>owned and operated the Women's Medical Society Clinic, a non-compliant abortion clinic

>Gosnell was convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce birth, was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the death of one woman during an abortion procedure, and was convicted of several other medically related crimes.[3][4][5][6][7]

This dude should never have been a doctor in the first place and this is your shining example? Brilliant

>2011, Gosnell, his wife Pearl, and eight employees were charged with a total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

I can't tell if you're a bad faith actor yourself or you just believe the nonsense put forth by the nationalist extremist party

You said it never happens, but it does. Most doctors that offer the late term abortions don't get in trouble because they're not as sloppy as him.

So the question remains, the one you refuse to answer - why would we not restrict ELECTIVE abortions after a certain point in a pregnancy? What is the argument against that? Nobody is arguing against it if they're medically necessary, I'm asking specifically about elective abortions beyond the point of viability. That's it. That's where the breakdown occurs for most people.

Sounds to me like he patients were not aware of what he was doing

And he was doing a hell of a lot more than just abortions

>The DEA, The FBI, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy relating to the practice's illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

So again, you pick out one guy who should not have been a physician who did not inform his patient of what he was doing

And this detail is pretty important, these were not abortions but murders after birth

>They arise because of the "born alive rule", a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim's being born alive

Pointing this guy out is like pointing out that old veteran who's like 110 years old and smokes and drinks every day and claiming nobody gets cancer from smoking and drinking

You are aware that murder, killing people who are already born, is already illegal? These examples were not abortions, plain and simple

Only the "41 week old abortions" were treated as murder, the 39 week old ones weren't. My question is - what's the difference? In your mind, how do you justify a 39 week old elective abortion?

That's not an abortion

Not only is it derailing of a serious issue, it is deliberately visceral, disturbing, which makes it harder to debate logically about. Standard tactic: wind them up so they don't notice the inconsistencies.

And you still haven't answered - what is your logic for not having a problem with a 36, 37, 38 week etc elective abortion? What is the argument for allowing them?