PDA

View Full Version : Kansas Abortion Doctor Murdered in Church



Pages : [1] 2

Antifa
31st May 09, 02:08 PM
I knew this man, helped defend his clinic in 2001. Good guy. He always knew they would get him some day.

link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/?ocid=twitter

text:

Report: Kansas abortion physician killed
Controversial doctor was acquitted in March on charges related to his work

WICHITA, Kansas - Media reports say that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church.

Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades.

The Wichita Eagle was reporting on its Web site, Kansas.com, that Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church, where he was a member of the congregation. The newspaper reported that witnesses and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.

There was no information about whether a suspect was in custody.

Tiller had been acquitted in March of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict the state’s medical board announced it was investigating allegations against him that are nearly identical to those the jury had rejected.

Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.

Claimed prosecution was politically motivated
Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple had declined to speak to reporters afterward.

Tiller had claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated. An attorney general who opposed abortion rights began the investigation into Tiller’s clinic more than four years ago, but both his successor, who filed the criminal charges, and the current attorney general support abortion rights.

Tiller had been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

The Wichita Eagle reported Sunday that Tiller's clinic had been severely vandalized earlier this month. The newspaper said the Associated Press reported that wires to security cameras and outdoor lights were cut and that the vandals also cut through the roof and plugged the building's downspouts.

Tiller had reportedly asked the FBI to investigate the incident, which caused thousands of dollars of damage to the clinic when rain poured through the roof.

Antifa
31st May 09, 02:28 PM
more on this:

http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

SFGOON
31st May 09, 02:38 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear about your friend. My condolences.

God I hate Kansas.

Antifa
31st May 09, 02:41 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear about your friend. My condolences.

God I hate Kansas.

I wouldnt call him a friend. friendly aquiantence. but still... thanks

fes_fsa
31st May 09, 04:09 PM
that's just horrible.

he goes to church to find solace... and those anti-abortion assholes are hounding him there.

they just don't let up, do they?

i swear... church would be great if it weren't for all the zealots.

Antifa
31st May 09, 04:14 PM
that's just horrible.

he goes to church to find solace... and those anti-abortion assholes are hounding him there.

they just don't let up, do they?

i swear... church would be great if it weren't for all the zealots.

Life around Tiller's clinic gets you no peace. Anybody who goes near the place gets followed EVERYWHERE.

I rolled out there in 2001 with a small crew and met up with some other small crews to help defend the clinic during one of the fundies multi-week summer events. These fucks ran people plates and harrasses their family's by phone in other states.

They really dont fuck around.

Quikfeet509
31st May 09, 04:19 PM
Cough...although your story is better.


http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52896

Shawarma
31st May 09, 04:24 PM
Something which strikes me as odd: How come people killed this guy and bomb abortion clinics but haven't even tried killing Dr. Kevorkian?

Doritosaurus Chex
31st May 09, 04:28 PM
Babies are cuter than the terminally ill on life support, thus are more important.

Antifa
31st May 09, 04:30 PM
Babies are cuter than the terminally ill on life support, thus are more important.

horsehuckey

they all look like naked winston churchill

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
31st May 09, 04:39 PM
Cough...although your story is better.


http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52896

fuck yo thread nigga!

TheLordHumungus
31st May 09, 04:54 PM
So, can we stop calling them pro-life now? Labeling them anti-abortion would be less confusing to those who wonder why the "pro-life" movement is responsible for so much murder and attempted murder.

Antifa
31st May 09, 04:56 PM
So, can we stop calling them pro-life now? Labeling them anti-abortion would be less confusing to those who wonder why the "pro-life" movement is responsible for so much murder and attempted murder.

We dont. They call themselves that and its a rather shrewd way of framing the debate.

Doritosaurus Chex
31st May 09, 05:02 PM
So, can we stop calling them pro-life now? Labeling them anti-abortion would be less confusing to those who wonder why the "pro-life" movement is responsible for so much murder and attempted murder.

The whole Anti prefix reeks of negativity. It's bad for PR. Anything anti can become pro if you twist it the right way. Just like, you're not being anti-gay, but pro-straight.

Cullion
31st May 09, 05:06 PM
I'm genuinely sorry that your friend died. I'm not a cold person.

However, my views on abortion are probably different from yours. I would like to know more about the kind of late term abortions he performed before I scream 'foul'.

Antifa
31st May 09, 05:09 PM
I'm genuinely sorry that your friend died. I'm not a cold person.

However, my views on abortion are probably different from yours. I would like to know more about the kind of late term abortions he performed before I scream 'foul'.

He was especially targeted because he was basically the only doctor in the country that would.

His practice was primarily Second Trimester and medically nessecary thrid trimester procedures.

Cullion
31st May 09, 05:15 PM
I refuse to launch on a rant before I know more.

What were the circumstances he felt were specially important?

P.S. How frequent did he claim 'medically necessary' third trimester abortions were ?

Antifa
31st May 09, 05:17 PM
I refuse to launch on a rant before I know more.

What were the circumstances he felt were specially important?

P.S. How frequent did he claim 'medically necessary' third trimester abortions were ?

Rare. But he was the only provider of any services in kansas. The third trimester procedures were typically referals from other parts of the country. So you have 2 doctors other than him signing off on each one.

Kansas law requires a second opinion before any procedure.

Ajamil
31st May 09, 05:22 PM
Fucks like this destroy any credibility with the agenda. If they're so murderously pissed about Roe v Wade they should be blowing up the Supreme Court, not harassing doctors.

Antifa
31st May 09, 05:25 PM
Fucks like this destroy any credibility with the agenda. If they're so murderously pissed about Roe v Wade they should be blowing up the Supreme Court, not harassing doctors.

its alot more than harrasment. Tiller had already been shot once and bombed once.

In kansas they make laws just for him. He spent more time in court than anybody should have to.

Shawarma
31st May 09, 05:37 PM
People like Tiller and Kevorkian = Grim realist heroes with really crappy jobs.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
31st May 09, 05:44 PM
so do i tie a ribbon around my wrist or wear a FREE TILLER shirt or something

Shawarma
31st May 09, 05:47 PM
Have a minute of silence. Then kick the nearest pregnant woman in the stomach.

Antifa
31st May 09, 05:50 PM
so do i tie a ribbon around my wrist or wear a FREE TILLER shirt or something

I dunno. I'm waiting for discussion in other circles to work out before I know what I'm gonna do.

Quikfeet509
31st May 09, 05:51 PM
My state sucks - Tiller gets executed after having a crappy last 20 or so years and Fred Phelps still walks around without worrying about getting killed or thrown in jail.

socratic
31st May 09, 05:51 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8076253.stm

BBC article also lists a few other attacks by anti-abortionists; various health care professionals being murdered by zealots. Good fun, good fun, save the babies 'cause jesus loves 'em, y'all

I love how the anti-abortionists say that they wanted the doctor 'brought to justice'. It's like they're confusing their own sense of morality as a universal truth or something. But no one would do that, no sir.

Harpy
31st May 09, 06:45 PM
I refuse to launch on a rant before I know more.

What were the circumstances he felt were specially important?

P.S. How frequent did he claim 'medically necessary' third trimester abortions were ?

A doctor was murdered for performing a legal procedure (one that was limited in availability and hopefully monitored stringently). If you feel the need to rant and somehow justify his murder due to your views on late-term abortions, this isn't the thread.

Ajamil
31st May 09, 06:49 PM
My state sucks - Tiller gets executed after having a crappy last 20 or so years and Fred Phelps still walks around without worrying about getting killed or thrown in jail.

To be fair, Phelps shouldn't have either of those things done to him for what he's done (though he should certainly get his ass handed to him by family members he's offended).

What really gets me is the terrorist nature of these acts. It's so kick-a-puppy stupid and cruel and pointless. Abortion may or may not be "right," but it certainly is legal (as shown through the numerous court cases I assume the man won?). If you want that changed then go after politicians. The doctors and nurses and the people in the medical field have almost no part in the system of law, so why terrorize them for laws you don't like?

Seriously, how are groups or people that bomb clinics or murder doctors NOT seen as terrorists?

Antifa
31st May 09, 06:50 PM
Seriously, how are groups or people that bomb clinics or murder doctors NOT seen as terrorists?

by being republican

Tanhalen21
1st June 09, 03:47 AM
Seriously, how are groups or people that bomb clinics or murder doctors NOT seen as terrorists?

Terrorists don't come in white, silly.

EuropIan
1st June 09, 04:34 AM
08C9O_4BbcA

socratic
1st June 09, 04:36 AM
Terrorists don't come in white, silly.

Domestic terrorists do, even the must repugnant of repugs will tell you that. In a lot of ways you could consider the overarching anti-abortion campaign as one of domestic terrorism, at least the violent wing of it- attempting to achieve a political end through non-military combatants enacting violence against civilians, preferably to instil fear or coercion. That more or less sounds about right, doesn't it?

socratic
1st June 09, 04:52 AM
08C9O_4BbcA

I hope that man drowns face-down in his own blood for comparing a doctor, who never did anything illegal, who was murdered, to a nazi war criminal. Bull fucking shit, Godwin, pro-lifers lose.

For all those who don't wanna watch the video (and trust me, you won't learn much if you do), here's what he more or less said in it: "That doctor who was shot to death, in a church, in front of his family and a crowd of onlookers? Yeah, he deserved to die and I actually think it's better that he's dead, and I'm more than wililng to believe he's in hell (but I can't say it out loud in case the family gets upset). I can't openly condone the murder of this man even though I do, and thus I'll use as much inflammatory language as I can to passively encourage the psychos in my demographic to do the jobs I wish to be done but can't ever say I want done. Like killing doctors. YAY JESUS YAAAAAY"

Nevermind that doctors are a precious commodity these days... Well, looks like all those women who need late abortions for medical reasons just get to die in childbirth while gay-for-jesus in the vid slaps them in the face with his pretentious bullshit dick.

Oh, and he compared pro-life bullshit to actual civil-rights movements. That was a nice touch. Oh, and he said "Don't not demonise those who disagree with you, because they're ALL EVIL"

EuropIan
1st June 09, 04:57 AM
I just forgot to say I wanted to shit in his heart but your synopsis is pretty accurate.

socratic
1st June 09, 05:03 AM
His "Murder is wrong but" bullshit makes me sick. It's his 'reap what you sow' bullshit, legitimising murder more or less as a divine act, that causes this kind of shit to occur.

So much for 'lead us not into evil'. There's a special place in Hell for men like that man.

Shawarma
1st June 09, 06:35 AM
From what I recall, God ordered a shitload of babies murdered in the old testament, dash the babies of Babylon upon rocks and all. Apparently, God doesn't find feti that cute once they're actually born.

Plasma
1st June 09, 07:08 AM
Makes you wish that zealots like this were aborted.

jkdbuck76
1st June 09, 07:43 AM
Using murder to stop murder. That is stupid.

Did they catch the perp?

Virus
1st June 09, 08:57 AM
Religion.

jkdbuck76
1st June 09, 09:18 AM
Yes. If there was no religion on earth, Virus, Dr. Tiller wouldn't have been an usher at that evil church and wouldn't have been shot.

Ajamil
1st June 09, 11:09 AM
I notice how in his pathetic comparison to other social reform movements that worked, not one of them used violence, bombs, or murder to get what they want.

Call him a mass murderer and use all the horrific rhetoric and gross pictures you want, but when you resort to striking first, it means to me that your words are wrong.

TheLordHumungus
1st June 09, 11:31 AM
I notice how in his pathetic comparison to other social reform movements that worked, not one of them used violence, bombs, or murder to get what they want.

Call him a mass murderer and use all the horrific rhetoric and gross pictures you want, but when you resort to striking first, it means to me that your words are wrong.

Actually, he did bring up the abolition of slavery. IIRC there was a bit of bloodshed surrounding that one.

HappyOldGuy
1st June 09, 01:10 PM
I refuse to launch on a rant before I know more.

What were the circumstances he felt were specially important?

P.S. How frequent did he claim 'medically necessary' third trimester abortions were ?
Two independent doctors under incredibly stringent scrutiny have to certify that the mother will suffer irreperable harm if the procedure is not performed.

And by incredibly stringent I mean elected officials who didn't like him would criminally charge him for every procedure. And force him to defend himself in court.

Don't be a douche on this one Cullion.




P.S. there is a suspect in custody.

P.P.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28abortion.html

Ajamil
1st June 09, 01:15 PM
Actually, he did bring up the abolition of slavery. IIRC there was a bit of bloodshed surrounding that one.

Missed that and well noted.

Quikfeet509
1st June 09, 06:11 PM
First ten minutes of the local news was all about it, with a touching scene where a former protester laid flowers at the memorial and was all shook up talking about how murdering him was wrong.

It was actually a nice touch.

Antifa
1st June 09, 07:02 PM
Perp Caught

From:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tiller_shooting

By ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated Press Writer Roxana Hegeman, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 29 mins ago

WICHITA, Kan. – A man suspected of fatally shooting abortion doctor George Tiller in church was in jail Monday while investigators sought to learn more about his background, including his possible connections to anti-abortion groups.

Tiller, 67, was serving as an usher during morning services Sunday when he was shot in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, police said. The gunman fired one shot at Tiller and threatened two other people who tried to stop him.

The suspect, identified by one law enforcement agency as Scott Roeder, was taken into custody some 170 miles away in a Kansas City suburb about three hours after the shooting.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston (FOHL'-stuhn) indicated that charges will not be filed Monday. Foulston noted that the state has 48 hours to charge anyone who is in custody and said she planned to take the full two days to decide. She said any charges would be filed in state court.

"We have taken jurisdiction," she said.

Also, a law enforcement official said investigators have searched two homes as part of the inquiry into Tiller's killing. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the investigation, said the homes are in Merriam, Kan., and Kansas City, Mo.

The official did not know what turned up during the searches.

Roeder's former wife, Lindsey Roeder, said he had lived at a house in Merriam but moved out months ago and was currently living in the Westport area of Kansas City. His brother, David Roeder, told The Topeka Capital-Journal the family is "shocked, horrified and filled with sadness at the death of Dr. Tiller" and the possible involvement of their relative.

He called his sibling "kind and loving," but said he suffered from mental illness at times in his life.

"None of us ever saw Scott as a person capable of or willing to take another person's life," David Roeder said.

Tiller had been a lightning rod for abortion opponents for decades. The women's clinic he ran is one of three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy, when the fetus is considered viable, and has been the site of repeated protests for about two decades.

A protester shot Tiller in both arms in 1993, and his clinic was bombed in 1985.

Scott Roeder, 51, was returned to Wichita and was being held without bail on one count of first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.

Outside the clinic, flowers were placed along a fence and the clinic flag flew at half staff. The anti-abortion group Kansas Coalition for Life left a sign saying members had prayed for Tiller's change of heart, "not his murder."

In Washington, the U.S. Marshals Service said that as a result of Tiller's shooting, Attorney General Eric Holder had ordered it to "increase security for a number of individuals and facilities." It gave no details.

Tiller's clinic is now under federal protection and he last had protection from the U.S. marshals in 2001. He and other doctors received such protection at different times in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, a man with the same name as the suspect has a criminal record and a background of anti-abortion postings on sympathetic Web sites. In one post written in 2007 on the Web site for the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, a man identifying himself as Scott Roeder asked if anyone had thought of attending Tiller's church to ask the doctor and other worshippers about his work. "Doesn't seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller," the post said.

But police said all early indications showed the shooter acted alone.

Operation Rescue condemned the killing as vigilantism and "a cowardly act," and the group's president, Troy Newman, said Roeder "has never been a member, contributor or volunteer." He may have posted to the organization's open Internet blog, Newman said, but so have thousands of nonmembers.

Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, whose protests have often targeted Tiller, called the slain doctor "a mass murderer," adding: "He was an evil man — his hands were covered with blood."

In 1996, a 38-year-old man named Scott Roeder was charged in Topeka with criminal use of explosives for having bomb components in his car trunk and sentenced to 2 years of probation. However, his conviction was overturned on appeal the next year after a higher court said evidence against Roeder was seized by law enforcement officers during an illegal search of his car.

At the time, police said the FBI had identified Roeder as a member of the anti-government Freemen group, an organization that kept the FBI at bay in Jordan, Mont., for almost three months in 1995-96. Authorities would not immediately confirm if their suspect was the same man.

Morris Wilson, a commander of the Kansas Unorganized Citizens Militia in the mid-1990s, told The Kansas City Star he knew Roeder fairly well.

"I'd say he's a good ol' boy, except he was just so fanatic about abortion," Wilson said. "He was always talking about how awful abortion was. But there's a lot of people who think abortion is awful."

The slaying quickly brought condemnation from both anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups, as well as President Barack Obama.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," Obama said in a statement.

Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said Tiller apparently did not have a bodyguard with him in church, although the doctor was routinely accompanied by one. An attorney for Tiller, Dan Monnat, said the doctor's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time of the shooting.

Monnat said in early May that Tiller had asked federal prosecutors to step up investigations of vandalism and other threats against the clinic out of fear that the incidents were increasing and that Tiller's safety was in jeopardy.

One of four doctors who performed abortions at the clinic said operations will resume next week. Dr. LeRoy Carhart said Tiller set up a rotation schedule with three other doctors so the clinic could continue "whether he is there in person or in spirit."

Monnat said it is too soon to know the long-term plans of the clinic.

The last killing of an abortion doctor was in October 1998 when Dr. Barnett Slepian was fatally shot in his home in a suburb of Buffalo, N.Y. A militant abortion opponent was convicted of the murder.

Monnat told CBS's "The Early Show" that Tiller had been supported by his wife and children in his decision to continue providing abortion services.

"If Dr Tiller is not going to service a woman's right to chose, who will do it?" Monnat said.

"Many of those have been terrorized and run off by protesters," he said about other abortion providers.

socratic
1st June 09, 09:25 PM
Hope the perp swings, if you guys still do that shit.

You know, the guy in the vid actually did say he wanted Tiller to die. He said he wanted Tiller to be tried and executed by a court of law. So yeah, special place in hell for assholes like vid-man.

Antifa
1st June 09, 09:52 PM
Hope the perp swings, if you guys still do that shit.

You know, the guy in the vid actually did say he wanted Tiller to die. He said he wanted Tiller to be tried and executed by a court of law. So yeah, special place in hell for assholes like vid-man.


Actually saw vid-man get de-pants'd once. Good times

Antifa
1st June 09, 10:03 PM
Hope the perp swings, if you guys still do that shit.


Kansas does the glass dick in the arm

Phrost
1st June 09, 10:08 PM
This will be all over local talk radio tomorrow. They've mentioned Tiller to no end so I'm interested in hearing what's said about all of it.

American Taliban in action.

Antifa
1st June 09, 10:12 PM
This will be all over local talk radio tomorrow. They've mentioned Tiller to no end so I'm interested in hearing what's said about all of it.

American Taliban in action.

You want to make predictions about which Icon of republican airwave jackassery is going to get his feet the furtherest down his won throat?

Phrost
1st June 09, 10:14 PM
The local guy is Chris Stigall, and he's on the rise to be the next Rush. I agree with him around 65% of the time, and obviously not on issues like this.

I just wish the libertarian wing of the party would start kicking ass and dump the goddamn fundies. It's so frustrating being forced to decide between civil liberties, and economic ones.

Antifa
1st June 09, 10:30 PM
The local guy is Chris Stigall, and he's on the rise to be the next Rush. I agree with him around 65% of the time, and obviously not on issues like this.

I just wish the libertarian wing of the party would start kicking ass and dump the goddamn fundies. It's so frustrating being forced to decide between civil liberties, and economic ones.

without one you cant have the other

Zendetta
1st June 09, 10:50 PM
I just wish the libertarian wing of the party would start kicking ass and dump the goddamn fundies.

What would that take? What's the Libertarian Party like in your neck of the woods?


American Taliban in action.

Dirka Dirka!

Sun Wukong
2nd June 09, 12:27 AM
what strikes me as the most annoying is the propaganda that the anti-abortion crowd uses. Equating it to murder when a great many of these women were facing life threatening complications and the unborn facing being born with multiple birth defects.

I'm not saying the man was necessarily an angel, but calling him a murderer after the fact and equating it to a justice subliminally is completely disgusting. The only reason they're even bothering to condemn the shooting is that they know it would make them look bad otherwise.

Fuck 'em.

Zaii
2nd June 09, 12:47 AM
Wasn't this the same guy that Bill O'Reily has been bitching about for years?

TheLordHumungus
2nd June 09, 01:00 AM
Fuck 'em.

^ this.

TheLordHumungus
2nd June 09, 01:02 AM
Wasn't this the same guy that Bill O'Reily has been bitching about for years?

Who knows, Bill O bitches about a lot of shit he doen't understand. I'll include him in this:


Fuck 'em

Zaii
2nd June 09, 01:15 AM
Who knows, Bill O bitches about a lot of shit he doen't understand. I'll include him in this:

No argument here. I was curious if it was the same guy. I looked, and it turns out it was. "Tiller the baby killer" was the moniker. His long term fixation with the guy is getting a bunch of coverage actually.

Tanhalen21
2nd June 09, 01:55 AM
Domestic terrorists do, even the must repugnant of repugs will tell you that. In a lot of ways you could consider the overarching anti-abortion campaign as one of domestic terrorism, at least the violent wing of it- attempting to achieve a political end through non-military combatants enacting violence against civilians, preferably to instil fear or coercion. That more or less sounds about right, doesn't it?
Was being ironic

Tanhalen21
2nd June 09, 02:00 AM
From what I recall, God ordered a shitload of babies murdered in the old testament, dash the babies of Babylon upon rocks and all. Apparently, God doesn't find feti that cute once they're actually born.

First-borns! Getchya fresh, hot first-borns!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/06/11/2004471725.jpg

Virus
2nd June 09, 04:04 AM
Christian thread about the issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts

socratic
2nd June 09, 04:13 AM
Was being ironic

Sorry man, I was in Rage Mode

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd June 09, 04:18 AM
Christian thread about the issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts

do they kiss their mothers with those mouths?

socratic
2nd June 09, 04:18 AM
Two things that stick out: Did you notice that although he is a church goer, the pro-lifers keep repeating the mantra 'I hope he finds God' or 'I hope he makes peace with his maker' or 'I hope he found Christ'? He did find Christ! HE WAS A CHRISTIAN! HE WAS SHOT IN A CHURCH!

Second, and this is particularly lol-worthy: One of the people on that message board (whereas everyone else was all RAAR DEATH TO THE SATAN WORSHIPPER MURDERER) said 'They'll use this to make us all look crazy'. YOU ARE FUCKING CRAZY.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd June 09, 04:22 AM
HEY
how about fetus necklaces for solidarity?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd June 09, 04:24 AM
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t67/BullshidoTrail/Kewpie.jpg

EuropIan
2nd June 09, 06:51 AM
Christian thread about the issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts

^

Reichstag Fire.

After that I closed the window.

bob
2nd June 09, 07:10 AM
Unfortunately the supreme wankery of these people is obscuring a very real concern. The US has one of the highest rates of late term abortion in the Western world, and the number of these that are done because a woman's life or health is at risk may not be as high as you think.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#cite_note-Torres-2)

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% OtherI'm sorry, if you abort a viable fetus in your third trimester because you just couldn't get your shit together, my douchebag liberal sympathies are going to be spent better elsewhere.

jkdbuck76
2nd June 09, 07:11 AM
I'm wondering if they'll have a mental competency hearing of the perp.?

And I say that because the talking heads are saying that he has a screw loose.

Of course he does! He shot a man in cold blood!

Quikfeet509
2nd June 09, 10:35 AM
Unfortunately the supreme wankery of these people is obscuring a very real concern. The US has one of the highest rates of late term abortion in the Western world, and the number of these that are done because a woman's life or health is at risk may not be as high as you think.

From wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#cite_note-Torres-2)

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% OtherI'm sorry, if you abort a viable fetus in your third trimester because you just couldn't get your shit together, my douchebag liberal sympathies are going to be spent better elsewhere.



Although I would be cautious in universalizing this data to women in Amerika as a whole without knowing how they selected the respondents, I do agree with your final point.


You inability to get your shit together (poor planning) should not constitute an emergency on someone else's part.

HappyOldGuy
2nd June 09, 10:44 AM
1987 is not a good reference year. especially not when your own wiki cite gives actual current numbers the paragraph above. The section you listed is there because of the reasons given, not the frequency.

Third trimester abortions are illegal in the US, except under pretty significant hurdles. (details vary by state)

Edit: http://iowaindependent.com/2565/open-letter-to-obama-a-personal-perspective-on-late-term-abortion

So we're clear what we mean by hurdles and allowable. A woman with an acephalic (no brain) foetus does not qualify in some states.

EuropIan
2nd June 09, 03:28 PM
Jonathan Turley kicks much ass in this segment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31053948#31053948

Shawarma
2nd June 09, 04:21 PM
"Eric Rudolph bombed an abortion clinic, a gay bar and the Atlanta olympics."

What the hell? Are Olympic athletes fag enablers or something?

EuropIan
2nd June 09, 04:33 PM
n the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations spent billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect these best of all games. Even though the conception and purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is to promote the values of global socialism, as perfectly expressed in the song Imagine by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these despicable ideals, the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand.

The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested.

Sooooo...uh...erm..yeah...ok?

Shawarma
2nd June 09, 04:42 PM
It...probably made sense at the time.

EuropIan
2nd June 09, 04:50 PM
No, you see:

Olympics = Socialism

Socialism = Evil

Evil = Abortion

->

Olympics = Abortion.

Shawarma
2nd June 09, 05:02 PM
After reading about that guy I feel reaffirmed in my beliefs that somebody's gonna bust a cap in Obama's ass before his term is over.

EuropIan
2nd June 09, 05:07 PM
what will his middle name be?

Shawarma
2nd June 09, 05:16 PM
Uh...Atawolf?

TheLordHumungus
2nd June 09, 11:43 PM
At least one of Tiller's colleagues has said that the clinic will reopen and resume the work it was doing. It would be a shame to see them cave into these religious terrorists

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
3rd June 09, 12:04 AM
This is a case like the World Trade Center, where instead of letting the terrorists win we should build the abortion clinic fifty stories tall with a burning middle finger on top.

TheLordHumungus
3rd June 09, 01:31 AM
This is a case like the World Trade Center, where instead of letting the terrorists win we should build the abortion clinic fifty stories tall with a burning middle finger on top.

^this.

Fucking well said.

Tanhalen21
3rd June 09, 01:49 AM
This is a case like the World Trade Center, where instead of letting the terrorists win we should build the abortion clinic fifty stories tall with a burning middle finger on top.
I didn't laugh...


Because it's too true.

In addition, I think we should start manufacturing babies just so we can kill them

TheLordHumungus
3rd June 09, 02:22 AM
I didn't laugh...


Because it's too true.

In addition, I think we should start manufacturing babies just so we can kill them

I'm on it.

Sun Wukong
3rd June 09, 06:22 AM
Christian thread about the issue:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts

I love how the same mother fuckers saying how this guy did damage to their movement also make the case about how Tillman had it coming in the same fucking paragraph.

The irony is very, very loud.

jubei33
3rd June 09, 07:11 AM
I love how the same mother fuckers saying how this guy did damage to their movement also make the case about how Tillman had it coming in the same fucking paragraph.

The irony is very, very loud.


"well fuck man, he shouldn't have been such an easy target. Goin' to church and all, not like god listens to his shit anyway.....am I rite?

we pro-lifers refuse to put a value on life, its fucking sacred and you heathens wouldn't understand. You can't make me feel sorry for choosing 1 vs 10000."

Ajamil
3rd June 09, 12:35 PM
This is a case like the World Trade Center, where instead of letting the terrorists win we should build the abortion clinic fifty stories tall with a burning middle finger on top.

If we light the fire WITH babies, we could probably get Baal to protect us from the fundies.

Ajamil
3rd June 09, 12:49 PM
Double post.

EuropIan
5th June 09, 04:29 AM
Related to my first vid with "smug vid douche" of Operation Rescue.
EgjwcsicNDs

Cullion
5th June 09, 04:18 PM
The ranting sports-team atheism quotient in this thread was high.

From some of the same people who espouse the death penalty from crimes less severe than killing lots of children, too.

Zendetta
5th June 09, 04:45 PM
Related to my first vid with "smug vid douche" of Operation Rescue.
EgjwcsicNDs

Usually Maddow is bubbly and perky. I've never seen her so freaked out and on edge as she was when reporting on this

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 04:53 PM
The way she and others are using this to jump from legit security needs to muzzling the opposition pisses me off to no end.

Shut up bitch. There is no connection between closing off protest areas by clinics and this shooting, no matter how far you bend sideways.

Zendetta
5th June 09, 04:57 PM
I can dig what you are saying.

I like that this is being called out for what it is ("terrorism"), but I'm disturbed that some folks want to do a latte-liberal version of "Rights Schmights, this is Terrorism!"

Cullion
5th June 09, 05:41 PM
If there's one thing sacred to liberals like her it's the right to kill 7 month old foetuses without somebody noisily pointing out that's what they're doing.

Antifa
5th June 09, 06:06 PM
The way she and others are using this to jump from legit security needs to muzzling the opposition pisses me off to no end.

Shut up bitch. There is no connection between closing off protest areas by clinics and this shooting, no matter how far you bend sideways.

disagree.

let me point this out okay.

So we have this guy, violates federal law what 4 times in the last year, is on tape doing it, never gets arrested.

You have him in communication with a known, above ground network, working on the same issue. Many of the people in this organization have a history of conspiracy to bomb or actual bombing or other acts of violence.

Further, there is an above ground organization that has not renounced violence called the Army of God. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)). As you can see they are not a big secret if they have a wiki page that lasts their members. Most of the people on that list are walking around free as bird.

For instance the one listed on that page as living in Newark ohio was investigated by the ATF along with 4 other dudes when they started to try and aquire Full Auto Toys. They were not investigated for parking an Army Surplus duece and half in front of a clinic every saturday, standing on the back in full cammo and waving american flags. They were not investigated or arrested for tresspassing onto clinic property nor for assulting clients boyfriends/husbands despite the police being on site and there being multiple video cameras in play.

People associated with the Army of God have a semi-public banquet every year in DC called the white rose banquet. 2-300 people attend. They give each other awards for the violence they carry out and raise money for the people they have in prison. You can pay your money and go to the banquet if you want, its not like they are held in secret.

None of these people have been arrested or investigated for providing material support to terrorists or conspiracy. Both of which are federal crimes. Tresspassing, vandalism and assault are also federal crimes in this context. Very few of these people are prosecuted and very few convicted. 17 prosecutions a year is nothing when with a video camera you could probably get evidence for 17 prosecutions per clinic per month.

This is the context.

Now consider what would happen if me and mine decided to go ahead with a shooting and bombing campaign on.... well just about anything... Dontcha think everybody I ever so mucH AS said hello to in the last 20 years would get a doorknock from the EFF-BE of EYE ?

Lets check out this left-wing "terrorist" group that carries out home demos and minor vandalism and such. Not the nicest tactics in the world for sure, but nobody has been bombed or shot, and the intesity level is much lower.

http://www.shac7.com/case.htm

So these animal rights activists caught a huge case for running a website, much like tillerwatch, and are in federal prison. They havent been convicted of doing anything to anyone or anything, just advocate and talking about such actions.

The work they are doing is covered by the Federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act. which is a law along the lines of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Law of 1994.

I'm not a vegan animal rights activist, and I dont know these people personally, and I dont think that animal rights stuff is a valid use of my time and I dont put money on these people's commisaries.

I would however like to point out a certain disparity, both in sentencing and in the amount of investigative resources devoted both movements. I'd also like to point out a disparity in the level of violence.

Now I'm not saying that I think the government needs more power to go after these medevil fucksticks, because murder is still muder, arson is still arson, and conspiracy is still conspiracy etc.

What I'm saying is that state has little to no interest in protecting the rights of women to control their own bodies as enumerated by its own laws. And I feel like there is now 36 years of evidence to support this claim.

If for instance, I got out of bed tomorrow morning and say, took some action to proportionetly respond to the murder of doctor Tiller, everybody I know would wind up in jail. or gitmo. Which is why that sort of thing doesnt happen.

I'm not saying I'm going to go out and burn a church, but if I saw one burning I'd run to the store to get graham crackers, chocolate and marshmellows right fuckin quick.

There are other reasons for the existance of the FACE law which I'll get to in a minute, I'll let this post percolate first.

bob
5th June 09, 06:09 PM
1987 is not a good reference year. especially not when your own wiki cite gives actual current numbers the paragraph above. The section you listed is there because of the reasons given, not the frequency.

Third trimester abortions are illegal in the US, except under pretty significant hurdles. (details vary by state)



Honest question - some states allow late term abortions if the 'health of the mother' is at risk. Elsewhere I've seen this defined pretty loosely in regards to the mother's mental health. How is it defined in those states?

EuropIan
5th June 09, 06:27 PM
The way she and others are using this to jump from legit security needs to muzzling the opposition pisses me off to no end.

Shut up bitch. There is no connection between closing off protest areas by clinics and this shooting, no matter how far you bend sideways.
and none between him constantly being updated about this doctors whereabouts...

oh wait..

(I am not saying one should pull out RICO, that's dumb)

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 06:28 PM
There are other reasons for the existance of the FACE law which I'll get to in a minute, I'll let this post percolate first.

Has lots to do with the legitimate need to treat this as a terrorism investigation. Has absolutely fuckall to do with protest restrictions outside of clinics.

You can let this percolate all you want. Simple fact. You and yours are allowed to protest outside of military recruiting stations, police stations, and pretty much anywhere else your little hearts desire. The most you have to deal with is distance restrictions and not blocking public access. Exactly the same as the abortion protesters. And that's exactly as it should be.

For fucks sake. I have to wade through these idiots on a semi regular basis, and I still wouldn't have it any other way.

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 06:29 PM
Honest question - some states allow late term abortions if the 'health of the mother' is at risk. Elsewhere I've seen this defined pretty loosely in regards to the mother's mental health. How is it defined in those states?

I'm not sure what you are asking. It varies alot.

bob
5th June 09, 06:38 PM
What I'm asking is, who makes the judgement that a woman's mental health is at risk? Is it the doctor doing the abortion?

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 06:40 PM
What I'm asking is, who makes the judgement that a woman's mental health is at risk? Is it the doctor doing the abortion?

It varies extremely much across states.

In Kansas (where the guy in question lived) it's two independent doctors.

Cullion
5th June 09, 06:46 PM
What medical conditions are actually treatable by late-term abortion of a child, and
how common are they ?

Antifa
5th June 09, 06:49 PM
Has lots to do with the legitimate need to treat this as a terrorism investigation. Has absolutely fuckall to do with protest restrictions outside of clinics.

You can let this percolate all you want. Simple fact. You and yours are allowed to protest outside of military recruiting stations, police stations, and pretty much anywhere else your little hearts desire. The most you have to deal with is distance restrictions and not blocking public access. Exactly the same as the abortion protesters. And that's exactly as it should be.

For fucks sake. I have to wade through these idiots on a semi regular basis, and I still wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm barely "allowed" to do anything. At any protest I've been at, ANY hint of an infraction will get you busted nearly every time.

You have cops there waiting for the moment when they can possibly construe anything you are doing as blocking a public throughfare, or disturbing the peace, or moping with attempt to gawk or leaning with intent to fall or whatever bullshit they want to cook up this time.

But that is not why I'm even dicussing the FACE law other than to point out that it is a routinely broken federal law that goes almost unenforced. and broken by people that later move on to the harder stuff with regularity and impunity.


The FACE law got made in 1994 by the time it was almost unessecary. After the big multi-week protests in 1991 and 1992 in Buffalo and Witchita and other places people started to defend clinic themselves.

In cincinatti in 1991, 1992 and 1993 I was in multi-day throwdowns with these fools that got downright nasty. And believe you me brother these fucksticks were not non-violent. and the police were totally on their side. We got arrested if we even touched them. The result... touch them really hard...

By the time the law got signed into law in 1994 I feel like the tide had turned enough that I thought it wasnt needed and that people's grassroots defense of clinics was working just fine without bill clinton getting in the way... That's what I'm saying.

In a way the law saved their movement from actual physical defeat.

------

That being said... if you are going to make a law, use it or repeal it... but dont dick me the fuck around.

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 07:40 PM
You have no idea how hilarious it is that you think you can lecture me about these things.

Antifa
5th June 09, 07:46 PM
You have no idea how hilarious it is that you think you can lecture me about these things.

Not lecturing... just calling it like I see it.

You work at a clinic?

If so, what is your perspective on FACE?

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 08:03 PM
Not lecturing... just calling it like I see it.

You work at a clinic?

If so, what is your perspective on FACE?

No no. I work in the same building as a clinic. But I have done clinic defense, going back to the late 80's.

FACE is fine. Around here the cops absolutely do enforce it. Every time we have a demonstration ths cops are there. I don't think it or the clinic defenses were the main reasons why the protests died down. I think mostly it was that these things naturally run in waves. 93/94 was one, another in 97/98, and I think we're facing another one. Like 93/94 it's because of who is in the whitehouse. I also know that many people were turned off by the violence. And of course it was important that people did keep the clinics open. But I'm fresh out of rose colored glasses. I'm quite aware that for the most part, we didn't. They successfully drove something like half of the abortion providers out of operation, especially in places where there weren't alot to begin with.

Antifa
5th June 09, 08:15 PM
No no. I work in the same building as a clinic. But I have done clinic defense, going back to the late 80's..

BACORR?



FACE is fine. Around here the cops absolutely do enforce it. Every time we have a demonstration ths cops are there. .

Bay Area Right? My experience is different, mostly midwestern and quite nasty.


I don't think it or the clinic defenses were the main reasons why the protests died down. I think mostly it was that these things naturally run in waves. 93/94 was one, another in 97/98, and I think we're facing another one. Like 93/94 it's because of who is in the whitehouse. I also know that many people were turned off by the violence. And of course it was important that people did keep the clinics open. But I'm fresh out of rose colored glasses. I'm quite aware that for the most part, we didn't. They successfully drove something like half of the abortion providers out of operation, especially in places where there weren't alot to begin with.

For us here, it was much worse 91-93... 94 it dropped off.

97 a little more... 98 not so much...

But yeah... This next couple of years are gonna give us a spike in it again...

But getting back to the point, I definately feel like as we got nastier about it around here, they started to back off alot more. In 91 they were really bold, by 93, they didnt seem to have the numbers or the guts they did in 91. Then came FACE... and it was used as much here to keep us off the line as them...

Producing a stalemate.

But geographical differences and all...

Interesting.

HappyOldGuy
5th June 09, 08:29 PM
I think by the time FACE came around it had already turned from "counter protesting" to "clinic defense" around here. They were pretty disciplined and organized and pretty much just go get the girl, form a wall, and walk her in. So I don't see how FACE would come into it in that context. Counter protesting obviously opens up a whole nuther kettle of fish.

socratic
6th June 09, 01:49 AM
If there's one thing sacred to liberals like her it's the right to kill 7 month old foetuses without somebody noisily pointing out that's what they're doing.

FOR MEDICAL REASONS. This isn't hard you silly old bastard. And people have repeated at least 5 times now the qualifications to get one are EXTREMELY stringent (there was a testimony of a woman being denied one even though their baby literally had no brain and would die upon birth). In the case of Kansas, once again, you need two independent doctors to sign off, then the doctor doing the abortion will get investigated, and then so will the other two doctors. It's not like people just say "Whoops changed my mind haha!" and manage to get a legal late-term abortion. It's for medical reasons.


I think by the time FACE came around it had already turned from "counter protesting" to "clinic defense" around here. They were pretty disciplined and organized and pretty much just go get the girl, form a wall, and walk her in. So I don't see how FACE would come into it in that context. Counter protesting obviously opens up a whole nuther kettle of fish.

Since FACE is meant to make it illegal to block access, I guess it means you shouldn't legally NEED a wall of officers to get in; you could just arrest those fuckers.

Cullion
6th June 09, 01:26 PM
FOR MEDICAL REASONS. This isn't hard you silly old bastard. And people have repeated at least 5 times now the qualifications to get one are EXTREMELY stringent (there was a testimony of a woman being denied one even though their baby literally had no brain and would die upon birth). In the case of Kansas, once again, you need two independent doctors to sign off, then the doctor doing the abortion will get investigated, and then so will the other two doctors. It's not like people just say "Whoops changed my mind haha!" and manage to get a legal late-term abortion. It's for medical reasons.



Since FACE is meant to make it illegal to block access, I guess it means you shouldn't legally NEED a wall of officers to get in; you could just arrest those fuckers.

Look Socratic, I know from long experience with your posting that you believe any hallowed liberal nostrum that somebody who can convince you they are a well credentialled technocrat tells you, but start reading my posts before attempting to argue.

I'll ask the question again. It's a question, not a statement.

What are the medical conditions which can be treated by late term abortion?

I'll be charitable for a moment and assume you really don't have a reading comprehension problem and tried to give a cogent answer. Am I to take it from your shouty little retort above that your answer is:-

'umm.. I don't know, but its valid if a couple of doctors agree that it should be done, because then it's MEDICAL.. like SCIENTIFIC and the doctors are STRICT, but if the baby is too much crippled then they should be allowed to kill it before it's born even if doing so moments after the birth would legally be considered murder'.

Is that your answer? If not, please clarify.

What other medical conditions is third trimester abortion allowed for?

EuropIan
6th June 09, 01:41 PM
isn't it just as assinine to assume that late term abortions are always done out of convinience?

EuropIan
6th June 09, 01:43 PM
Also: http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571

Cullion
6th June 09, 01:54 PM
isn't it just as assinine to assume that late term abortions are always done out of convinience?

I haven't seen anybody here make such an assumption. You're answering a question as if it were a statement.

Ajamil
6th June 09, 03:08 PM
Other tragic circumstances sometimes turn a wanted pregnancy into a potential medical disaster. In some cases, a preexisting medical condition, such as heart or kidney disease, may be so severely exacerbated by pregnancy that the woman's life is threatened. In other cases, a pregnant woman who had thought she was completely healthy may be diagnosed with a serious medical condition such as breast cancer. In these cases, an abortion becomes medically indicated, since continuing the pregnancy would make treatment impossible. In still other cases, pregnancy itself may cause some dangerous conditions, such as preeclampsia -- which do not become severe until late in pregnancy.
I think that's what you were wanting, Cullion. I'd be surprised if this was all, but it's a good start.

Cullion
6th June 09, 03:19 PM
Thank you Arjuna, I have a further question.

What proportion of the women having third trimester abortions have actually been diagnosed with one of the conditions indicated?

By all means, break this down by country, state or even clinic if possible.

Not that I support his murder of course, but Dr. Tiller didn't actually check for these conditions in all those whom he performed late term abortions for.

What proportion of late term abortions in Kansas were performed on women who had actually been diagnosed with one of the physical conditions you note ?

Antifa
6th June 09, 03:22 PM
Thank you Arjuna, I have a further question.

What proportion of the women having third trimester abortions have actually been diagnosed with one of the conditions indicated?

People's medical records are confidential so there is no way to answer that for us.




What proportion of late term abortions in Kansas were performed on women who had actually been diagnosed with one of the physical conditions you note ?

Theoretically 100% since Tiller's clinic was under an incredible amount of scrutiny.

Also keep in mind that people traveled there from all over the country.

Cullion
6th June 09, 03:34 PM
People's medical records are confidential so there is no way to answer that for us.

Actually, that kind of medical information can be published without individually identifying information and routinely is. That's how we have mortality stats for different kinds of cancer, for example. According to data provided to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts for the year 1998, all of the third trimester abortions performed in Kansas that year were the reason that .

“the attending physician believe[d] that continuing the pregnancy [would] constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s mental function.”

How many of the attending physicians were qualified psychiatrists ?



Theoretically 100% since Tiller's clinic was under an incredible amount of scrutiny.

Also keep in mind that people traveled there from all over the country.

You also have to keep in mind that several women who he performed abortions for later testified that they hadn't had physical medical conditions of the type described in Arjuna's post and that a source from within his own clinic had claimed that he sometimes performed abortions for the purpose of alleviating depression in the mothers.

What was Christin Gilbert's medical necessity in her abortion?

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 04:41 PM
Thank you Arjuna, I have a further question.

What proportion of the women having third trimester abortions have actually been diagnosed with one of the conditions indicated?

By all means, break this down by country, state or even clinic if possible.

Not that I support his murder of course, but Dr. Tiller didn't actually check for these conditions in all those whom he performed late term abortions for.

What proportion of late term abortions in Kansas were performed on women who had actually been diagnosed with one of the physical conditions you note ?

Cullion. We have a little thing called medical confidentiality, which means these statistics don't exist. So I'm afraid you are going to have to live with the fact that hostile prosecutors were unable to find any way twice to prove that a single one of the abortions performed by Dr Tiller were anything but on the level.

Cullion
6th June 09, 05:12 PM
Cullion. We have a little thing called medical confidentiality, which means these statistics don't exist.

It's funny how medical confidentiality doesn't preclude the existence of statistics on cancer mortality, or smoking related deaths, or coronary disease. You're well aware of that, right ?

Regardless, they were leaked, in one case by a member of the clinic's staff, and in testimony of several of his patients.


So I'm afraid you are going to have to live with the fact that hostile prosecutors were unable to find any way twice to prove that a single one of the abortions performed by Dr Tiller were anything but on the level.

Tell me more about what you know about the prosecutions HoG, because the trials I read about weren't testing whether or not mental health concerns were valid reasons for late term abortion.

The law in question does not currently say that a doctor is forbidden to perform an abortion on mental health grounds, it says that their must be a medical reason agreed on by two doctors, and that the second doctor should be 'independent' of the first.

Let me ask directly, would you consider mental health grounds to be sufficient cause for late term abortion? if so, do you believe that such can be diagnosed in a single meeting by a non-psychiatrist ?

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 05:21 PM
It's funny how medical confidentiality doesn't preclude the existence of statistics on cancer mortality, or smoking related deaths, or coronary disease. You're well aware of that, right ?

Regardless, they were leaked, in one case by a member of the clinic's staff, and in testimony of several of his patients.

Cullion. The only person who is legally allowed to look at the medical records (without written authorization) to make those reports are the treating physicians. So a) why would he. and b) you wouldn't believe him anyways.




The law in question does not currently say that a doctor is forbidden to perform an abortion on mental health grounds, it says that their must be a medical reason agreed on by two doctors, and that the second doctor should be 'independent' of the first.

Let me ask directly, would you consider mental health grounds to be sufficient cause for late term abortion? if so, do you believe that such can be diagnosed in a single meeting by a non-psychiatrist ?

Yes and yes. It's not perfect, and there will be people getting abortions who I probably wouldn't approve of in a perfect world. But give me a fucking break. Here in the real world, in the US, where the stigma, hurdles, and simple availability all go against the woman, I'll live.

Cullion
6th June 09, 05:29 PM
Cullion. The only person who is legally allowed to look at the medical records (without written authorization) to make those reports are the treating physicians. So a) why would he. and b) you wouldn't believe him anyways.

These stats were leaked. You got that part, right? 1998, every single case in Kansas that year medical reason of 'mental health concerns' given. All of them. Diagnosed physical reasons why a late term abortion is medically necessary are extremely rare.



Yes and yes.

Well, I suppose it comes down to you having a different conception of when an embryo turns into a baby. To my mind a third trimester foetus is a baby, and if we can't justify killing a child that's just been born because a woman is likely to mentally suffer, then I cannot justify it before term.


Here in the real world, in the US, where the stigma, hurdles, and simple availability all go against the woman, I'll live.

Wait, what? It's hard to get an abortion in the first two trimesters in the US? serious ?

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 05:48 PM
87% of US counties have no abortion providers whatsoever. So Err yeah.

Cullion. This guy was one of three doctors in the the entire country who performs third trimester abortions at all. Not, one of three who will perform them for mental health reasons, but one of three who will perform them for any reason whatsoever. This was the third serious attempt on his life. He had already been shot once and had his clinic bombed. IIRC, the other two are also in their 60's. You know why. Because anyone who gets involved in the process is setting themselves up to live life like a mob informant.

Now if I was god, and i could erase some of my mistakes like Randall Terry, and set up a situation where it was possible to easily get hot and cold running specialists involved in the process, then yes, i would like these women to have to talk to a psychiatrist.

But until then no. I am absolutely fucking not willing to add additional hurdles into the process.

Cullion
6th June 09, 06:07 PM
The average US county has a population of a 100,000, which is a very small city.
How common, in that population, do you think diagnosed physical conditions are which require a third trimester abortion to save the mother's life are ?

Do you really believe it's something that happens, oh, every month in a population that size?

Seriously?

As to your second point, well, it's kind of moot.

I don't believe non-physically medical 3rd trimester abortions should be being performed and you do, but obviously I'm not going to try and kill a doctor over it and neither do I think should anybody else.

How does saying 'just 3' and adding italics change this one way or the other?

Adding psychiatrists just doesn't make any sense to me, but we're working from totally different concepts of what's a human life. Either it's not a human life, and it's a nasty, harrowing medical procedure a woman should be allowed to get at her request and I have no idea what the special 'third trimester' laws are for, or it's the killing of an unborn but living child, in which case I apply the same standards I apply to the life of a child 5 seconds after it's born.

Everything else is kind of window dressing to the question of when you consider the foetus to become a living being.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 06:11 PM
I haven't seen anybody here make such an assumption. You're answering a question as if it were a statement.
ummm...well you just did.

Cullion
6th June 09, 06:13 PM
Yes, because I wanted to find out what other people considered medically necessary. Nobody except HoG had the stones to directly say 'its ok to kill a baby if the mom might get depressed'.

I can only assume that everybody else believed that 'medically necessary' means that the number of women in most western countries who actually face life threatening conditions which require a third trimester abortion closely tallies with the number of third trimester abortions being performed.

Or, they just didn't.. like.. want to think about it too hard because it's easier not to argue with angry feminists or think too much about the death of a small child.

I'm very confident that the last part is what's actually going on in most people's minds.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 06:22 PM
These stats were leaked. You got that part, right? 1998, every single case in Kansas that year medical reason of 'mental health concerns' given. All of them. Diagnosed physical reasons why a late term abortion is medically necessary are extremely rare.


Do you have a llink for this?


And I also think it's reasonable to hedge the bets for the oppertunity to be able to perform such a horrible procedure.

Antifa
6th June 09, 06:23 PM
Wait, what? It's hard to get an abortion in the first two trimesters in the US? serious ?

Yes.

There are waiting periods. During which you MUST talk to somebody about alternatives...ie get lectured by some fucking medevil wingnut that thinks the earth was made in 7 days 6500 years ago.

There are whole states without clinics.

The 1 clinic in Mississipi serves ALL of Mississippi and ALL of Lousinana. There is 1 for both north and south dakota.

In Ohio there are 3 in dayton, 3 in columbus, 3 in cinicnatti and 2 in cleveland. Thats 1 clinic per 1 million people in the state. ALL of them are under some level of seige or harrassment.

All of the people that work at All of them are in some level of danger.

Abortions are not easy to get even in the first trimester

Cullion
6th June 09, 06:30 PM
Google it, you'll find lots of links. Of course, they'll all be from biased people who don't agree. I can't find a refutation on a pro-abortion site yet, just no mention.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 06:36 PM
that doesn't make any sense...he woulds have been tried by Kansas law if he did what you say he did.

Now you have to claim conspiracy.

bob
6th June 09, 06:42 PM
My understanding is that people were coming from a lot of different states to get late term abortions in Kansas. States with laws technically not far removed from Kansas. Now you could interpret it two ways - one, that there were very few doctors willing to take the risk and the stress of doing late term abortions or two, that doctors in Kansas were interpreting those laws differently.

Antifa
6th June 09, 06:42 PM
My understanding is that people were coming from a lot of different states to get late term abortions in Kansas. States with laws technically not far removed from Kansas. Now you could interpret it two ways - one, that there were very few doctors willing to take the risk and the stress of doing late term abortions or two, that doctors in Kansas were interpreting those laws differently.

The former is the case

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 06:43 PM
Cullion I don't know how much clearer I could have stated it. 87% isn't counties with no third trimester abortions. It's counties with no abortions at all. There were three doctors in the entire country who perform third trimester abortions for any reason at all.

Now there are two.

bob
6th June 09, 06:43 PM
How do you know the latter isn't even partially the case if you've admitted that nobody is allowed to see the medical records?

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 06:45 PM
How do you know the latter isn't even partially the case if you've admitted that nobody is allowed to see the medical records?

Because there are three doctors in the country providing the procedure. What, you think the women were clinic shopping between them?

Cullion
6th June 09, 06:48 PM
Cullion I don't know how much clearer I could have stated it. 87% isn't counties with no third trimester abortions. It's counties with no abortions at all.

I'm just going to restate that the average county only has 100,000 people in it.



There were three doctors in the entire country who perform third trimester abortions for any reason at all.

Now there are two.

3 sounds like a lot when it seems they were just making up vague 'psychological' reasons to take the money.

I really don't see how your argument is supposed to change my view of 3rd trimester abortion.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 06:52 PM
3 sounds like a lot when it seems they were just making up vague 'psychological' reasons to take the money.

I really don't see how your argument is supposed to change my view of 3rd trimester abortion.
I've been googling hard and all I can find are Fox-news' bill'o claims to an "inside source"
Help a brother out?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227658,00.html


He did have a downs syndrome patient die on him due to sepsis... Does that count?

Antifa
6th June 09, 06:55 PM
Cullion,

Let me reframe this for you.

Do you think Abortions fucking tickle? How many women do you know who have had Abortions? Did any of them wait as long as they could to make the procedure as difficult and dangerous as possible?

did any of them say "Gosh, I want to wait another month, fly across the country, see 2 doctors, get bitched at by some preacher and pay an extra couple of grand because I get off on having 65 year old men chop stuff out of my twat?"

And most importantly if you answer yes to any of the above should that person be considered mentally qualified to have a fucking kid?

Cullion
6th June 09, 06:58 PM
Cullion,

Let me reframe this for you.

Do you think Abortions fucking tickle?

No.



How many women do you know who have had Abortions? Did any of them wait as long as they could to make the procedure as difficult and dangerous as possible?

I've known one woman change her mind very late, and I've known a couple of cases where the woman didn't realise she was pregnant for months.



did any of them say "Gosh, I want to wait another month, fly across the country, see 2 doctors, get bitched at by some preacher and pay an extra couple of grand because I get off on having 65 year old men chop stuff out of my twat?"

I can see a vein throbbing in your temple.



And most importantly if you answer yes to any of the above should that person be considered mentally qualified to have a fucking kid?

Um.. you don't get to kill children because you think their parents are stupid on my planet.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:10 PM
\
I can see a vein throbbing in your temple.
.

no...

actually I'm chillin, watching re-runs of "dead like me"... got to thinking about that show after NononBreak suggested that I commit suicide by meter maid. A little dark humor on a saturday...

In between I'm chillin with my professor helping him with a problem.

In between that I'm standing on the refresh button seeing what gems I'll get out of you folks next. Totally relaxed brother, chillin like Bob Dylan...

What is really funny about all this is a bunch of men, in another country, trying to tell women in America what they can and cant do with their bodies in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"...

It seems I maintain a diet high in irony

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:16 PM
I've been googling hard and all I can find are Fox-news bill'o claims to an "inside source"

Help a brother out?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227658,00.html


Here, the published statistics. Kansas department of health.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

Just scan the 2007 stats for the post 22-week abortions for example.

There isn't a single late-stage abortion logged as necessary to save the mother's life, or in response to a medical emergency. Almost all of the foetuses were logged as viable.

Can you really not see what's going on here?



He did have a downs syndrome patient die on him due to sepsis... Does that count?

She didn't have a life-threatening physical condition that could be cured by abortion either.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:24 PM
Here, the published statistics. Kansas department of health.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

Just scan the 2007 stats for the post 22-week abortions for example.

There isn't a single late-stage abortion logged as necessary to save the mother's life, or in response to a medical emergency. Almost all of the foetuses were logged as viable.

Can you really not see what's going on here?



She didn't have a life-threatening physical condition that could be cured by abortion either.

you did read this part of the report right?:

Total
The patient would suffer substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function if she were
forced to continue the pregnancy. 1 167 168
Total 1 167 168


2007 data summary. page 11. Doesnt copy/paste well... sorry.

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:27 PM
Yes, they're allowed to use psychological criteria to assess that despite not being psychiatrists. People testified that they could get abortions from the doctor in question by saying 'having a baby right now would ruin my life'.

It may seem cruel to you, but the reason I am willing to let a woman suffer extreme psychological distress rather than kill a viable third trimester foetus is because I think it's a human life at that point.

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 07:28 PM
I really don't see how your argument is supposed to change my view of 3rd trimester abortion.

I don't give a fuck about your view.

I do wish you would learn to read english. That would be cool.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:29 PM
Yes, they're allowed to use psychological criteria to assess that despite not being psychiatrists. People testified that they could get abortions from the doctor in question by saying 'having a baby right now would ruin my life'.

So then you conflate what one person or a few people have said and extend that to 100% of the data set?

Please.....

Grow a drop of fucking intellectual honesty

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:29 PM
I don't give a fuck about yours. Enjoy reading the comprehensive 'confidential and unavailable' stats I just posted which were published by the Kansas department of health on the web.

Try not to spill your cereal. I don't expect you to concede gracefully, in fact I hope you don't. Old liberals flapping when a treasured nostrum is exposed as bullshit entertain me hugely.

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:31 PM
So then you conflate what one person or a few people have said and extend that to 100% of the data set?

Please.....

Grow a drop of fucking intellectual honesty

Go on, you tell me what percentage of the data set it accounts for. I dare you. I've already demonstrated that these abortions weren't happening to save anybody's life and I've demonstrated that some of them were given for 'psychological' reasons without a psychiatrist being present.

Burden of proof's in your court now.

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 07:33 PM
I don't give a fuck about yours. Enjoy reading the comprehensive 'confidential and unavailable' stats I just posted which were published by the Kansas department of health on the web.

Try not to spill your cereal.
Don't answer your question, now do they. Because as I said specifically, they are based on the doctors characterization.

Cullion, go get your license to practice psychiatry, and then volunteer to practice medicine with a bulletproof jacket and a dedicated counter intelligence crew, and then we'll talk. Cause trust me, the job is open.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:35 PM
Go on, you tell me what percentage of the data set it accounts for. I dare you. I've already demonstrated that these abortions weren't happening to save anybody's life and I've demonstrated that some of them were given for 'psychological' reasons without a psychiatrist being present.

Burden of proof's in your court now.

We both know that it is not possible for me to tell you what portion of the data it covers. The onlything that is possible is for you to tell us how many women you know that got these procedures for mental health reasons...

So out of 168 cases in 2007... you have positive knowledge of how many? 1? 3?

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:36 PM
Don't answer your question, now do they. Because as I said specifically, they are based on the doctors characterization.

And as I said specifically, the doctors are making these characterisations based on flimsy 'psychological' criteria despite not being psychiatrists, for profit, as testified by former patients. I've just looked at 2007. You go through those stats and tell me when you find a case where a mother's life was at risk in those doctors' own opinion.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 07:37 PM
Go on, you tell me what percentage of the data set it accounts for. I dare you. I've already demonstrated that these abortions weren't happening to save anybody's life and I've demonstrated that some of them were given for 'psychological' reasons without a psychiatrist being present.

Burden of proof's in your court now.
he was aquited in a court of law..

So conspiracy I guess.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:37 PM
And as I said specifically, the doctors are making these characterisations based on flimsy 'psychological' criteria despite not being psychiatrists, for profit, as testified by former patients. I've just looked at 2007. You go through those stats and tell me when you find a case where a mother's life was at risk in those doctors' own opinion.

Because the world is required to answer to conservative religous fanatics even when they are in a different country...

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 07:37 PM
And as I said specifically, the doctors are making these characterisations based on flimsy 'psychological' criteria despite not being psychiatrists, for profit, as testified by former patients. I've just looked at 2007. You go through those stats and tell me when you find a case where a mother's life was at risk in those doctors' own opinion.

You won't accept their opinion and their opinion is the only evidence available. That isn't going to change no matter how many logical errors you produce.

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:38 PM
He wasn't acquited of using psychological criteria because that's currently legal in Kansas. I'm not arguing a point of law, that's just no counter argument. There's no logical error here. You think it's OK for third term abortion to be available on demand because you don't believe there's a living child involved. I do think there's a living child involved. There is no logical argument that can change your belief there. It's a question of empathy and your personal experience of the process of pregnancy.

I'm talking to the people who had fooled themselves that this is a tragic procedure that was regretfully entered into as it was necessary to save women's lives.

And antifa, if you think I'm a conservative religious fanatic, then you're living in a fantasy world.

Antifa
6th June 09, 07:38 PM
You won't accept their opinion and their opinion is the only evidence available. That isn't going to change no matter how many logical errors you produce.

He doesnt need logic because he thinks he is the reincarnation of winston fucking churchill and knows whats best for all of western civiliztion

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:43 PM
I love the way our pet anarchist goes all nationalistic when he's angry about being wrong.

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 07:47 PM
He wasn't acquited of using psychological criteria because that's currently legal in Kansas. I'm not arguing a point of law, that's just no counter argument. There's no logical error here. You think it's OK for third term abortion to be available on demand because you don't believe there's a living child involved. I do think there's a living child involved. There is no logical argument that can change your belief there. It's a question of empathy and your personal experience of the process of pregnancy.

I'm talking to the people who had fooled themselves that this is a tragic procedure that was regretfully entered into as it was necessary to save women's lives.

And antifa, if you think I'm a conservative religious fanatic, then you're living in a fantasy world.

You are inventing a problem that really doesn't exist, and insisting on a solution that is impossible to implement. Again, no psychiatrist in the entire US would consent to give the authorizations you want, because they would be shot, arrested, and harassed in a way that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Solve that problem, and then we'll talk about the tiny handful of borderline cases that you are obsessing over.

Cullion
6th June 09, 07:55 PM
You are inventing a problem that really doesn't exist

No, I'm simply pointing out that the idea that third trimester abortions are usually only performed to save a woman's life or in response to some other pressing emergency is a myth.


and insisting on a solution that is impossible to implement. Again, no psychiatrist in the entire US would consent to give the authorizations you want, because they would be shot, arrested, and harassed in a way that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

Solve that problem, and then we'll talk about the tiny handful of borderline cases that you are obsessing over.

I'm not talking about a 'tiny handful'. I'm talking about almost every 3rd trimester case in Kansas we have stats for. I'm not talking about abortion of non-viable or earlier stages foetuses. You're just getting disconnected from reality now. Let me explain the argument again:-

i) I don't think third trimester abortions of viable foetuses should be allowed except to save the mother's life. I would not think it was OK to do it for other reasons just because psychiatrists were involved. I only mention that point to highlight the unprofessional nature of the 'psychological' diagnosis going on.

You take a different view on third trimester abortion of viable foetuses because you don't believe them alive in the same way I do. I accept this is not something I can convince you of just with logic.

ii) The 'life saving' case demonstrably, by the published official statistics, is not what's happening here. Earlier in the thread, lots of people brought that up as a defence. Probably because they're shocked that a doctor was murdered, as am I. But it's not based in fact. It's a tired liberal nostrum which is essentially no more than counterfactual spin.

iii) I'll reiterate I don't care how many psychiatrists get involved, I won't condone what I consider to be homicide to prevent psychological stress.

Antifa
6th June 09, 08:00 PM
I love the way our pet anarchist goes all nationalistic when he's angry about being wrong.

its not a matter of nationalism, I resent authoritarism in general and distant self-appointed would be authority even more... especially when its as cartoonish as you are being.

I'm not your pet... Not even close to the only anarchist here,

I'm also not wrong and not even angry... I just got a clean compile on what I was doing so I'm in quite a good mood....

Antifa
6th June 09, 08:02 PM
No, I'm simply pointing out that the idea that third trimester abortions are usually only performed to save a woman's life or in response to some other pressing emergency is a myth.



I'm not talking about a 'tiny handful'. I'm talking about almost every 3rd trimester case in Kansas we have stats for. I'm not talking about abortion of non-viable or earlier stages foetuses. You're just getting disconnected from reality now. Let me explain the argument again:-

i) I don't think third trimester abortions of viable foetuses should be allowed except to save the mother's life. I would not think it was OK to do it for other reasons just because psychiatrists were involved. I only mention that point to highlight the unprofessional nature of the 'psychological' diagnosis going on.

You take a different view on third trimester abortion of viable foetuses because you don't believe them alive in the same way I do. I accept this is not something I can convince you of just with logic.

ii) The 'life saving' case demonstrably, by the published official statistics, is not what's happening here. Earlier in the thread, lots of people brought that up as a defence. Probably because they're shocked that a doctor was murdered, as am I. But it's not based in fact. It's a tired liberal nostrum which is essentially no more than counterfactual spin.

iii) I'll reiterate I don't care how many psychiatrists get involved, I won't condone what I consider to be homicide to prevent psychological stress.

how is that vein in your temple doing sugar tits?

Cullion
6th June 09, 08:02 PM
Come off it Antifa, you're just doing the 'calmer than you' routine out of the Big Lebowski now. Come up with a real argument.

Antifa
6th June 09, 08:06 PM
Come off it Antifa, you're just doing the 'calmer than you' routine out of the Big Lebowski now. Come up with a real argument.

I'm not going to argue with you the merits of this or that 3rd term abortion because I dont think its wrong.

What is worth arguing about is why you think it's any business of yours in the first place.

edit: and you've got about one hour for this before I take off... so hurry up

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 08:09 PM
Cullion. I don't disagree with you all that much about the issue. I certainly don't support 3rd trimester abortions for birth control. That's not the problem. The problem is you are inventing a baroque fantasy out of evidence that you don't understand that you don't even trust the source for.

I'm not worried about them because they aren't happening. The dubious psychological cases aren't ones where mom just decided that having a baby would make her sad. They are moms with severe mental problems, ludicrously underage moms, etc. I might not agree with the cases, but they are few and far between. The by far most common cases are moms who's babies are only technicly viable and are going to die immediately after birth. That's the psychological harm the doctor is protecting them from. Because the fucked up laws don't allow "the baby is guaranteed to die as soon as the umbelical cord is cut" as a valid reason.

Cullion
6th June 09, 08:11 PM
I'm not going to argue with you the merits of this or that 3rd term abortion because I dont think its wrong.

What is worth arguing about is why you think it's any business of yours in the first place.

edit: and you've got about one hour for this before I take off... so hurry up

Because we're debating on a website dedicated to people's philosophical views on society and culture. Asking me why I think it's any of my business would be like asking me whether marijuana laws, or taxation are any of my business.

Why don't I consider it just the individual woman's business?

Because I believe that once the foetus has developed to a certain stage it's a living child, and we don't allow the mother god-like right of life or death over a child after it's born. I don't think the child being connected to that woman's placenta gives her that right a month or two before birth gives her that right either.

EuropIan
6th June 09, 08:11 PM
Also, no one is arguing against your right to exist.

/shank

Cullion
6th June 09, 08:14 PM
The problem is you are inventing a baroque fantasy out of evidence that you don't understand that you don't even trust the source for.

I'm not worried about them because they aren't happening. The dubious psychological cases aren't ones where mom just decided that having a baby would make her sad. They are moms with severe mental problems, ludicrously underage moms, etc.

I don't consider any of these things to be justification for homicide. You do grasp that right?



The by far most common cases are moms who's babies are only technicly viable and are going to die immediately after birth.

Evidence please.

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 08:19 PM
There have been multiple articles already posted.

Here's more

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/personal.html

Antifa
6th June 09, 08:20 PM
Because we're debating on a website dedicated to people's philosophical views on society and culture. Asking me why I think it's any of my business would be like asking me whether marijuana laws, or taxation are any of my business.

Why don't I consider it just the individual woman's business?

Because I believe that once the foetus has developed to a certain stage it's a living child, and we don't allow the mother god-like right of life or death over a child after it's born. I don't think the child being connected to that woman's placenta gives her that right a month or two before birth gives her that right either.

Marijuana laws and taxation affect you. well... taxation does... perhaps... the other should as well... would cut down on that whole vein bulging thing...

As far as HoG said about viability... correct. ....

So far as what I'm saying... if its such a big goddamn deal for you... lets start discussing the state of abortion laws in England... which is the body politic of which you are part...

But you see thats the whole point... Anti-abortion people want to go ahead and micromanage the inside of every woman, everywhere in the world, because what goes on inside every doctors office and every womb is of such minute interest that even people in other countries seem to want god-like veto power over any and all details thereof.

DAYoung
6th June 09, 09:01 PM
But you see thats the whole point... Anti-abortion people want to go ahead and micromanage the inside of every woman, everywhere in the world, because what goes on inside every doctors office and every womb is of such minute interest that even people in other countries seem to want god-like veto power over any and all details thereof.

Now, you know I'm not a 'let's bait the anarchist' sort, Antifa, so please take my comment in a spirit of genuine exchange.

But if officials in another country were systematically killing gays, blacks or Jews, I'm guessing you'd want to 'micro-manage' an end to it.

For opponents of late-term abortion, it's the same: they are genuinely upset, angered or appalled by the the killing of infants. It doesn't matter what country it happens in.

Of course, I think abortion is actually a necessary but tragic medical intervention. But I thought I'd weigh in for Cullion here.

(As an aside, I was ten weeks premature. I was born 'late term'.)

bob
6th June 09, 09:33 PM
There have been multiple articles already posted.

Here's more

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/personal.html

Can you post a link to stories of the psychological cases. Apologies if not already done.

Antifa
6th June 09, 09:34 PM
But if officials in another country were systematically killing gays, blacks or Jews, I'm guessing you'd want to 'micro-manage' an end to it.


D,

in the spirit of genuine exchange, I would not micro-manage such a thing. You are either for it or against it. It's not like I'd be saying gasing ABC jews is okay but XYZ jews...not so much. I'd just say gassing jews is wrong. which of course it is.

The other place where this becomes apples and oranges is that there is no state intervention. It's not like the state is comming in and saying who can, or can not have babies, who must or msut not abort. I would be against such a thing also...

I'm against forced sterilization, which is alleged to still happen on some reservations in America.

I'm also for a higher level of social support for people that want children but feel they cant afford them. Hell... I think pre-natal vitamans should be free...

I dont think a womans partner should be able to keep her from getting an abortion, and I dont think he should be allowed to browbeat her into getting one if thats what she wants.

Comparing abortion to genocide doesnt work because abortion is not systematically imposed, its individually decided.

Thats the difference I would see with the point you raised.

I recently lost a client because of their willingness to move forward with a very disabled child. I was going to build a house for this couple, very interesting home. It was going to be my first whole house from the ground up, and my 1st complete green design. The husband is a neurologist who wanted to semi-retire to a 7 acre plot outside of town and build a small healing community and wanted an earthplaster nautilus shaped house that would be green and efficient.

I and my very talented business partner went to work on our drawings, incorporating our best design elements (the roof design drove me nuts!! - NUTS!) and had our 2nd meeting with the couple. Later that same day they had a sonogram and discovered that the baby would be severly deformed. They decided to go ahead anyway and have it. They also choose to not move forward with their new home and simply purchase a house without stairs. The husband gave up his private practice and went back to work in hospitals to make more money. The child was expected to have almost no higher brain function and not live very long, as well as have no fingers or toes.

The child was born, and turned out to have some brain function, but still no fingers or toes and will never ever be able to live independant of a large amount of care. 3 days after the birth, the wife decided that she was going to do what it takes to raise the child herself anyway and told the adoption people kindly go away.

I see the family (they have 2 other children) downtown in our village sometimes and they seem very happy. They made a difficult and brave decision and totally re-ordered their life to meet a very difficult family challenge. I happily support them in this even though it negatively impacts them, and me (the job was a big deal for me and would have really help me make my mark, and it was exactly the kind of building I want to be doing). They are really brave to go ahead with this, even though they could have qualified for a late-term procedure under the circumstances they found themselves in. I'm proud to know people as caring and brave as they are.

That being said, I also support any woman who finds herself in a similiar situation and has the self-knowledge to say... "Holy shit, I just cant do this"

I think its kind of cruel to have people in the abstract think they know what is best for people far away that are functionally hypothetical to them.

Combine that with danger to all the people that have to help them with these descisions on a day to day basis and a religous movement that has alot more than abortion on this agenda and you might see where I'd be comming from on this.

Anyhow... its saturday nite and I'm gonna go play now...

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 10:36 PM
Can you post a link to stories of the psychological cases. Apologies if not already done.

These are the psychological cases. When the baby has a major defect, it isn't enough more physically dangerous for the mother to carry it to term to qualify.

DAYoung
6th June 09, 11:41 PM
D,

in the spirit of genuine exchange, I would not micro-manage such a thing. You are either for it or against it. It's not like I'd be saying gasing ABC jews is okay but XYZ jews...not so much. I'd just say gassing jews is wrong. which of course it is.

I thought this was Cullion's point: it is wrong. And he wanted to demonstrate this.

(Though perhaps I've not been reading carefully.)


Comparing abortion to genocide doesnt work because abortion is not systematically imposed, its individually decided.

Thats the difference I would see with the point you raised.

Yes, I shouldn't have said 'officials'. I should've said 'private citizens', i.e. single individuals or small groups, freely choosing to kill particular ethnicities, sexualities, and so on.

You'd want them stopped, right?


I recently lost a client because of their willingness to move forward with a very disabled child. I was going to build a house for this couple, very interesting home. It was going to be my first whole house from the ground up, and my 1st complete green design. The husband is a neurologist who wanted to semi-retire to a 7 acre plot outside of town and build a small healing community and wanted an earthplaster nautilus shaped house that would be green and efficient.

I and my very talented business partner went to work on our drawings, incorporating our best design elements (the roof design drove me nuts!! - NUTS!) and had our 2nd meeting with the couple. Later that same day they had a sonogram and discovered that the baby would be severly deformed. They decided to go ahead anyway and have it. They also choose to not move forward with their new home and simply purchase a house without stairs. The husband gave up his private practice and went back to work in hospitals to make more money. The child was expected to have almost no higher brain function and not live very long, as well as have no fingers or toes.

The child was born, and turned out to have some brain function, but still no fingers or toes and will never ever be able to live independant of a large amount of care. 3 days after the birth, the wife decided that she was going to do what it takes to raise the child herself anyway and told the adoption people kindly go away.

I see the family (they have 2 other children) downtown in our village sometimes and they seem very happy. They made a difficult and brave decision and totally re-ordered their life to meet a very difficult family challenge. I happily support them in this even though it negatively impacts them, and me (the job was a big deal for me and would have really help me make my mark, and it was exactly the kind of building I want to be doing). They are really brave to go ahead with this, even though they could have qualified for a late-term procedure under the circumstances they found themselves in. I'm proud to know people as caring and brave as they are.

They sound like good people. I wish them well.


That being said, I also support any woman who finds herself in a similiar situation and has the self-knowledge to say... "Holy shit, I just cant do this"

Sure. But Cullion was talking about healthy kids with parents who 'just can't cope'. It seems a VERY high price to pay for psychological stress (i.e. killing what is basically a healthy baby).

Having said this, I don't know how often this happens. As far as I know, it's simply not legal in most states of Australia. We have roughly 80,000 abortions annually, but very few of these are late term. Doctors still do it (and are occasionally disciplined or reviewed), but it's uncommon.


I think its kind of cruel to have people in the abstract think they know what is best for people far away that are functionally hypothetical to them.

For anyone with kids, who has a hand in raising them, it's a lot less hypothetical. But I grant your general point. Unfortunately, much of civilised life is like this.


Anyhow... its saturday nite and I'm gonna go play now...

Enjoy!

Cullion
7th June 09, 05:51 AM
Marijuana laws and taxation affect you. well... taxation does... perhaps... the other should as well... would cut down on that whole vein bulging thing...

It would affect me if I had been aborted because my mother was 14 when I was conceived. It would affect me if a woman killed my unborn child.



So far as what I'm saying... if its such a big goddamn deal for you... lets start discussing the state of abortion laws in England... which is the body politic of which you are part...

We can talk about England by all means, but we don't have to be constrained to talking about the countries we happen to live in on the Internet. I'm not arguing about what's legal in a particular country, I'm trying to make a general argument about what should be legal anywhere.



But you see thats the whole point... Anti-abortion people want to go ahead and micromanage the inside of every woman, everywhere in the world, because what goes on inside every doctors office and every womb is of such minute interest that even people in other countries seem to want god-like veto power over any and all details thereof.

You make such sweeping generalisations. This debate doesn't consist of two 'teams' one pro-abortion for any reason at any stage, and the other totally against all forms of abortion. I'm not religious. I don't have any problem with first trimester abortions on demand. I'm trying to argue against what I consider to be homicide in the third trimester of viable foetuses when it's not necessary to save the mother's life.

Please stop blithering about 'individual freedom' when we're talking about the prevention of homicide.

DAYoung
7th June 09, 05:56 AM
Cullion, did I do your opinions justice?

Cullion
7th June 09, 05:56 AM
I take it that Hog has now conceeded the statistical point and would like to use individual case studies to illustrate how these third term abortions are all still being conducted for reasons of medical necessity.

My counter examples will consist of failed abortions, some performed by Dr. Tiller himself. Children who doctors attempted to abort, but who were healthy enough to survive to be born, often with no other health problems than those inflicted by the abortion attempt.

This will be nasty reading.

Cullion
7th June 09, 06:04 AM
Cullion, did I do your opinions justice?

I think you were fair. To clarify, there are only limited circumstances in which I would prohibit abortion on the grounds that I consider it homicide;

i) When the foetus is developed enough to visibly react to music and human speach, and could survive outside the womb. This in most cases refers to third trimester foetuses.

ii) And where i) is true, there is also no need to perform the procedure to save the mother's life.

In all other cases, whether earlier in development, or whether to save the mother's life, I want women to have widespread, safe and caring access to well qualified abortion providers.

My statistical points are to illustrate that the idea that third trimester abortions are usually only done when necessary to save the mother's life are is myth. Until I started posting the stats, 'saving the mother's life' was the unconsidered nostrum being used to defend third trimester abortion, shortly followed by 'how do you know the stats aren't available'. Well, now they are.

The doctor in question was aborting viable, healthy children a few months before birth when it was not necessary to save the mother's life. For profit.

Antifa of all people should understand the urge to take the law into ones own hands when the existing laws are unjust. Whilst I condemn it, the actions of this man's killer should be understood as the actions of a vigilante attempting to protect children from being murdered.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 11:17 AM
I think you were fair. To clarify, there are only limited circumstances in which I would prohibit abortion on the grounds that I consider it homicide;

i) When the foetus is developed enough to visibly react to music and human speach, and could survive outside the womb. This in most cases refers to third trimester foetuses.

ii) And where i) is true, there is also no need to perform the procedure to save the mother's life.

I'm familiar with the idea of ppl opposing abortion when the fetus could theoretically survive outside the womb. But the part about reacting to human speech/music is something I've never heard of before. Why preclude fetuses that are deaf or insensitive to particular vibrations?

Cullion
7th June 09, 11:22 AM
I'm familiar with the idea of ppl opposing abortion when the fetus could theoretically survive outside the womb. But the part about reacting to human speech/music is something I've never heard of before. Why preclude fetuses that are deaf or insensitive to particular vibrations?

It's not that I wish to exclude them, it's that by empathy and experience of the process of pregnancy as a father of two that's when gut instincts tell me I'm experiencing a small human being. In future, we may have the technology for much younger foetuses to survive outside the womb, but without this observable animation (for want of a better word) I don't necessarily award the neonate the status of 'living human'. I don't consider a 2 week old embryo being kept a live in a test-tube to require the protection we award to a baby.

A 35 week old foetus with a heartbeat and the observable ability to move is in this 'living child' category even if it's deaf. Damon survived being born somewhat earlier than this. I am not positing that we award human rights to first trimester embryos just because our scientific mastery allows us to cultivate them outside of the human body.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 11:26 AM
I take it that Hog has now conceeded the statistical point and would like to use individual case studies to illustrate how these third term abortions are all still being conducted for reasons of medical necessity.

My counter examples will consist of failed abortions, some performed by Dr. Tiller himself. Children who doctors attempted to abort, but who were healthy enough to survive to be born, often with no other health problems than those inflicted by the abortion attempt.

This will be nasty reading.

Just a warning, I've come across quite a few of these. Before you even put yourself through reading many of those ghastly tales, make sure they come from verifiable sources.

There are a good many of those 'first hand accounts' that are total fabrications designed to shock and horrify the reader rather than provide any credible evidence.

Cullion
7th June 09, 11:29 AM
Just a warning, I've come across quite a few of these. Before you even put yourself through reading many of those ghastly tales, make sure they come from verifiable sources.

There are a good many of those 'first hand accounts' that are total fabrications designed to shock and horrify the reader rather than provide any credible evidence.

Yes, that's a totally fair point. The more contentious and emotive a debate, the more false stories one tends to find on both sides. I will be very careful in any harrowing stories I post.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 11:29 AM
It's not that I wish to exclude them, it's that by empathy and experience of the process of pregnancy as a father of two that's when gut instincts tell me I'm experiencing a small human being. In future, we may have the technology for much younger foetuses to survive outside the womb, but without this observable animation (for want of a better word) I don't necessarily award the neonate the status of 'living human'. I don't consider a 2 week old embryo being kept a live in a test-tube to require the protection we award to a baby.

A 35 week old foetus with a heartbeat and the observable ability to move is in this 'living child' category even if it's deaf. Damon survived being born somewhat earlier than this. I am not positing that we award human rights to first trimester embryos just because our scientific mastery allows us to cultivate them outside of the human body.

Oh, my mistake. I thought that the responding to music/speech thing was for some reason a requirement. Thank you for clarifying.

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 11:56 AM
I take it that Hog has now conceeded the statistical point and would like to use individual case studies to illustrate how these third term abortions are all still being conducted for reasons of medical necessity.

My counter examples will consist of failed abortions, some performed by Dr. Tiller himself. Children who doctors attempted to abort, but who were healthy enough to survive to be born, often with no other health problems than those inflicted by the abortion attempt.

This will be nasty reading.
No, Hogs point is the same one it's always been. That anecdotes are all that exist because the statistics you want aren't kept. However one of us lives in the relevant country, knows the relevant people, and has been following and involved with this issue for 20 years, and one hasn't. So our ability to read through these anecdotes is not on the same fucking planet.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:02 PM
Hog, you're entitled to dispute the leak to Fox news from the Kansas health department which stated that for 1998 all of the third trimester abortions performed gave the medical health reason of 'grave risk to mental health/psychological distress'.

You also originally claimed that stats for whether or not the 'medical reasons' were life threatening or not didn't exist. They did. You then claimed that these cases were of the harrowing an necessary nature of the foetus which would not survive a few hours after birth. I'm going to show you that in many cases this is simply not true.

The 'relevant' country argument is bullshit. Babies develop just the same way there as they do here. Sometimes you admit to defending medically unecessary third term abortions for psychological reasons, which would have been an intellectually honest position worth developing the debate over when human life begins but you kind of skirted around it by trying to claim it basically didn't happen or implying that the psychological stress was really bad, then sometimes you appear to switch to defending earlier stage abortions which at no stage have I argued against.

This is because you keep being shown factual information which counters what you believe, and I therefore find your attempt at argument from authority unconvincing.

This is what's happening in society: The issue has been polarised beyond reason for many people, it degenerates into people picking one of two simple camps. People from both camps routinely make absurd counter-factual assertions. I've caught lots of people at it in this thread and shown it to them. Be gracious. If it seems like I'm from 'the other camp', please remember that there are no fundies here arguing that 'the morning after pill is homicide' for me to dicker with.

I am going to carefully look at the provenance of any of the harrowing stories I'm going to post before I post them.

Just please clear what exactly it is you're trying to defend before making a counter point.

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 12:07 PM
Hog, you're entitled to dispute the leak to Fox news from the Kansas health department which stated that for 1998 all of the third trimester abortions performed gave the medical health reason of 'grave risk to mental health/psychological distress'.

You also originally claimed that stats for whether or not the 'medical reasons' were life threatening or not didn't exist. They did. You then claimed that these cases were of the harrowing an necessary nature of the foetus which would not survive a few hours after birth. I'm going to show you that in many cases this is simply not true.

The 'relevant' country argument is bullshit. Babies develop just the same way there as they do here. Some times you admit to defending medically unecessary third term abortions for psychological reasons (you initially claimed this didn't happen), and then sometimes you switch to defending earlier stage abortions which at no stage have I argued against.

You keep being shown factual information which counters what you believe, and I therefore find your attempt at argument from authority unconvincing.

No, I stated that they would be self reported by the physician and unsatisfying for your purposes.

And I was right.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:24 PM
No HoG, they aren't unsatisfying for 'my purposes'. They clearly demonstrate that the earlier nostrum about 'saving the mother's life' was, statistically speaking, a myth. The examples I'm going to post will scotch the myth that it's always about saving the mother from permanent and serious physical injury or mercifully ending the life of a massively deformed foetus that will die soon after birth.

I would respect you more if you argued what you really believe, which is that you think the psychological and social circumstances of the mother alone are sufficient to justify late stage abortion, possibly on the grounds that you don't consider the foetus a living human, possibly not. Just cut to the chase, let's talk about when a foetus becomes a human life in your view and talk about justifiable homicide. This is at the core of everything. Most people try and dodge around these uncomfortable points and comfort themselves with things which just aren't true. I'm going to keep demonstrating it.

I promise that I will continue to factually smother you if you keep trying to pretend that this isn't really happening.

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 12:31 PM
No HoG, they aren't unsatisfying for 'my purposes'. They clearly demonstrate that the earlier nostrum about 'saving the mother's life' was, statistically speaking, a myth. The examples I'm going to post will scotch the myth that it's always about saving the mother from permanent and serious physical injury or mercifully ending the life of a massively deformed foetus that will die soon after birth.

I would respect you more if you argued what you really believe, which is that you think the psychological and social circumstances of the mother alone are sufficient to justify late stage abortion, possibly on the grounds that you don't consider the foetus a living human, possibly not. Just cut to the chase, let's talk about when a foetus becomes a human life in your view and talk about justifiable homicide. This is at the core of everything. Most people try and dodge around these uncomfortable points and comfort themselves with things which just aren't true. I'm going to keep demonstrating it.

I promise that I will continue to factually smother you if you keep trying to pretend that this isn't really happening.


I don't believe that Cullion. I've stated quite clearly what I believe. You just have shit poor reading comprehension for an oxford educated native speaker. However you are moving beyond the purely philosophical discussion and inserting yourself into the gritty reality of the situation on the ground here in the US, which you are not qualified to discuss. The hard information you want does not exist, and you do not have the context to read between the lines in the intentionally distorted anecdotes that are out there.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:41 PM
I don't believe that Cullion. I've stated quite clearly what I believe.

To clarify:-

i)Do you believe it's ok to abort a healthy 31-week foetus for reasons pertaining to the mother's psychological or social status?

ii)Do you believe or not believe that the healthy 31-week old foetus is a living human being or not?

iii)Do you still believe that point ii) doesn't occur in the US with the sanction of law at present?

These are yes or no questions.




You just have shit poor reading comprehension for an oxford educated native speaker.

Blow it out of your arse HoG, you're just still disgruntled about claiming some stats didn't exist which did. People will just read back over your evasions and make up their own minds I guess.



However you are moving beyond the purely philosophical discussion and inserting yourself into the gritty reality of the situation on the ground here in the US, which you are not qualified to discuss. The hard information you want does not exist, and you do not have the context to read between the lines in the intentionally distorted anecdotes that are out there.

I'm sorry Hog, but you cannot be trusted as an authority here. You aren't a healthcare professional and you've been repeatedly wrong on other factual points. Simply trying to shift the terms or pointing out that you live in the US and I don't just makes you look foolish. We are not discussing US specific points. We have abortions here in the UK too you know.

You are simply wasting your time trying to steer the debate away from the 3 questions I've listed, because they are the core of the issue.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:46 PM
And HoG, here's you near the beginning of the thread.


Two independent doctors under incredibly stringent scrutiny have to certify that the mother will suffer irreperable harm if the procedure is not performed.

And by incredibly stringent I mean elected officials who didn't like him would criminally charge him for every procedure. And force him to defend himself in court.

Don't be a douche on this one Cullion.

Do you want to continue with this myth? or are you going to be intellectually honest? It's fine if you don't believe the leak to fox, (although I do), but I'm going to give you the case studies to show this 'irreperable harm' is in many cases simply 'psychological distress'.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:53 PM
Cullion. We have a little thing called medical confidentiality, which means these statistics don't exist. So I'm afraid you are going to have to live with the fact that hostile prosecutors were unable to find any way twice to prove that a single one of the abortions performed by Dr Tiller were anything but on the level.

Here you were referring to a trial regarding whether or not the second doctor Tiller had signing for him was financially independent or not and the court found in his favour. The reasons for abortion were not on trial as, as you well know, 'mental health' reasons are legitimate for 3rd trimester abortions in Kansas.

Cullion
7th June 09, 12:55 PM
Yes and yes. It's not perfect, and there will be people getting abortions who I probably wouldn't approve of in a perfect world..

This ^ is an example of you being intellectually honest about approving of psychological reasons. Would you like to continue to argue this core point, or do you want to dick around pretending that the case I object to doesn't actually happen ?

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 01:05 PM
This ^ is an example of you being intellectually honest about approving of psychological reasons. Would you like to continue to argue this core point, or do you want to dick around pretending that the case I object to doesn't actually happen ?

There is a difference between ethics, ideal laws, and laws that are implementable in the real world. That difference gets lost when you snip things from their original context.

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 01:23 PM
To repeat. I do not ethically approve of third trimester abortions of otherwise healthy fetuses for reasons of the mothers emotional or social health. I'm not able to draw the line in the sand and say "this is where it's a baby and not a fetus, but I do agree that such a line exists. And I believe that even before that line a fetus is something more than just a clump of cells and deserves our respect as a potential future human life.

I don't actually believe these happen at all commonly. In the real world the incredibly difficult choices come down to the question about what is a healthy fetus rather than the question about emotional health. I know that most of these abortions happen due to late discovered defects. There are other cases, they are almost always tragedies of one kind or another, but they do rarely exist.

If I were emporer, I would like more stringent rules in those borderline cases. There are sociopaths in the world.

But pay close attention to this part Cullion. Cause it's where we really disagree. At the present time, in the United States, being involved in third trimester abortions is a virtual guarantee that someone will attempt to assasinate you. Therefore it is not possible to implement those measures. Much of the country lacks basic access to abortion of any kind, and preserving what does still exist is a constant struggle. Abortion doctors who only practice first trimester abortions routinely have body guards, wear bulletproof vests, etc just in order to operate. So when you come along and talk about how horrible it is that no psychiatrist was involved, you demonstrate total ignorance of the real facts in the real world. And in that real world. I am much more worried about the 99.9% of cases than I am the .1%.

Ajamil
7th June 09, 01:47 PM
Oh, my mistake. I thought that the responding to music/speech thing was for some reason a requirement. Thank you for clarifying.

Would you and Cullion both agree that the tests for whether the child is viable are determining consciousness/self-awareness - in other words, for the pseudo-scientific fundie, the soul - through means available (they react to stimulii)?

I ask not to see if this is what you think, but how much I agree with you.

Cullion
7th June 09, 02:27 PM
Would you and Cullion both agree that the tests for whether the child is viable are determining consciousness/self-awareness - in other words, for the pseudo-scientific fundie, the soul - through means available (they react to stimulii)?

I ask not to see if this is what you think, but how much I agree with you.

I see viability and what I've expressed as 'being a living human' as seperate things.

Cullion
7th June 09, 02:45 PM
To repeat. I do not ethically approve of third trimester abortions of otherwise healthy fetuses for reasons of the mothers emotional or social health.


I'm not able to draw the line in the sand and say "this is where it's a baby and not a fetus, but I do agree that such a line exists.

Right. Now, I've explained where I feel that line is and admitted that I base it primarily on intuition and the experience of the development of my own children.

The point I'm trying to argue is that once that stage is reached, we ought to be thinking in terms of homicide, whether justified or not, when we consider aborting such a foetus.

I'm not religious, but as the child of a pre-age of consent mother who didn't realise until very late that she was pregnant, this issue is close to my heart.

I admit I've been testy with you and I apologise.

But once that (admittedly fuzzy) rubicon of 'humanhood' is crossed, I sincerely believe that every situation where we consider abortion needs to be considered in the the following terms:-

'Would we be justified in ending the life of a baby minutes after it was born, for the same reasons?'



And I believe that even before that line a fetus is something more than just a clump of cells and deserves our respect as a potential future human life.

There's an earlier, and very unpleasant dividing line for me. From personal experience, I know that in the early stages a first trimester miscarriage is registered by the woman as a 'late period' (this happens all the time to lots of women), but weeks later the woman will sob her heart out when she sees the embryo. In the prior stage, I'm quite utilitarian and unemotional about it (i.e. no objections at all to morning after pill, stem cell research or very early stage abortions on demand). In the latter stages I agree that abortion on demand should still be allowed but it all takes on a different tone requiring much more respect, and that treating such an embryo as a simple lab commodity is not appropriate except in very explicit circumstances (e.g. absolutely must have the woman's total informed consent).



I don't actually believe these happen at all commonly. In the real world the incredibly difficult choices come down to the question about what is a healthy fetus rather than the question about emotional health.

I have several googled cases, some directly relating to Dr. Tiller of the type I describe. Intellectual honesty requires me to spend more time checking their provenance before I post them.


At the present time, in the United States, being involved in third trimester abortions is a virtual guarantee that someone will attempt to assasinate you.

No disagreement here, and of course I don't condone it. I am trying to point out the thinking behind these people. They're trying to defend human life.



Therefore it is not possible to implement those measures. Much of the country lacks basic access to abortion of any kind, and preserving what does still exist is a constant struggle. Abortion doctors who only practice first trimester abortions routinely have body guards, wear bulletproof vests, etc just in order to operate.

So when you come along and talk about how horrible it is that no psychiatrist was involved, you demonstrate total ignorance of the real facts in the real world. And in that real world. I am much more worried about the 99.9% of cases than I am the .1%.

To be fair, you ought to concede that I never condoned vigilantism against abortion providers or expressed any misgivings about first trimester abortions.
I just don't see any reason to defend what I consider to be homocide in order to defend legitimate abortion. I think people who lump the two together on either side are mostly engaging in political tribalism.

When I talk about no psychiatrist being involved, I'm pointing out that where it occurs the psychological diagnoses are in my opinion dubious, and secondly, I think you very much underestimate the proportion of third trimester abortions being performed for reasons where the foetus simply wouldn't survive birth for more than a few hours, or where the mother's physical health is in jeopardy.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 02:53 PM
Would you and Cullion both agree that the tests for whether the child is viable are determining consciousness/self-awareness - in other words, for the pseudo-scientific fundie, the soul - through means available (they react to stimulii)?

I ask not to see if this is what you think, but how much I agree with you.

You quoted me, but were more likely addressing HOG and Cullion.

But what the heck, might as well throw out mt two cents. Personally, I consider it a separate human life once it separates, until then I consider it a part of the mother. I believe in nothing resembling a soul.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 03:01 PM
When I talk about no psychiatrist being involved, I'm pointing out that where it occurs the psychological diagnoses are in my opinion dubious, and secondly, I think you very much underestimate the proportion of third trimester abortions being performed for reasons where the foetus simply wouldn't survive birth for more than a few hours, or where the mother's physical health is in jeopardy.

You mean 'overestimate', right?

Cullion
7th June 09, 03:11 PM
Yes I did.

Cullion
7th June 09, 03:12 PM
I don't believe in a soul in the religious or supernatural sense either. When I talk about something being alive I'm just working on experienced insinctive empathy.

HappyOldGuy
7th June 09, 03:20 PM
secondly, I think you very much underestimate the proportion of third trimester abortions being performed for reasons where the foetus simply wouldn't survive birth for more than a few hours, or where the mother's physical health is in jeopardy.

More than a few hours is probably an outlier. The real bulk and the real debate are the more then a few years examples. And also the many years with significant impairment. The "interferes with my squash game" doesn't enter into it.

Cullion
7th June 09, 04:11 PM
When we talk of years and significant impairment I disagree because I wouldn't euthenize a child born with those conditions.

FickleFingerOfFate
7th June 09, 04:16 PM
When we talk of years and significant impairment I disagree because I wouldn't euthenize a child born with those conditions.


It's precisely this kind of thinking that leads to Toby.

Shawarma
7th June 09, 04:18 PM
FUCKING win!

bob
7th June 09, 04:58 PM
Here is an assertion that I would like proved or disproved - being an abortion doctor is incredibly lucrative with the abillity to clear well over a million dollars for part time work. The later the abortion, the more lucrative it is.

Antifa
7th June 09, 05:39 PM
Here...

I'm gonna add this in and see what Culli thinks

from http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/index.html

Begin:


Monday, June 1, 2009 09:02 PDT
Where will women go now?

If any good can come of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the very few providers of late-term abortions in the U.S., perhaps it's the opportunity to have a conversation about the reality of termination in the second and third trimesters. Anti-choice activists often cast late-term abortions as the murder of a viable baby at the whim of a woman who doesn't wish to be inconvenienced, carried out by a doctor who looks at her and sees only cartoon dollar signs. They're egged on by relatively mainstream figures like Bill O'Reilly, who declared that Dr. Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." Such misinformation and outright lies about procedures that are in fact rare and only performed when medically necessary are what led anti-choice activists to call Tiller "America's Doctor of Death," and accuse him of running a "murder mill." The reality of what Dr. Tiller did, however -- helping women in absolutely desperate circumstances, when almost no one else would -- is what led one woman who had to terminate a wanted pregnancy because of a terrible late-term diagnosis to call the doctor and staff at his Women's Health Center "our heaven when we were living in hell."

The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." He went on to share his memories of Dr. Tiller. "I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction. I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.... The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking -- obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church, etc. had abandoned them."

Links to older stories are also spreading on social media and blogs. A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.

The trauma of receiving such a diagnosis is only compounded by the difficulty of obtaining a late-term abortion. Writes one woman, "The reality is that finding a doctor to do this procedure in the late second or third trimester is almost impossible. For me, the reality was that at the most painful time of my life I had to travel out of state, stay in a hotel room and face hostile protesters in order to carry out this most personal of choices." Another writes, "I had to fly to Kansas to have the procedure done. It was a five-day out patient procedure that cost us almost $9,000 after all was said and done. I am hurt and angry at the state of Maryland for taking away my right to allow my daughter to die in peace ... I was appalled that Maryland did not have a quality-of-life addendum to the late-term termination law." Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "

Hill last spoke to Dr. Tiller two weeks ago, not long after the Women's Health Center was vandalized, and she asked the 67-year-old why he didn't retire in the face of increasing harassment, after already having been shot in both arms and seen his clinic bombed. "Because I can't leave these women," he told her. "Those are the words I'm always going to remember from him. He just believed that when he left, they wouldn't get any kind of care." Unfortunately, it seems he may have been right. I asked Hill where women who need late-term abortions can go now, and her response was bleak. "There's Warren Hern, out in Boulder, Colorado, but he doesn't go as far as Dr. Tiller went." When it comes to those "really tragic cases," Hill said the harsh truth is, "We don't know where we're going to send them."
― Kate Harding


end

Cullion
7th June 09, 05:55 PM
It strikes me as an opinion piece tugging at heart strings. That's exactly the kind of thing my counter examples will do, with names and photographs of the children who survived. I'm sorry, it hasn't changed my opinion of when something needs to considered as homicide before we try to justify it, and lets be clear; I never claimed all abortions are homicides.

Antifa
7th June 09, 06:08 PM
It strikes me as an opinion piece tugging at heart strings. That's exactly the kind of thing my counter examples will do, with names and photographs of the children who survived. I'm sorry, it hasn't changed my opinion of when something needs to considered as homicide before we try to justify it, and lets be clear; I never claimed all abortions are homicides.


I saw that.

I also saw the slight of hand that you pulled with the word "viable" in relation to third term abortions.

And since you want to sit around and call the procedures "homicides" sometimes, you getting into bed with the fundies on this one.

If I had the money, I swear I'd just fly you here and take you on the tour of American Fundementalist jackassary. At the end of our fun filled week or two you might not change your mind about a damn thing, but you sure would change your style of arguement and willingness to carry it out...

Because this Klaxxon would shriek in your head screamming "Warning! Warning! You are About to Be That Guy! Warning!"

Seriously Dide.

Cullion
7th June 09, 06:13 PM
I saw that.

I also saw the slight of hand that you pulled with the word "viable" in relation to third term abortions.

There is no sleight of hand going on. If you don't believe that children able to survive are sometimes born after a doctor declares it 'medically necessary' to abort them (but not to save the mother's life) then you are wrong.



And since you want to sit around and call the procedures "homicides" sometimes, you getting into bed with the fundies on this one.

Well, I'm not religious and I don't hold the beliefs I do because I think that a god figure is going to punish somebody. I do think that most 31 week old foetuses are living human beings though, which is why I treat killing them as homicide.



If I had the money, I swear I'd just fly you here and take you on the tour of American Fundementalist jackassary. At the end of our fun filled week or two you might not change your mind about a damn thing, but you sure would change your style of arguement and willingness to carry it out...

It really wouldn't. I know these people are often jackasses. I know atheist libertarians are often jackasses (ever followed me arguing with Phrost?), I know social democratic moderate liberals are often jackasses and I know that hard-left anarchists are often jackasses.



Because this Klaxxon would shriek in your head screamming "Warning! Warning! You are About to Be That Guy! Warning!"

Seriously Dide.

It just doesn't work on me. I just don't care as much about which tribe others identify me as.

TheLordHumungus
7th June 09, 10:46 PM
I don't believe in a soul in the religious or supernatural sense either. When I talk about something being alive I'm just working on experienced insinctive empathy.

I totally understand. I'm in the same boat. My differentiation is completely arbitrary and based only on my own insticts. Hell, some cultures didn't consider children ppl until they survived to a certain age. My line seems to be birth.

Sun Wukong
7th June 09, 11:35 PM
to me, this is something that women and women alone should get to vote on.

I know it's cliche', but it is their body and what they do with it should be their privilege.

I simply believe that this is something that people must be allowed to decide for themself; otherwise, it's just another form of tyranny.

bob
7th June 09, 11:42 PM
to me, this is something that women and women alone should get to vote on.

I know it's cliche', but it is their body and what they do with it should be their privilege.

I simply believe that this is something that people must be allowed to decide for themself; otherwise, it's just another form of tyranny.

In this case there is another body involved. You don't legally 'own' a child. It's not yours to do with as you want. The distinction between a child that is outside your body and a child that is inside but would quite easily live outside given the chance is not as cut and dried as that.

Tanhalen21
7th June 09, 11:45 PM
to me, this is something that women and women alone should get to vote on.

I know it's cliche', but it is their body and what they do with it should be their privilege.

This is argument is ALWAYS stupid because the question is not whether or not it is a woman's body but whether or not that thing living INSIDE their body, which, unless it is rape, they willingly brought into this world, is a living person or not.

It's not like a fucking tumor or something.

Keith
7th June 09, 11:59 PM
whether or not that thing living INSIDE their body, which, unless it is rape, they willingly brought into this world, is a living person or not.
Suppose it is.

If you, unquestionably a living conscious human being, were to inflict upon a woman physical trauma equivalent to labor, would she be justified in killing you to stop it?

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 12:06 AM
Suppose it is.

If you, unquestionably a living conscious human being, were to inflict upon a woman physical trauma equivalent to labor, would she be justified in killing you to stop it?

There are multiple reasons why this is a bad analogy, but they are so obvious that I'm not even willing to post them.

Keith
8th June 09, 12:13 AM
There are multiple reasons why this is a bad analogy, but they are so obvious that I'm not even willing to post them.

Humor me

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 12:30 AM
This is argument is ALWAYS stupid because the question is not whether or not it is a woman's body but whether or not that thing living INSIDE their body, which, unless it is rape, they willingly brought into this world, is a living person or not.

It's not like a fucking tumor or something.

And people have had oh so much luck defining when life begins in the womb?

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 12:32 AM
The futility of the anti-choice movement is staggering in light of reason.

bob
8th June 09, 12:36 AM
And people have had oh so much luck defining when life begins in the womb?

I think medical opinion backed up by several billion examples that the life could exist outside the womb as well as inside is a reasonable definition personally.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 12:49 AM
And people have had oh so much luck defining when life begins in the womb?
So you're saying that because there is currently no answer to the debate we should relegate the question to something that had completely no bearing on the original argument?

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 12:58 AM
If you, unquestionably a living conscious human being, were to inflict upon a woman physical trauma equivalent to labor, would she be justified in killing you to stop it?
First of all, she WOULD be justified in killing me because I would consciously be inflicting such pain simply for the joy it brings me in inflicting it. In the case of pregnancy, the baby has no idea what sort of damage it is inflicting on the mother and can't do anything about it.

Secondly (unless it is in fact rape), if you have sex you understand the possibility of becoming pregnant. That's your fucking problem. Birth is a natural thing and just because you don't want to have to deal with the pain of giving birth does not give you the right to kill another human being. I'm not commenting on when I think a fetus becomes a human being with this statement, I'm merely commenting on the logic of the argument.

Thirdly, the pain that comes with birth is a natural side-effect of a voluntary action (sex). If I beat the shit out of a woman, she obviously has the right to stop me from doing so simply because it is an unwarranted and malicious act.

If you are talking about rape, I never said that I was against abortion even in the case of rape. Quite the opposite, actually, I'm not an "anti-choicer" or a "pro-lifer" or whatever biased label you want to call it, I'm simply commenting on the logical fallacies that always come up when debating abortion.

Good enough?

TheLordHumungus
8th June 09, 01:11 AM
It's not like a fucking tumor or something.

I dunno. For the sake of argument, let's say the woman is a smoker. She knew her behavior might cause a lung or throat tumor. Are you ten reluctant to allow her to remove it?

My argument isn't about whether it's living. It's about whether it is a separate living being. If it is part of the mother, I believe the choice is entirely hers.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 01:15 AM
So you're saying that because there is currently no answer to the debate we should relegate the question to something that had completely no bearing on the original argument?

Pregnant women, and prospective mothers are irrelevant to whether or not they get to choose to have an abortion?

news to me dude.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 01:16 AM
Pregnant women, and prospective mothers are irrelevant to whether or not they get to choose to have an abortion?

news to me dude.

Way to ignore the foundation of the actual debate.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 01:19 AM
If it is part of the mother, I believe the choice is entirely hers.
Would you say that the shit resting in your descending colon is part of you? Or that it is made up of all the shit you ate and is simply brewing inside of you until you excrete it?

TheLordHumungus
8th June 09, 01:25 AM
It is enough a part of me that were I to choose to have it removed, I would be well within my rights. Would you object?

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 01:26 AM
I think medical opinion backed up by several billion examples that the life could exist outside the womb as well as inside is a reasonable definition personally.
Sure, technically the fetus is "alive" as soon as the first cell divides. Whether or not that life is entitled to full rights as a human being and at what point in gestation it does is a very clouded muddled argument that can be put to the test exhaustively without ever achieving an answer.

There won't ever be a good answer in those terms and this debate will go on into infinity until people just get tired of it and finally legalize it one way or another.

The end result is nearly inevitable assuming that our society doesn't degenerate into a fascism as fascism was intended to be; an immutable preservation of ultra-conservatism that enforces it's philosophies with violence. In a democracy, this even being an issue is dying rapidly on the vine with support coming from ideologues and religious zealots; given the option, more and more people will demand the choice.

Now, ask me how many pro-lifer's I've met that have had abortions after taking up pro-life stances; some of them multiple times.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 01:29 AM
Would you say that the shit resting in your descending colon is part of you? Or that it is made up of all the shit you ate and is simply brewing inside of you until you excrete it?

Now who is being ridiculous? It's shit, and yes, it is apart of your bodies functions until it passes from your body; in the mean time, it is constantly being digested for bodily nutrients. It's vital to your survival as a human being until the time it leaves you.

Keith
8th June 09, 01:39 AM
Good enough?
We'll see.


Secondly (unless it is in fact rape), if you have sex you understand the possibility of becoming pregnant. That's your fucking problem. Birth is a natural thing and just because you don't want to have to deal with the pain of giving birth does not give you the right to kill another human being.
My empasis.

So a woman who voletarily engages in sex does not have the right to play god and kill the fetus, but a woman who was raped does.

Interesting.

What is so magical about rape that makes the life of the fetus less important?

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 01:43 AM
It is enough a part of me that were I to choose to have it removed, I would be well within my rights. Would you object?

Right, but your shit doesn't have it's own separate heartbeat, brain, etc. My point was regarding the physical aspect of something being "part of you" or not.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 01:45 AM
So a woman who voletarily engages in sex does not have the right to play god and kill the fetus, but a woman who was raped does.

I never said this. Thanks for making me sound like a fundie. Once again, I have not yet made a comment on whether or not abortion is right or wrong, I'm only saying that your argument is a stupid one.

I'm pro-choice when it comes to the law, but I also don't think that abortion should be used as a form of contraceptive.

Keith
8th June 09, 01:57 AM
I never said this. Thanks for making me sound like a fundamentalist Christian. Once again, I have not yet made a comment on whether or not abortion is right or wrong, I'm only saying that your argument is a stupid one.
If you want to split technical hairs: I never made an argument. I asked a question. You infered a line of reasoning from it that I may not have been going for.

But if all you were doing is commenting on my argument that I hadn't made yet, why did you even include that rape would be an exception? It makes it sound more like this is a line of reasoning that you suport and you are pre-empting the "what if she was raped?" argument.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 02:01 AM
why did you even include that rape would be an exception?
Because I realized that a specific point I was making would not be true in the case of rape. How does that not make sense?

Also, it was pretty fucking obvious where you were going with the post, don't be a dumbass.

Keith
8th June 09, 02:11 AM
Because I realized that a specific point I was making would not be true in the case of rape. How does that not make sense?
Because once you make an exception for rape, it is no longer about the fetus: it is all about the mother and controlling her choices. Children who were born who were a product of rape are not legally different than children who were born to loving, married couples. Fetuses should be no different if the argument against abortion is that the fetus is a living being. Making exception for rape means that the mother's well-being can be considered more important than the life of the fetus. Then it's just a matter of hammering down what those conditions are, and why.


Also, it was pretty fucking obvious where you were going with the post, don't be a dumbass.
Actually, I didn't have a hard path where I was going to go with it. I was trolling for an opening.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 02:13 AM
Making exception for rape means that the mother's well-being can be considered more important than the life of the fetus.
I never said it couldn't. I don't believe that anyone should be completely against abortion under all circumstances or for it under all circumstances.

Rape is a complicated (and fucked up) thing, and so are the consequences of giving birth to the baby of your rapist. Which is why, if you are raped, you should probably go see a doctor to make sure you AREN'T pregnant, and if you ARE, get rid of it before it starts to have a heartbeat and becomes a conscious human being.

Robot Jesus
8th June 09, 02:20 AM
It is enough a part of me that were I to choose to have it removed, I would be well within my rights. Would you object?


so if I take my home made Fisto! down to the maternity ward and falconpunch a woman whos crowning I'm guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (does "deadly weapon" make "aggravated" redundant).

but if I follow the crotch-spawn down to the nursery and preform a similar experiment a few moments later I'm a murderer?


I've punched many a tumour into a thin paste to be rendered into McNuggets/special sauce and only a handful have called me a murderer for doing so.

your ethics seem to hinge on what most rational people would consider a pretty arbitrary, and almost pointless, distinction.

bob
8th June 09, 02:20 AM
This thread is veering towards the ridiculous.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 02:24 AM
WHOOSH

Keith
8th June 09, 02:26 AM
I never said it couldn't. I don't believe that anyone should be completely against abortion under all circumstances or for it under all circumstances.
I agree. I don't think it should be used as a contrceptive, but I also don't think that the abuses, which I've heard are rare, of a few individuals should further complicate the hard choices that more upstanding people have to make. In the same vein that I'm not villing to repeal my protection against unlawfull and un reasonable search and seizure just because I know that there's some hard criminals that have gotten off when the cops bungles the search. But then again you have said:

I'm pro-choice when it comes to the law,
So are we actually disagreeing about anything here?

bob
8th June 09, 02:28 AM
Sure, technically the fetus is "alive" as soon as the first cell divides. Whether or not that life is entitled to full rights as a human being and at what point in gestation it does is a very clouded muddled argument that can be put to the test exhaustively without ever achieving an answer.

I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. I'm sure many fundies would think I'm a baby killer based on my views.


There won't ever be a good answer in those terms and this debate will go on into infinity until people just get tired of it and finally legalize it one way or another.

Can't see it myself. Too much passion on both sides.


The end result is nearly inevitable assuming that our society doesn't degenerate into a fascism as fascism was intended to be; an immutable preservation of ultra-conservatism that enforces it's philosophies with violence.

I find the murder of abortion doctors abhorrent and the people on the pro-life side who, at the very least, don't condemn it seem to be hypocritical mouth breathers for the most part.


In a democracy, this even being an issue is dying rapidly on the vine with support coming from ideologues and religious zealots; given the option, more and more people will demand the choice.


The sad thing about the real world is that even hypocritical mouth breathing cousin fuckers may have a point sometimes.


Now, ask me how many pro-lifer's I've met that have had abortions after taking up pro-life stances; some of them multiple times.

As it is usually defined, there is not a single 'pro-lifer' in this thread that I've observed.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 02:33 AM
I don't think it should be used as a contrceptive, but I also don't think that the abuses, which I've heard are rare, of a few individuals should further complicate the hard choices that more upstanding people have to make. Agreed.


So are we actually disagreeing about anything here?
Not really, I just don't support the pro-choice argument that it is a "woman's right to choose" because I don't think it has anything to do with the question, " at what point does a fetus become a human being whom it is not alright to kill?".

Robot Jesus
8th June 09, 03:01 AM
after the naming ceremony it's alive, before that it's a thing. all this disagreement is caused my our societies lack of right of passage ceremonies.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 04:11 AM
The sad thing about the real world is that even hypocritical mouth breathing cousin fuckers may have a point sometimes.


meh, she never put out.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 04:13 AM
Way to ignore the foundation of the actual debate.


I'm not sure about the foundation of the debate you are having, but the debate I'm having is based around the idea that women should be the final decision makers about abortion. Period.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 04:16 AM
I'm not sure about the foundation of the debate you are having, but the debate I'm having is based around the idea that women should be the final decision makers about abortion. Period.

That's all good and well but has no bearing on the legality or morality of abortion.

The debate surrounding abortion is whether or not you are killing a human being. Period.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 04:26 AM
The debate surrounding abortion is whether or not you are killing a human being. Period.


Straighten out your thong Janet, that is a black hole with no escape. It's a matter of opinion until we define the moment a fetus becomes self aware.

That debate is nothing more than an exercise in rhetorical posturing. It's completely futile.

Tanhalen21
8th June 09, 04:36 AM
Whether or not it's answerable, you dildo, that's still the debate. Otherwise, what makes it a controversial issue? The REASON it's a debate is because there is no clear answer. If we knew the answer, what would there be to debate? Whether or not murder is ok?

Giving women the right to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion completely disregards the concerns people have about abortion, rather than using logic to explain your point.

Eh, this bores me anyways.

Sun Wukong
8th June 09, 07:58 AM
Whether or not it's answerable, you dildo, that's still the debate. Otherwise, what makes it a controversial issue? The REASON it's a debate is because there is no clear answer.
And there never will be, so it's a pointless argument. It's completely subjective. The "debate" was poorly concieved to begin with; a fundamentally flawed equation that ends with a null set.



If we knew the answer, what would there be to debate? Whether or not murder is ok?
Sure and the debate on whether or not the abominable snow man is real will likely continue so long as human being draw breath.

I find your faith in people to believe facts disturbing. People tend to believe what they want to believe, regardless of proof. Facts have as much strength as people put faith in them; just like jesus.



Giving women the right to decide whether or not they want to have an abortion completely disregards the concerns people have about abortion, rather than using logic to explain your point.
I may like to say that I'm quite disappointed that it is used far too frequently as it is, but what grounds do my opinions have on what other people do with their own bodies?

None.

I might say that I believe in allah/yhwh/buddha/L.Ron/jesus/zarathustra and I'm taught that they are the final authority on right and wrong and nothing that anyone else says to the contrary could possibly be true... but what moral authority save that of my own invention does that give me?

None.



Eh, this bores me anyways.
Do you know why that is? Because this debate of the moral rights and wrongs of abortion is unwinnable in any tangible way.

Even were people to find a physical moment of chemistry within the brain of a fetus that determines the moment sentience is achieved, this debate will go on infinitely.

This debate is itself designed to produce no answer, then it's pointless and a waste of time. The end result is the same, you have to change the grounds of the debate from whether or not abortion = murder, to what gives women the right to have the medical procedure?

It seems pretty obvious that the right is inherent to the vague liberties guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights. This is definitely the kind of thing that the founding fathers had in mind when they decided people were entitled to individual freedom; if not, it's clearly within the spirit of those documents.

Sure, that may be a matter of opinion, but my opinion was supported by the Supreme Court and nearly every legislative body in Washington, DC.

TheLordHumungus
8th June 09, 11:14 AM
so if I take my home made Fisto! down to the maternity ward and falconpunch a woman whos crowning I'm guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (does "deadly weapon" make "aggravated" redundant).

but if I follow the crotch-spawn down to the nursery and preform a similar experiment a few moments later I'm a murderer?


I've punched many a tumour into a thin paste to be rendered into McNuggets/special sauce and only a handful have called me a murderer for doing so.

your ethics seem to hinge on what most rational people would consider a pretty arbitrary, and almost pointless, distinction.

I've already admitted that the line I draw is entirely subjective and arbitrary, but I don't see anybody else's as less so.

And as for your example, I do believe they are entirely different matters. The first case is a crime against the mother. The second is a crime against the (then separate) child.

Robot Jesus
8th June 09, 01:15 PM
your line has nothing to do with any "human making" attributes. your line is based on the physical orientation of the child, whether it's inside or outside.

everyone else's line is related to whether or not the child in question is human. Some say conception (which is retarded, rhythm method lol), cullion is making a rather good argument for somewhere around the third trimester, others are avoiding that debate as there are damnable sorts who will use any excuse to make abortion harder to obtain for any reason.