D. Dostie: Why the media blackout on Gosnell?

One word: hypocrites.

In describing the media — NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and most newspapers, including this one —  for not covering the grisly murder trial of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

How far you media personnel go to quiet anything that goes against your pro-death agendas.

Thanks to LifeSiteNews.com and Fox News, where we can still find truthful and unbiased news reporting.

Daniel Dostie, Lewiston

Editor's note: Dr. Gosnell is on trial in Philadelphia for killing one female patient during an abortion and seven babies who survived illegal late-term abortions. The trial is the result of a three-year federal investigation and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I don’t believe in God, but

I don’t believe in God, but I’m damn sure I have right to life and a right to fight with deadly force to protect it that no man can deny me.

At least you admit to a definitive point where live begins.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Dr. Gosnell's story has been well told

by every news outlet. If the facts are correct, he should be convicted for he has committed a crime. This letter is simply exploiting the news to defend an irrational position.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Let's look at

Let's look at this way. Abortions save taxpayers billions of dollars a year on welfare costs. Not only on the one that was aborted, but on the next generations of their offspring collecting welfare.

Now seriously. How is it a fifteen year old female can get an abortion without any permission from a parent or guardian? But this same fifteen year old cannot be given any medical care without a parent or guardian's consent.

Bob Woodbury's picture

You need...

...to blow your nose.

RONALD RIML's picture

So why write to the Lewiston Sun-Journal, Daniel??

If you don't include it in your list of "Truthful and unbiased news" sites??

Got your own agenda going????

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Basically, the man murdered

Basically, the man murdered the woman and 7 babies (see above). It wasn't all over the media because the media, being pro-abortion, will do most anything to protect its pet causes, the 'right to choose' being one of them. And, after all, they were only 'unborn fetuses'. But, if an anti-abortionist had murdered Gosnell...now that's news, baby. See my point?

Bob Woodbury's picture

Might that be...

...because one procedure is legal and one is not? Just sayin'.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wood...dy, The Dr killed a

Wood...dy,

The Dr killed a living human. That is why he is charged with a crime. Once the baby is born, living, breathing, it cannot be aborted.

Moreover, your position runs counter to all your ranting and crying over Sandy Hook. Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I’ll consider this hypocrisy evidence that Sandy Hook means more about gun control to you than children's lives.

Bob Woodbury's picture

At Sandy Hook...

...living, breathing human being, several tears old were murdered. In relation to abortion, there is intelligent debate over when life begins. As in any debate, there are radicals on both sides. Unfortunately, these folks are not really helpful in the debate. I have not seen a reasoned conclusion to the debate one way or another. You will take your hypocrisy anywhere you can get it. I understand that. You make no attempt to try and understand any other position on anything but your own.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Normally love your comments

Rational, and well thought out. But no. There is no intelligent debate over when life begins. On the one side you have extremists motivated by the same religious insanity that motivated the Boston Marathon bombers proclaiming that god implanted the "soul" at the moment of conception and therefore the "baby" most be protected until its born and then we can forget about it. On the other we have people who believe that citizens under our Constitution have the right to protect their life by getting the medical care the choose. Sorry, when life begins has nothing to do with it.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Talk about the blind leading

Talk about the blind leading the blind.
Putting those who are pro-life in the same category as the marathon bombers is sick, Jon; even for you.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Hardly

Same motivation; just ask the "Army of God".

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

When did the army of God last

When did the army of God last kill people with pressure cooker bombs?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

I don't believe they have; but that's probably only

because they didn't have the technology. So far they prefer rifles.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And who, exactly, are the

And who, exactly, are the 'army of God'?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

A Christian terrorist anti-abortion group

I believe they are concentrated in the Midwest. But thank you for asking. I was only aware of a small portion of their activities. HBO presented a documentary on the group some years ago. They do like bombs:

From Wikipedia: The earliest documented incidence of the Army of God being involved with anti-abortion activity occurred in 1982. Three men associated with the organization held Hector Zevallos, an abortion doctor, and his wife, Rosalee Jean, hostage. The hostages were later released unharmed. [3] The "East Coast division" of the AOG claimed responsibility when three men, including Michael Bray, planted bombs at seven abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. in 1985.[4]

The AOG claimed responsibility for Eric Robert Rudolph's 1997 nail bombing of abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham as well as an Atlanta lesbian bar.[5]

Clayton Waagner, claiming to act on the part of the "Virginia Dare Chapter" of the AOG, mailed over 500 letters containing white powder to 280 abortion providers in 2001. The letters claimed that the powder was anthrax; though it was not identified as such, the tactic took advantage of the public's fear of biological warfare after the recent real anthrax attacks.

The group is also associated with a number of murders of abortion providers. Some of these murders, such as Shelley Shannon, claimed association with the AOG; in other cases, while the killer expressed no affiliation with the group, the AOG has lionized their acts and taken up their cause

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One observation about

One observation about Jonathan is that is whole world is based on government defining all. Sad in my opinion since humans are fallible, government is made of humans, so it too is fallible.

Know I understand those who followed Hitler instead of standing up to him.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

No it isn't

Government is derived from humans. Government is the end of the story not the beginning. All is fallible. Nothing is infallible. Rights are an attribute of humans not governments. The left stood up to Hitler and millions died. Conservatives made the deal that made Hitler chancellor and they always will. As usual you have it backwards.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“Sorry, when life begins has

“Sorry, when life begins has nothing to do with it.”

Great, then perhaps your mother still has a choice to abort you. Ostensibly, there is a defining line when life begins. Otherwise, the first part of my statement is attainable.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Life isn't the issue

Citizenship is! A cockroach is alive, but not a citizen. It has no vote. The Constitution and the laws are a binding agreement among citizens. A fetus is not a party to the agreement. Life is only a religious idea and therefore not a subject of that agreement.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

So we can still abort you if

So we can still abort you if you’re not a citizen after the fact? You’re not making sense.

One is a citizen when born on U.S. soil, so live does have a beginning even in on your terms.

Does not the right to life transcend any law of man?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Your comment exposes the problem

"Does not the right to life transcend any law of man?" The implication is clear - the right to life is a religious idea, dogma, not political, social, constitutional as you would describe it. No god. No rights derived from god. Our inherent rights are based solely on consciousness; on the fact that we as far as we know it are the only conscious beings in existence. Someday that may change. One of those rights is the right to life but only when we are conscious, rational beings. That may be defined as at birth, or at 16, or 18, or 21 or at any other age as determined by our culture. But certainly not at conception. Never, I repeat, never in the history of humanity has this dumb idea that humaness begins at conception been proposed. Only now when religious zealots wish to protect their perverted conceptions of human sexuality and specifically their male supremacy has this idea been articulated.
To your question, yes any pregnancy can be terminated solely on the needs of the mother.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If the baby isn't alive at

If the baby isn't alive at conception, why does the mother nourish it? Why would the body nourish a dead, non-living fetus? IT'S ALIVE, JON!!!

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

First, its isn't a baby

and yes its alive. But it is not a baby, nor a human, nor a citizen. Those are defined not by life but by birth. The idea, that a fetus has all the rights of a human being, is a brand new distortion of the language. The Supreme Court had it right in 1973. A fetus gains the right to continue to live when it is independent of the mother - viable. Until then they have a shared existence which either may terminate. Before 1840's, this was a woman's private business that a man would not think of interferring with. But with the Second Great Awakening religious dogma began to corrupt the country and laws were passed to protect the "soul" god had produced. Religious dogma must be excluded from the law. There is no secular reason to prohibit aborption before viability. Just as there is no secular reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Secularly speaking, we might

Secularly speaking, we might just as well all be dogs and cats.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

We are

just conscious dogs and cats.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wood..dy, let’s have a

Wood..dy, let’s have a discussion.

How many tears must be shed before you consider a new born to be human? We are listening. Here is your stage. Convince the readers that a baby, once born, can be aborted after the fact.

According to your previous statements it is somewhere between several and all those shed up to the age of 6. Please give the readers a number.

Bob Woodbury's picture

A baby born...

...then killed is murder. I don't disagree with that. If that is what the court finds, I will agree with it. I choose to wait and see how this incident adds to the debate. I suppose that's a crime, too.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Fair enough, let’s see what

Fair enough, let’s see what the courts find.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Wood...dy, The Dr killed a

Wood...dy,

The Dr killed a living human. That is why he is charged with a crime. Once the baby is board, living, breathing, it cannot be aborted.

Moreover, your position runs counter to all your ranting and crying over Sandy Hook. Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

I’ll consider this hypocrisy evidence that Sandy Hook means more about gun control to you than children's lives.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Your second paragraph

Your second paragraph presents a keen observation.Well done.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The babies were killed

The babies were killed resulting from illegal late term abortions. Looks like murder to me.

Mark Wrenn's picture

think

Gosnell is what happens when the forced birth crowd attempt to make abortion illegal. The more difficult you make it for a woman to exercise her right to control her own body, the more Gosnells there are going to be.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You should take your own

You should take your own advice – THINK.

Abortion is not illegal, so why did these women wait until the last minute to seek abortion? The Dr allegedly broke existing law, so now he has to defend his actions.

The question that I have is why did these women wait so long to abort if that was their choice. At some point, it is too late to abort, we all agree with my assertion. If you disagree, then perhaps you can see a late term abortion for yourself on behave of your mother.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...