly the criteria. In sci-fi, there are many scenarios with artificial life forms, uplifted animals like apes, or aliens. It's some degree of capacity for thought and feeling. Many people oppose killing dolphins or chimps because of their capacity for thought, and some oppose killing dogs, cows, and other higher mammals. There are varying lines.

For abortion, I don't have an exact line that I advocate is absolute, but it is clearly much later than conception if conscious thought is the guideline. I can understand limits on third trimester when at least a brain exists, and I don't oppose such bans.

The problem isn't with the concept of abortion. The problem is with how "safe, legal, and rare" has turned into "even though it looks like a little human I'm going to bury my head in the sand and call it fetal tissue so I don't have to face the truth of what I'm doing; let's use abortion as a primary means of birth control so we can reward bad behavior and bad choices; let's abort up to and beyond birth; let's let children get abortions without parental knowledge; let's do as many abortions as possible so we can sell the remains for dubious research and keep the money flowing in."

In the extreme case of Kermit Gosnell, the PA dept of health chose to not stop him - they simply wanted to not know what was going on so they didn't have to act and it took an investigation into potential drug dealing by him that a light was shined on his little shop of horrors...  https://www.globalblackhistory.com/liberal-racism-the-case-of-dr-kermit-gosnell/

So that's where we're at - we've allowed the abortion industry to proceed so far beyond what was reasonable (let alone legal), that we *need* the pendulum to swing as far back in the opposite direction as possible...

And Gosnell isn't an isolated case... https://www.newsweek.com/dc-abortion-pictures-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-opinion-1698021

Gosnell isn't a sole case, but he is in no way representative of the typical abortion - which happens during the first trimester at around 8 weeks, from a mother who has decided they cannot care for an additional child. In general, the trend of abortions in the U.S. has been this:


Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/19490/us-abortion-rate-guttmacher-institute/

The rate of abortions has decreased to around half of the peak rate in 1980.

Internationally, the U.S. has roughly similar rates to abortions in most other First World countries - and much less that the post-Soviet countries (especially Russia) - but higher than India or countries where abortion is illegal (like much of Latin America).

You further illustrate the point that a small extremist minority is being allowed to dictate to the rest of us. Why would abortion activists continue to push extreme levels and methods of abortion when fewer women are getting them now?

And, Gosnell is not that rare.  When the state of PA, in the wake of Gosnell, changed state law and started to treat abortion facilities like any other ambulatory surgical facility (and actually inspected them), they were forced to shut down two abortion centers owned by Stephen Brigham where late term abortions (i.e. against PA law) were being performed. Another one which had no doctor or RN on staff and which was right down the street from the state capitol had it's license revoked.  This, after planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion entities fought enactment of the change in the law as being dangerous and unnecessary.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/03/02/pennsylvania-proves-scotus-should-uphold-texas-abortion-safety-standards/

This after PA simply stopped inspecting any abortion facility which directly led to Gosnell's getting away with murder for close to 20 years...  How many other facilities were doing the same or similar?  Well never know.

And it happens wherever authorities bury their heads - it's kind of like that Simpsons episode where Bart goes to France.  No one wants to investigate when he reports child abuse by the farmer, but as soon as he tells them that the farmer is adulterating wine, they finally investigate...