View Full Version : Late-Term Abortion Provider Gunned Down In Church
I oppose late-term abortions, but this is not the way (http://www.kansas.com/946/story/834444.html) to fight it. Gunning down a man in church in front of his wife? What kind of sick loser thinks that's a good idea? Change the law, don't resort to domestic terrorism. Waaaay too reminiscent of Theo van Gogh.
A thoughtful reaction:
"If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me. ... It's madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It's madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing." — John Cardinal O'Connor (http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/god-have-mercy-on-both-victim-and.html)
Another (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/31/george-tiller-murdered/):
The murder of George Tiller at his church is a heinous crime, without any sense or justice. Regardless of how one feels about George Tiller’s profession, his murderer is nothing more than a domestic terrorist — someone attempting to impose by force a policy that one cannot get in place through democratic means. Tiller’s killer is no better than William Ayers, Kathleen Soliah, and Eric Rudolph, people who attempted to use violence for their extremist ends. Those who value life know that murder is the antithesis of the pro-life movement. [...] Circumstantial evidence suggests that the motive was indeed political (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33811_Tiller_Murder_Suspect_Identified_Posted_at_Operation_Rescue).
Beliefnet has an interesting article (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/tiller-assassination.html) about how this links to the much-hated DHS report.
I was thoroughly dumbfounded at the conservative reaction to that report in April. If you read the report, it was quite clearly aimed a serious, violent, insane extremists. Yet mainstream conservatives took great offense, accusing the Obama administration of chillingly targeting the free-speech of conscientious anti-abortion citizens, veterans and conservatives writ large. [...]
Roeder seems exactly the sort of person that the DHS warned about.
The report suggested that the bad economy and the election of a black president could stimulate more anger and activity from "violent anti-government groups." Far from attacking anti-abortion activists in general, as many claimed, the report instead noted white supremacists' "longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion."
We'll see if Roeder maintained his ties to the militia groups or had shifted his focus to abortion only, but at a minimum, conservatives have to make a new choice: take seriously right wing extremists -- the real ones, not the bloviators -- or run the risk of truly being lumped together.
In a way, conservatives now face a choice similar to what liberals in the late 1960s and early 1970s faced during the heyday of the Weather Underground.
There is now exactly one doctor who is known to provide late-term abortions. I expect he's a marked man (http://coloradoindependent.com/30017/late-term-abortion-doctor-decries-tiller-killing-this-is-a-fascist-movement) as well.
There's a right way and a wrong way. Murdering to score political points is the wrong way.
Don Corleone
06-01-2009, 22:50
I agree completely, Lemur. As horrific as Dr. Tiller's crimes against humanity have been, murdering him to stop them does nothing.
I pray for mercy for the souls of Dr. Tiller & Mr. Roeder.
Rhyfelwyr
06-01-2009, 22:55
It was wrong, but it's hard to feel sorry for such a monster.
It would be a different story if it wasn't late term abortions. I sympathise with abortionists views when the baby is no more than a lump of cells, but you can't be right in the head to carry out late-term abortions.
Hooahguy
06-01-2009, 22:57
I agree completely, Lemur. As horrific as Dr. Tiller's crimes against humanity have been, murdering him to stop them does nothing.
I pray for mercy for the souls of Dr. Tiller & Mr. Roeder.
QFT
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-01-2009, 23:00
Lemur, you will be (hopefully) pleased to know that almost every pro-life group I know of has condemned this.
I agree completely, Lemur. As horrific as Dr. Tiller's crimes against humanity have been, murdering him to stop them does nothing.
I pray for mercy for the souls of Dr. Tiller & Mr. Roeder.
:bow:
seireikhaan
06-01-2009, 23:04
:no:
Sad story in so many ways.
CountArach
06-01-2009, 23:06
It was wrong, but it's hard to feel sorry for such a monster.
Oh come on - this Doctor was performing a completely legal operation and was killed for it.
That sickens me quite frankly. That you would put your own anti-abortion views above feeling sorry for a man who was just murdered is utterly reprehensible.
LittleGrizzly
06-01-2009, 23:08
In church as well... sickening...
My condolences to his family
Edit: I wonder if maybe a military man involved in guantanamo bay, would you struggle to feel sorry if that monster was killed ?
Lemur, you will be (hopefully) pleased to know that almost every pro-life group I know of has condemned this.
I don't know if "pleased" is the right word; "relieved" would describe my feelings more accurately. Although you say "almost" every group has condemned the killing — who has abstained? Scary to think that any mainstream political group could condone this.
I wonder if maybe a military man involved in guantanamo bay, would you struggle to feel sorry if that monster was killed ?
Not sure to whom this question was directed, but I'll bite: I don't think anyone involved with our torture policy should be murdered. Not the men who carried it out, not the lawyers who enabled it, not the executives giving the orders. This is America. We should never murder people with whom we disagree. If something is heinous and wrong, eventually we pass a law. Like Winston Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they've tried everything else.”
The great late Bill Hicks described the irony of this situation better than I could have ever done..
'these are pro-life people...who murder doctors...'
it´s irony on a base level, but it´s a hoot!:rolleyes2:
LittleGrizzly
06-01-2009, 23:30
Yeah basically Lemur i agree... it was kind of directed at rythfelwyr. Its a much greyer area if were talking about mass murdering dictators (though i still don't approve death penalty) but if were talking about people who do unsavoury things for thier Job, like say late term abortion doctor, enhanched intergation officer/solidier but things that aren't nessecarily illegal and are more of a grey area then thier murders are shocking and i do feel for them and thier family...
It may be unsavoury but they are just doing thier job, a job that through whatever process is legal in your country...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-01-2009, 23:33
Although you say "almost" every group has condemned the killing — who has abstained?
Nobody that I can think of. Why are you relieved rather than pleased? I doubt that any of the major pro-life groups would condone this.
Rhyfelwyr
06-01-2009, 23:48
As I said his murder was wrong, but I don't care if he was just doing his job, or if it was legal. The Nazi guards at the concentration camps were just doing their jobs, and it would have been perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it right.
To be honest, I think you have to be a very sick person to carry out late term abortions.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-01-2009, 23:50
Better yet, show me a pro-life group that condones it. It's absolutely antithetical to both those organizations and Christianity as a whole. "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" doesn't translate well into "blow away those you disagree with."
/in before all-faith-is-evil
It was wrong, but it's hard to feel sorry for such a monster
Yeah, that's where I am. The doctors murder was unhelpful and just plain wrong. Whatever he did, you can't justify his murder- but I can't feel sorry for the man anymore than I could a concentration camp executioner.
For a living, this man took babies who, were old enough live if born prematurely, and ripped them from their mother's wombs and killed them. The clinic even offered baptisms (http://web.archive.org/web/20071218152211/www.drtiller.com/chap.html) for aborted babies- how monstrous is that? I'm incapable of shedding any tears for him.
Yeah basically Lemur i agree... it was kind of directed at rythfelwyr. Its a much greyer area if were talking about mass murdering dictators (though i still don't approve death penalty)
Well, hang on a second, I wasn't making an argument against the death penalty. If a person has a fair trial and is found guilty and sentenced, then so be it. I was saying that people should not be killed by other private citizens for their political actions, or to prove a political point.
Why are you relieved rather than pleased? I doubt that any of the major pro-life groups would condone this.
I am relieved because the abortion issue can bring out the extremist in people, and some of the rhetoric that gets used is kind of out-there. If pro-life groups are taking care to distance themselves from a clearly criminal man, why shouldn't I be relieved? I want an abortion compromise to be reached within my lifetime, and that means that people on both sides of the issue need to be rational and legitimate.
I could too easily see people saying, "It's a good day for 'Merica!" as some hick was shouting on Left4Dead last night. (I realize that a zombie-killing game is not a representative sample of the electorate.)
tibilicus
06-01-2009, 23:56
Got to love the hypocrisy of those pro-life protesters. So this guy deserved to be shot because he killed babies but by killing him they some how have to moral high ground? Hmmmmm
Similarities can also be drawn to those who are Christians yet support the death penalty. "Jesus told me to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek but I support the death penalty because some people don't deserve my forgiveness" . It's a mad, mad world..
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-01-2009, 23:58
Got to love the hypocrisy of those pro-life protesters. So this guy deserved to be shot because he "killed" babies but by killing him they some how have to moral high ground? Hmmmmm
Do you always use outliers to judge groups, or is it only with people you don't like?
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2009, 00:06
The Nazi guards at the concentration camps were just doing their jobs,
I was going to put a sentence in but i figured i would give godwins law a rest...
Its a little different shoving thousands of jews off to thier deaths every day.... i was thinking more american torturer in Gauntanamo bay than nazi gaurd...
Well, hang on a second, I wasn't making an argument against the death penalty. If a person has a fair trial and is found guilty and sentenced, then so be it. I was saying that people should not be killed by other private citizens for their political actions, or to prove a political point.
Basically i was agreeing... the part in brackets was more a side point not connected the rest...
Basically the part in brackets was saying despite the fact i would be less bothered about someone killing a mass murdering dictator like they killed this doctor... i still wouldn't approve of giving them the death penalty..
You know... incase any dictators were reading the .org and thought i was wishing them harm...
seireikhaan
06-02-2009, 00:09
Got to love the hypocrisy of those pro-life protesters. So this guy deserved to be shot because he killed babies but by killing him they some how have to moral high ground? Hmmmmm
Similarities can also be drawn to those who are Christians yet support the death penalty. "Jesus told me to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek but I support the death penalty because some people don't deserve my forgiveness" . It's a mad, mad world..
:no:
Are you done trolling or are you ready to actually see people've been saying about the story? NOBODY here has said "way to go, buddy!" The man acted on his own, and received nearly zero support from every pro-life group. Stop being a total :daisy:
Samurai Waki
06-02-2009, 00:09
This wasn't what the Pro Life Lobby wants, they want to end abortions, especially late term abortions. What this man is, is a cold blooded killer, not a representative for what Pro Lifers want. Of course he will be condemned, and will serve the rest of his days behind a steel curtain. He will never be the martyr, he thinks he is.
As I said his murder was wrong, but I don't care if he was just doing his job, or if it was legal. The Nazi guards at the concentration camps were just doing their jobs, and it would have been perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it right.
Its irrelevant - the consequences of such a death are felt mainly by the family of the victim. Feel sorry for them. (and I would seperate him from Nazi guards, he was apparently 1 of 2 people, they can truly claim to be binded by orders + fear, he could not)
Got to love the hypocrisy of those pro-life protesters. So this guy deserved to be shot because he killed babies but by killing him they some how have to moral high ground? Hmmmmm
Similarities can also be drawn to those who are Christians yet support the death penalty. "Jesus told me to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek but I support the death penalty because some people don't deserve my forgiveness" . It's a mad, mad world..
I don't see why its neccessarily hypocritical for Christians/ Pro-Lifers to support the death penalty, afaik Pro-Lifers only argue everyone should be given a chance at life. As has been said, he is clearly not representative of the Pro-Life lobby anyway.
This wasn't what the Pro Life Lobby wants, they want to end abortions, especially late term abortions. What this man is, is a cold blooded killer, not a representative for what Pro Lifers want. Of course he will be condemned, and will serve the rest of his days behind a steel curtain. He will never be the martyr, he thinks he is.
Meh, iv heard from ex-brainwashed women that used to be part of the pro-life movement the exact opposite, one a certain "Sciwoman" over at Richardawkins.net and another a neighbor . They can tell some heavy stories that went on when they were screaming and harassing women going to the abortion clinics. I got no doubt in my mind that "mainstream" pro-lifers are praising this terrorist behind closed doors.
Iv heard from other forums that the doctor that got assassinated only performed on 3rd trimester babies when it was apparent they would have severe birth defects, anyone else have information on this?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-02-2009, 01:02
I got no doubt in my mind that "mainstream" pro-lifers are praising this terrorist behind closed doors.
Alright, so amount of people who know nothing about the pro-life movement in this thread tallies at: 1. I'll keep a running total, don't worry.
Well, it certainly sounds as though a measurable percentage of people opting for late-term abortions are folks with severely damaged babies. Examples (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-personal-the-regret.html):
My wife and I are/were staunch choice advocates; we'd both done our share of marching on Washington for the cause. Actually enduring the process gave us a much more nuanced opinion about abortion.
For us, it was Trisomy 21 -- Down Syndrome. The test came after my wife awoke one night in a pool of blood screaming and thinking she'd suffered a miscarriage. After she ran to the toilet, it fell upon me to call her doctor and then scoop out the remains--that actually turned out to be huge clots--and take them to the doctor the next day. The geneticist said that because of all the bleeding and other complications there was almost no chance the fetus would make it to 20 weeks let alone full term.
My wife says one of my finest moments as her husband came when I somehow made her laugh while she awaited the abortion. My wife doesn't talk about her feelings of the abortion and the "failed" pregnancy. But we've been together for more than a decade and I know she will always be crushed by it. I know we made the right decision for us but it still hurts badly. This was the son we would never have.
----------
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. My wife just called with the news of his murder, weeping. I can't really come up with some profound political statement just now, so let me just list some 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.
He told the story of his previous shooting, where a woman shot him twice in both arms as he drove out of his clinic. At first he wanted to run her down with his Jeep, but then he thought "she shot you already George, she'll do it again!"
I remember being puzzled about a T-shirt he was wearing, which said "Happy Birthday Jennifer from team Tiller!" or something similar. Turns out it comemmorated the birthday of a fifteen year old girl who was raped, became pregnant, and came to Tiller for an abortion. As luck would have it, she was in the clinic the same week as her birthday. So the clinic threw her a party.
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.
I remember my wife, foggy with sedation after the final procedure, being helped from the exam table. He had her sit up and put her arms around his neck, and then he lifted her into a wheelchair. "You give good hugs" she whispered. He paused just for a moment. "You're just fine," he told her.
--------
My brother and his wife received a diagnosis at the beginning of the second trimester's ultrasound that their child had anencephaly - a condition where the fetus' skull does not completely close and the brain forms partially outside the skull. It is a neural tube defect, similar to spina bifida, but it happens higher up on the body. They were told the child would die before, or shortly after, birth. There was no doubt about the diagnosis. My brother and his wife were encouraged by their doctor to go to Kansas for an abortion, the closest place where they could obtain one in the second trimester.
It was an agonizing decision, but they chose not to have the abortion for religious reasons. The pregnancy went to term and the baby lived for several weeks. She was surrounded by love for the brief time she was here.
I wish I could say unequivocally that they made the right decision, but the long-term effects on my sister-in-law's mental well-being have been serious. She is very much changed from the person that she was before.
Imagine what it is like to walk around in your third trimester, obviously pregnant, while well-meaning people ask you about this baby that you don't expect to be taking home from the hospital. Innocuous comments become incredibly hurtful in this context. Then imagine the baby survives and days later you take home this child who will die. In case you might relax and pretend for a little while that everything is okay, a hospice nurse comes to your house every couple of days and reminds you the signs and symptoms of death. Every time you open the refrigerator you see the narcotics you've been given to ease the baby's suffering once things get really bad.
Eventually, this baby dies a grueling death in your arms and you go home to an empty house. You want another baby, but are paralyzed by the thought of having another child with the same condition, yet you desperately want a child that is related to the child you lost. You find yourself unable to conceive and resentful of those who have many healthy children so easily. The infertility takes its toll on your marriage. The suffering and injustice takes its toll on your faith.
I often wonder what would have happened if they had the abortion. I'm not sure my sister-in-law could have lived with that decision, but at least she was given the gift of making a deliberate choice and this did make a difference in how my brother and his wife perceived their circumstances. How do people respond when they feel trapped?
I agree with those who believe abortion is a selfish choice, but in some cases the cost to the self is too high and the benefit to the other is too hard to determine. I'm afraid that the murder of Dr. Tiller will hasten the decline in doctors willing to do this work and deny desperate people of options.
Crazed Rabbit
06-02-2009, 01:02
Well I can't say more than what's been said by Don Corleone.
Oh come on - this Doctor was performing a completely legal operation and was killed for it.
Legality has nothing to do with morality. It was once legal to own slaves and treat them horribly. Would calling a brutal slaveowner, who was killed by a radical abolitionist, a 'monster' offend you?
Now the murder was, of course, wrong, and goes against the principles of those who are pro-life.
CR
Samurai Waki
06-02-2009, 01:04
Meh, iv heard from ex-brainwashed women that used to be part of the pro-life movement the exact opposite, one a certain "Sciwoman" over at Richardawkins.net and another a neighbor . They can tell some heavy stories that went on when they were screaming and harassing women going to the abortion clinics. I got no doubt in my mind that "mainstream" pro-lifers are praising this terrorist behind closed doors.
Iv heard from other forums that the doctor that got assassinated only performed on 3rd trimester babies when it was apparent they would have severe birth defects, anyone else have information on this?
I understand that some of the extreme elements are certainly clapping their hands. However, Leadership had better distance themselves from the extremists, make their organizations far more transparent, and had better do it quickly. In the end, little cases like these, actually make Pro Choice stronger. Which is fine.
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2009, 01:52
The man was sick. Unfortunately he lived to destroy life. What do you do with monsters like that when the state refuses to lock them up?
I'll pray for him, but is name will be at the end of the list of the 60,000 infants he has killed, so it may take a while.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 02:35
This man did not deserve to die, no one does. To suggest otherwise is to miss the point of Christianity as a religion. This man was not a murderer, he was a doctor; he no doubt thought he was helping people by offering this service, aliviating suffering and making lives better. The fact that he was killing upborn children is itself hgorrific, but it says more about American society than this one man.
I see no evidence he was anything other than normal and well adjusted, no doubt he also had a support staff and family and friends who thought his job was acceptable, I doubt he enjoyed parts of it very much. The fact that he felt this particular evil was necessary is truly dreadful, but those condemning him here should examine the world around them and ask how he was brought to this state.
As to those Christians condemning him here, I say two things: "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and remember that Jesus went to the prostitutes, thieves and tax collectors, I'm sure he had dinner with a Greek doctor who performed abortions as well.
This man is dead, he and his family deserve compassion, sympathy, protection, forgiveness and love; not hate and recrimination.
Well I can't say more than what's been said by Don Corleone.
Legality has nothing to do with morality. It was once legal to own slaves and treat them horribly. Would calling a brutal slaveowner, who was killed by a radical abolitionist, a 'monster' offend you?
Now the murder was, of course, wrong, and goes against the principles of those who are pro-life.
CR
The women getting the late term abortions didnt do it for the lulz. It was either that or bringing up a invalid,something most people dont have the mindset/financial situation to do.
Alright, so amount of people who know nothing about the pro-life movement in this thread tallies at: 1. I'll keep a running total, don't worry.
Was raised in a fundamentalist christrian environment. Know more about it then I really care too.
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2009, 02:47
Im glad to see people can fully seperate nutters causing death and destruction from the group they are associated with, I look forward to all you people supporting me next time we get into a discussion about Islam!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 02:53
The women getting the late term abortions didnt do it for the lulz. It was either that or bringing up a invalid,something most people dont have the mindset/financial situation to do.
Was raised in a fundamentalist christrian environment. Know more about it then I really care too.
Speaking as a Theologian and Christian, I don't rate fundamentalist Christianity, it, by definition, isn't mainstream and tends not to stick once you enter the real world. The tragedy is that many people, yourself included, ditch the whole thing rather than just the rotten bits.
Speaking as a Theologian and Christian, I don't rate fundamentalist Christianity, it, by definition, isn't mainstream and tends not to stick once you enter the real world. The tragedy is that many people, yourself included, ditch the whole thing rather than just the rotten bits.
So your actually advocating cherry picking? (Choosing the parts you like, ditching the parts you dont). Thats a riot, most people at least try to make it more subtle by saying to "focus on what Jesus said, he made it so the old testament doesnt need to be followed ", even though Jesus said the exact opposite.
Fundamentalist Christianity may not be the mainstream, but in the Bible Belt (Tulsa, Oklahoma) it certainly is.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 03:26
So your actually advocating cherry picking? (Choosing the parts you like, ditching the parts you dont). Thats a riot, most people at least try to make it more subtle by saying to "focus on what Jesus said, he made it so the old testament doesnt need to be followed ", even though Jesus said the exact opposite.
Fundamentalist Christianity may not be the mainstream, but in the Bible Belt (Tulsa, Oklahoma) it certainly is.
Your statement implies Southern Baptism is "complete" Christianity, that rejecting some of those doctrines makes you "less Christian". That is by no means definitively so, conversely I could argue that fundamentalists cherry pick because they do not adhere to the Creeds, which predate the canonisation of the Bible by 50-70 years.
That denomination and it's ilk are neither the last word, nor representative. Nor is Jesus attitude to the Old Testemant simple or especially clear, particually in translation; what is explicit is that he rejected certain parts (eye for and eye, divorce etc.) Further, the denomination you refer to is known for a high level of litteralism in scripture and a low level of contrextuality.
If you want to attack my faith or my scholarship, feel free to open a dedicated thread for that purpose.
Your statement implies Southern Baptism is "complete" Christianity, that rejecting some of those doctrines makes you "less Christian". That is by no means definitively so, conversely I could argue that fundamentalists cherry pick because they do not adhere to the Creeds, which predate the canonisation of the Bible by 50-70 years.
That denomination and it's ilk are neither the last word, nor representative. Nor is Jesus attitude to the Old Testemant simple or especially clear, particually in translation; what is explicit is that he rejected certain parts (eye for and eye, divorce etc.) Further, the denomination you refer to is known for a high level of litteralism in scripture and a low level of contrextuality.
If you want to attack my faith or my scholarship, feel free to open a dedicated thread for that purpose.
I never said a thing. You said precisely
ditch the whole thing rather than just the rotten bits. Which to me means cherry picking, maybe to you it means status quo.
Jesus said in the new testament that he came not to discard the old laws, but to reaffirm them. Maybe not those exact words, its been a while since I heard the quote but its definitely there. I chose that example because the old testament is horrific, the doctor in this thread went after unborn babies, the old testament god went after men, women and children in genocide like fashion. Hence why growing up I was severely discouraged from even touching the old testament. It was just a example.
I choose not to attack your faith or scholarship, but im very curios as to what you consider is "the last word" and "representative" of the christian faith at whole.
What do you do with monsters like that when the state refuses to lock them up?
The state "refuses" to punish the doctor because of the law. We should work on changing that law, not on vilifying and murdering the people who perform procedures that we find abhorrent.
I have to tell you, in cases where the baby is found to have a defect that guarantees a painful, prolonged and expensive death, I don't know what's right. I just read an account of a child who was brought to term who required three (three!) heart surgeries before suffering an inevitable death at one week of age. This child's entire existence was open-chest surgery and pain.
I wouldn't inflict that on my dog, much less my child.
I guess if I had to make that call, I'd support my wife in either an abortion or a DNR with the hospital (assuming they'd allow it). And plenty of narcotics for my baby, to send him or her out on a sea of morphine.
Non-viable fetuses are what make me stumble in my opposition to late-term abortions. Thoughts?
Kadagar_AV
06-02-2009, 04:00
Just another day in Taliban America.
Pro-lifer killed doctor... I just cant keep myself from stating the irony.
On the other hand, one might argue that the shooter carried out a very-very-late abortion...
On a more serious note: I do not believe the doctor made abortions for giggles and laughs... When one decide to have an abortion late there is usually a reason for it, no?
It's a sad day when something like this happens, my condoleances to the family and friends.
LittleGrizzly
06-02-2009, 04:06
Just another day in Taliban America.
Show some respect, thats no better than trolling...
I have to say im opposed to late Abortions as well but in cases like Lemur mentions i fully support it... does anyone know what what proportion of this doctors abortions would be such a case... and in contrast what proportion of completely healthy fetuses did he perform late term abortions on ?
Show some respect, thats no better than trolling...
Seriously. It's not helpful to use this incident to throw fecal matter at people of faith or pro-lifers. That's just not conducive to a discussion.
The vast majority of pro-lifers are law-abiding citizens who exercise their freedom of speech and assembly to agitate against a policy they find amoral and inhuman. Please don't use the actions of a single lunatic to paint them with the crazy brush. Note that pro-life organizations have been distancing themselves from this act as fast as they can press release.
Save any Christianity-bashing and America-bashing for an appropriate thread, please.
-edit-
That said, people who used every rhetorical trick in the book (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/) to paint Tiller as a monster might want to re-think their approach. If you keep telling your listeners and viewers that a man is an evil horror, one of them might take you seriously.
Papewaio
06-02-2009, 04:36
It is a statement that is accurate in direction if not magnitude. Religious nutters killing others because they don't obey their warped code. Just remember that the real Taliban in Afghanistan are only a tiny minority that push their non-mainstream religious view by killing those who oppose them. That the killer is getting even an iota of succor while the victim is vilified as a Nazi camp guard in this thread gives credence to the hyperbola of the Taliban America statement.
Also the strange double take given to religion in that it is okay to smash apart the Doctor but to point out the rot within a religion is a no-no.
One thinks that we wouldn't be so forgiving if the killer's philosophy was centred on Jedism or LOTR or a Trekkie. But change the frock and age the belief system a tad it is not ok to turn the lens on them. Tsk tsk tsk ageism.
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2009, 04:46
I see no evidence he was anything other than normal and well adjusted, no doubt he also had a support staff and family and friends who thought his job was acceptable, I doubt he enjoyed parts of it very much.
Take this link: www.drtiller.com/remembrance.html (http://www.drtiller.com/remembrance.html)
and put it in to google. Then, Cache the page and look at what this "clinic" used to promote. They would photograph dead babies as a part of their "services". They would perform baptisms of the babies after death. Does that sound normal to you?
The fact remains that the man made millions killing tens of thousands of pre-born infants. He was also one of 3 doctors in the US who performed the most blatantly outrageous forms of infanticide that the law is still gray on. The media didn't need to take a moment of silence for Mengele. Their rememberances betray their much denied bias. The sad thing is that this barbarism hasn't been dealt with in the 21st century.
Every human has elements of humanity in them. It should be no suprise when even the worst of them have loving families. Evil is the sum of the acts that you take in life. By reasonable standards this man was human being who commited a myriad of crimes agaisnt the most innocent among his own people.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-02-2009, 05:33
It is a statement that is accurate in direction if not magnitude. Religious nutters killing others because they don't obey their warped code. Just remember that the real Taliban in Afghanistan are only a tiny minority that push their non-mainstream religious view by killing those who oppose them. That the killer is getting even an iota of succor while the victim is vilified as a Nazi camp guard in this thread gives credence to the hyperbola of the Taliban America statement.
Also the strange double take given to religion in that it is okay to smash apart the Doctor but to point out the rot within a religion is a no-no.
One thinks that we wouldn't be so forgiving if the killer's philosophy was centred on Jedism or LOTR or a Trekkie. But change the frock and age the belief system a tad it is not ok to turn the lens on them. Tsk tsk tsk ageism.
I don't think anyone is objecting to criticisms of the kind of narrow and unchristian belief system that says this is ok. What I think people are objecting to is taking this one particularly unchristian action and saying "those Christians are all the same, murdering people for their God all the time." That's my problem anyway. For instance,
"Religious nutters killing others because they don't obey their warped code."
I think the emphasis should be on the "nutters" part because there are all sorts of murderers out there who kill others because they don't obey the murderer's code(s).
penguinking
06-02-2009, 05:46
How awful. The sheer hypocrisy in this action dumbfounds me. How could someone possibly be so stupid as do something like this? What the doctor was doing was entirely legal, and could have been opposed by nonviolent means. While the pro-life movement in America has said they don't support this, they clearly need to start sending clear messages not to get violent.
They would photograph dead babies as a part of their "services". They would perform baptisms of the babies after death. Does that sound normal to you?
This is the second time that you're brought baptism up [edit, my bad, I see it was Xiahou who jumped on this first]. I can very easily imagine a situation where a couple terminates a non-viable fetus and still wants the blessing of baptism for their child.
Before we started successfully spawning, my wife and I went through a miscarriage at three months. Let me assure you, just because I never met that child doesn't mean I don't love it have tender feelings. Sorry, but your emphasis on services that might help a grieving couple don't wash, and they smell of unthinking hype. Whether it's a miscarriage or an abortion, losing a baby hurts. A record of baptism and a picture might help a hurting mother and father get through what must be a traumatic experience.
Some (many?) abortions are due to non-viable fetuses. Not everyone is using abortion as birth control. Consider this before you fire your next fusillade.
-edit-
Here's the text you're referring to:
Many patients request a remembrance of their baby to take home with them. The following lists items and services that some of our previous patients have found helpful in their emotional recovery. Everyone approaches this experience with their own unique emotional, spiritual, and cultural background. There is not right way or wrong way, just "your way". Once the process of healing has begun, you may want to consider a token of the precious time you and your baby had together. All of these features of our program will be discusssed with you while you are with us:
Viewing your baby after delivery
Holding your baby after delivery
Photographs of your baby
Baptism of your baby, with or without a certificate
Footprints and handprints of your baby
Certificate of premature miscarriage
Cremation
An urn for ashes
Arrangement of burial in either Wichita or your home state
Arrangement of amniocentesis/autopsy
Medical photographsand x-rays for your health care professional
Grief is a very complex emotion which is expressed in many different ways. We will attempt to accommodate your individual requests to the very best of our abilities.
This does not sound ghoulish to me, having lost a child to miscarriage. This looks like an attempt to help people deal with grief. Although I oppose late-term abortions, I don't appreciate your attempt to score theatrical points from what appears to be a well-meaning attempt to let parents connect with the child they will never know.
Samurai Waki
06-02-2009, 05:59
There have been men, who made millions and stood behind the Pro Life Banner, using less than Scrupulous means to attain their wealth. Or do televangelists not exist anymore? I'm not sure if stealing old people's pensions to line one's pocket is morally sound... and yet at the same time feel they can blast abortion doctors, who legitimately believe they are doing a necessary evil. It may be the "devil's" work, but its honest in it's intent.
Some (many?) abortions are due to non-viable fetuses. Not everyone is using abortion as birth control. Consider this before you fire your next fusillade.It's an irrelevant argument to me. I never had any doubt that the man provided some percentage of "abortions" to terminate a non-viable pregnancy. If that were all he performed, a lot of people would likely have viewed him more kindly. However, his practice also provided and advertised (http://web.archive.org/web/20071220170118/www.drtiller.com/elect.html) elective late-term abortions.
At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.
Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you. They're taking care to state Kansas law and then go on to explain the many loopholes for terminating viable pregnancies electively.
It was a disgusting practice. Trying to put a better face on it by saying that some of the abortions were non-viable doesn't change the fact that many were.
In this thread: The Irony of the Pro-Life Campaigners.
CountArach
06-02-2009, 08:56
Godwin's in 15 posts. Well done Xiahou.
tibilicus
06-02-2009, 10:50
Do you always use outliers to judge groups, or is it only with people you don't like?
Sarcasm intended also generalising yes, but obviously that doesn't portray my view. I'm not stupid, I know only a small majority of pro-life groups act in a violent manner instead of going through the political system.
Also I don't hate pro-life groups, but I don't endorse the killing of another human.
Please note, message was posted late at night, I was tired and thought a 4 line sentence could some up my "general view". Didn't realise some people would read so deep into it..
:no:
Are you done trolling or are you ready to actually see people've been saying about the story? NOBODY here has said "way to go, buddy!" The man acted on his own, and received nearly zero support from every pro-life group. Stop being a total :daisy:
Should of stated that I'm referring to those extreme pro-lifers. I mean I don't particularly support abortion unless circumstances are extreme. And no it's not just one person, there are some very extreme sects of pro-lifers who have repeatedly attacked doctors who perform abortions homes and seem to see violence as a way of acting against people opposed to their beliefs.
Obviously a vast majority of of pro-life supporters prefer to use the correct legal method but the fact is there's a nubmer which doesn't.
Also my post has clear sarcasam and is obviously not serious. You seem to be getting worked up over nothing. Also what's the purpose of this thread if not to open the abortion debate and highlight the actions of those crazys who take it to far. But yer you cursing me was really productive, gratz.
Partly my fault yes, for not expanding on what I meant but as I mentioned I was tired and the only intention of my post was to highlight hypocrisy, your wrong to portray me as a troll. It's not who I am nor is it what will ever be.
Rhyfelwyr
06-02-2009, 11:23
Jesus said in the new testament that he came not to discard the old laws, but to reaffirm them. Maybe not those exact words, its been a while since I heard the quote but its definitely there. I chose that example because the old testament is horrific, the doctor in this thread went after unborn babies, the old testament god went after men, women and children in genocide like fashion. Hence why growing up I was severely discouraged from even touching the old testament. It was just a example.
I choose not to attack your faith or scholarship, but im very curios as to what you consider is "the last word" and "representative" of the christian faith at whole.
Sorry for being somewhat off topic, but I just want to clear this up. I agree that Jesus did not reject the OT, the verse you are thinking of is IIRC Matthew 5:17 - "I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulful".
But I also think PVC is right, in that you do not need to take this interpretation. Of course, if you view the scripture as authoritative as the Southern Baptists or myself do, then you must. But other denominations are not so big on the scriptures authority, and some even happily say that it will contradict itself.
Dutch_guy
06-02-2009, 13:02
I have to say im opposed to late Abortions as well but in cases like Lemur mentions i fully support it... does anyone know what what proportion of this doctors abortions would be such a case... and in contrast what proportion of completely healthy fetuses did he perform late term abortions on ?
You could also look at this from the exact opposite way; are there cases in which soon to be parents ask a doctor to perform an abortion on a (seemingly) semi functional fetus ? There's also some hypocrisy in the targetting of doctors in cases such as this, it's the soon to be parents who decide - the doctor can only inform on any risks and actually do the procedure. If one wants to vilify the doctors and call them murderers, then the would-be parents are just as guilty if not morally more so.
:balloon2:
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2009, 14:13
You could also look at this from the exact opposite way; are there cases in which soon to be parents ask a doctor to perform an abortion on a (seemingly) semi functional fetus ? There's also some hypocrisy in the targetting of doctors in cases such as this, it's the soon to be parents who decide - the doctor can only inform on any risks and actually do the procedure. If one wants to vilify the doctors and call them murderers, then the would-be parents are just as guilty if not morally more so.
:balloon2:
But the parents are spending their own money to destroy their own children. As much as that sickens me, the guilt itself should be unbearable, I believe that the party that makes money from the procedure and actually takes the life should be jailed. The parent should be ashamed to look in the mirror for the rest of their life.
To be honest, I think you have to be a very sick person to carry out late term abortions.
Well Rhyfelwyr, without saying whether I agree or disagree, couldn't the same be said about trying to heal a cancer? I mean, it is going against the laws of nature/God after all? What IF the chances of a miscarriage are substantial (40% up) and the woman would know this, and then would get a late term abortion (I'm not sure whether this is even possible, but I'm not a doctor). Where do you draw the line?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 16:02
I never said a thing. You said precisely Which to me means cherry picking, maybe to you it means status quo.
Jesus said in the new testament that he came not to discard the old laws, but to reaffirm them. Maybe not those exact words, its been a while since I heard the quote but its definitely there. I chose that example because the old testament is horrific, the doctor in this thread went after unborn babies, the old testament god went after men, women and children in genocide like fashion. Hence why growing up I was severely discouraged from even touching the old testament. It was just a example.
I choose not to attack your faith or scholarship, but im very curios as to what you consider is "the last word" and "representative" of the christian faith at whole.
That depends on your view of your particular upbringing. If you think it's the "whole hog" of Christianity, then I would be cherry picking. If, on the other hand, you view it as one tradition in a fallable world you are free to choose another, different one, without rejecting central tenets of the Faith. If you were discouraged from reading a part of the Bible because it conflicted with what your church taught then your denomination was most definately "cherry picking".
Look, I don't want to get into this, but its possible to take a lot of different messages from scripture as a Christian, even taking into account the whole book.
Sorry for being somewhat off topic, but I just want to clear this up. I agree that Jesus did not reject the OT, the verse you are thinking of is IIRC Matthew 5:17 - "I did not come to abolish the law or the prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulful".
But I also think PVC is right, in that you do not need to take this interpretation. Of course, if you view the scripture as authoritative as the Southern Baptists or myself do, then you must. But other denominations are not so big on the scriptures authority, and some even happily say that it will contradict itself.
Bingo, my particular view is that Jesus is being slightly ironic, because this claim is followed directly be rejection of several points of the Old Law. Why say this anyway, unless he appeared to conflict with the Law. What I think Jesus is really saying here is:
"You think you know the Law, but you don't; I do know God's Law, this is it."
He's making a point that what he says conflicts, but he's claiming that the priests etc. are the ones in the wrong, this is why Jesus needs to apply a corrective. I think it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and it accords with the Messiah's sense of humour (I think he was a really funny guy, it's why people invited him to dinner).
Take this link: www.drtiller.com/remembrance.html (http://www.drtiller.com/remembrance.html)
and put it in to google. Then, Cache the page and look at what this "clinic" used to promote. They would photograph dead babies as a part of their "services". They would perform baptisms of the babies after death. Does that sound normal to you?
The fact remains that the man made millions killing tens of thousands of pre-born infants. He was also one of 3 doctors in the US who performed the most blatantly outrageous forms of infanticide that the law is still gray on. The media didn't need to take a moment of silence for Mengele. Their rememberances betray their much denied bias. The sad thing is that this barbarism hasn't been dealt with in the 21st century.
Every human has elements of humanity in them. It should be no suprise when even the worst of them have loving families. Evil is the sum of the acts that you take in life. By reasonable standards this man was human being who commited a myriad of crimes agaisnt the most innocent among his own people.
Sorry, saw it and I don't read it the way you do. "Late" is a relative term, as far as I can see they only terminate viable foeti if the child is expected to have a severe handicap. I still don't agree with what he was doing but it's not what you are making it out to be.
This guy was an usher at a Lutheran Church when he was shot, do you really believe he was a sociopath?
ICantSpellDawg
06-02-2009, 16:40
Sorry, saw it and I don't read it the way you do. "Late" is a relative term, as far as I can see they only terminate viable foeti if the child is expected to have a severe handicap. I still don't agree with what he was doing but it's not what you are making it out to be.
This guy was an usher at a Lutheran Church when he was shot, do you really believe he was a sociopath?
Are you saying that all church goers are decent people and that none of them are sociopaths? In fact, the simple fact that he was a church goer should damn his sanity in the eyes of some forum members, I would think.
The reality is that in a church full of 100 people that Tiller was a part of, If I was forced to guess which one of them was a sociopath, my guess would be the guy that has killed tens of thousands of children for money.
Dutch_guy
06-02-2009, 16:46
But the parents are spending their own money to destroy their own children. As much as that sickens me, the guilt itself should be unbearable, I believe that the party that makes money from the procedure and actually takes the life should be jailed. The parent should be ashamed to look in the mirror for the rest of their life.
I believe you're still advocating a double standard here, as taking the money and the life (which in this case is somewhat of a dubious definition) would never have happened were it not for the parents. A doctor could possibly say no (and probably risk a silly lawsuit or whatever), but then he would not be helping the patent or patients (the parents to be) who come to his office to receive help he's been trained to give. If one upholds the extreme viewpoint of the doctor as a murderer, then wouldn't the parents in question be guilty of premeditated murder ? Sentencing the doctor to a life in jail and the ex-parents to a life of shame seems unfairly balanced to the side of the family who made the decision in the first place - and found the funds to make it happen.
:balloon2:
Don Corleone
06-02-2009, 16:50
Membership, even active participation, is no guarantee of one's true character. The BTK Killer was an Elder in his Lutheran church. Surely we're not going to argue that that justifies his actions?
Rhyfelwyr
06-02-2009, 17:53
Well Rhyfelwyr, without saying whether I agree or disagree, couldn't the same be said about trying to heal a cancer? I mean, it is going against the laws of nature/God after all? What IF the chances of a miscarriage are substantial (40% up) and the woman would know this, and then would get a late term abortion (I'm not sure whether this is even possible, but I'm not a doctor). Where do you draw the line?
I don't think there's anything wrong with doctors treating illnesses. The only time I think abortion would be OK is if the mother is likely to die, because then obviously the foetus would die with her. I'm not a doctor either and I've no idea of what exactly a foetus would do if removed prematurely, but I would not like it to be killed deliberately in such a procedue (ie brains sucked through a tube upon removal), should it be involved in an operation due to the mother's health. It's a grey area I don't know a lot about to be honest.
Chimpyang
06-02-2009, 18:28
The murder is a sad event, I feel sorry for the victim's family and am in awe of his ability to carry on his work after surviving a previous attempt. It's a necessary service and like it or not, healthcare of any type involves costs and charges, this is no different. You cannot expect someone to remove financial gain from the healthcare system in the US just because of what their work entails
Britain has a position of it actually being illegal, but no doctor would be done for it as long as they followed protocol as it is a legally defensible position (one defence being that not being pregnant is better for the mother's psychological health - or so our ethics and law lecturers tell us). You don't perform a late term abortion unless there are serious developmental defects (e.g. neural tube closing failures) which probably entail stillbirth or early death and my GP tutor is still hallowed by his experience of having to do a relatively later term one in an emergency once (as required by UK law - you are culpable of not performing an emergency procedure because of personal beliefs if you are the only one around) and I don't belive anyone can see it as a trivial or everyday thing. But it is definitely better to have a safer place to do these operations than to push it back out to the back alleys, especially if someone has psych, neurological issues. How do you justify telling a schizophrenic patient who can be mentally unable to make difficult decisions that she should have gotten it together sooner?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 19:40
Are you saying that all church goers are decent people and that none of them are sociopaths? In fact, the simple fact that he was a church goer should damn his sanity in the eyes of some forum members, I would think.
The reality is that in a church full of 100 people that Tiller was a part of, If I was forced to guess which one of them was a sociopath, my guess would be the guy that has killed tens of thousands of children for money.
Still, these people knew his proffesion, and they still accepted him as a Christian. It is suggestive of his character.
Membership, even active participation, is no guarantee of one's true character. The BTK Killer was an Elder in his Lutheran church. Surely we're not going to argue that that justifies his actions?
Something of a strawman, as he was not hiding the fact he was an abortionist. So your comparison doesn't work.
None of this affects my origonal point, it is un-Christian to reject someone because of their actions, especially if we find those actions repulsive.
Rhyfelwyr
06-02-2009, 20:34
None of this affects my origonal point, it is un-Christian to reject someone because of their actions, especially if we find those actions repulsive.
That is true, but we can't tell them that their sins are OK, least of all something that from our point of view has such an impact on innocent souls.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 21:27
That is true, but we can't tell them that their sins are OK, least of all something that from our point of view has such an impact on innocent souls.
That makes his death no less a tragedy. You're also now voicing a far more nuanced view than ealier. Regardless of what you think of his actions, he should be accorded no less the basic respect due to all human beings.
Instances like this are why I think "fundamentalist" Christianity is fundamentally wrong.
Rhyfelwyr
06-02-2009, 21:36
That makes his death no less a tragedy. You're also now voicing a far more nuanced view than ealier. Regardless of what you think of his actions, he should be accorded no less the basic respect due to all human beings.
Instances like this are why I think "fundamentalist" Christianity is fundamentally wrong.
I always said his death was unfortunate. In any case, why do you blame this on "fundamentalist" Christianity? That's not a whole lot different to when people use this to troll Christianity in general.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-02-2009, 21:49
I always said his death was unfortunate. In any case, why do you blame this on "fundamentalist" Christianity? That's not a whole lot different to when people use this to troll Christianity in general.
"Unfortunate" is the word Gerry Adams used to describe the recent IRA attacks, he was attacked by politicians accross the board.
In this case I think, tragic, brutal and "betrayal of Christian values" aren't even a good start.
What disturbs me is that I think some people here think this man deserved to die because of what he did, which is a decidedly un-Christian response.
Rhyfelwyr
06-02-2009, 22:22
Well what can you do, Gerry Adams thinks Orangemen are evil and doesn't care if they die, I think people that kill babies are messed up and though he should not die at the hands of a vigilante, I would be lying if I said I would lose sleep over it.
I've said his killing was wrong, but common, would all the people telling me that my views are terrible apply the same standard to themselves? How many of you would get upset if Bin Laden got mowed down by someone without getting a trial? You would probably say it was wrong, but after what he's did, it's hard to feel sorry for him.
Don Corleone
06-02-2009, 22:24
"Unfortunate" is the word Gerry Adams used to describe the recent IRA attacks, he was attacked by politicians accross the board.
In this case I think, tragic, brutal and "betrayal of Christian values" aren't even a good start.
What disturbs me is that I think some people here think this man deserved to die because of what he did, which is a decidedly un-Christian response.
We must be reading different threads. I haven't seen anybody claim he got what he deserved. I personally said I would pray for the repose of his soul, despite how horrific I found his crimes.
Something of a strawman, as he was not hiding the fact he was an abortionist. So your comparison doesn't work.
None of this affects my origonal point, it is un-Christian to reject someone because of their actions, especially if we find those actions repulsive.
How is that a strawman? You made the point that since he was an usher at his Lutheran church, he was no monster. I responded that the BTK killer was an Elder at his (as it turns out, a Deacon to boot), and you call "strawman"?
Reject a person? Yes, un-Christian. God reserves judgment of people for Himself. Reject their actions? Not only is it permissable, it is required. It is an act of divine charity to speak truth to sin in your brother. Pretending that performing elective 3rd trimester abortions is no different than removing melanomas is gauche and un-Christian. Love of your fellow man does not mean you accept all of their sins so that you don't hurt their feelings.
LittleGrizzly
06-03-2009, 00:09
would all the people telling me that my views are terrible apply the same standard to themselves?
I feel for the family and the victim whatever his sins... not a fan of christianity but i am a big fan of some of jesus' work. Love the sinner hate the sin as Philipvs mentioned...
Not sure if im going deep into some left wing thought or some christian though but i don't think people are inherently bad and through mistake, wrongs done to them, brainwashing, mental illness, just plain ignorance people can be led to all kinds of sick things. But at the end of the day they are still human and it is a tragedy...
Papewaio
06-03-2009, 02:47
I don't think anyone is objecting to criticisms of the kind of narrow and unchristian belief system that says this is ok. What I think people are objecting to is taking this one particularly unchristian action and saying "those Christians are all the same, murdering people for their God all the time." That's my problem anyway. For instance,
"Religious nutters killing others because they don't obey their warped code."
I think the emphasis should be on the "nutters" part because there are all sorts of murderers out there who kill others because they don't obey the murderer's code(s).
Agreed, this is the problem with most prejudice is that we take the actions of a few and apply that to the whole. The flip side as I see it is that we are very active in stopping prejudice if it is against a religion, but if the thought system is outside of that it can be actively torn apart with aplomb.
Hyperbole has it place as long as people recognise it's use as a device, but much like irony and sarcasm it often muddies the water rather then shines a light on what is happening.
I think it is far more productive to not go straight to 'there's a monster in there them hills' and focus on 'he was a man, with a family and that he was a human just like the rest of us'. For me evil is when we reject the humanity in others and it is what allows us to slaughter those we disagree with. First we vilify them and reject them as one of us and the eases the pain, as we would find it much more difficult to kill someone we recognise as a fellow human. That is the succor that is given to the murderer in this thread. By making the Dr a monster rather then a human we are aiding and abetting the mind set that takes the next step of 'freeing us of that monster'.
Actions are first formed in the mind. Mindsets are choices, and all choices have consequences.
Think a little bit before taking that step that others are not human because their choices and their consequences are not those that you would wish to take for yourself and your loved ones. It doesn't have to be love or hate, and we can all be polite to people even if we don't like their choices.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 03:14
Agreed, this is the problem with most prejudice is that we take the actions of a few and apply that to the whole. The flip side as I see it is that we are very active in stopping prejudice if it is against a religion, but if the thought system is outside of that it can be actively torn apart with aplomb.
Hyperbole has it place as long as people recognise it's use as a device, but much like irony and sarcasm it often muddies the water rather then shines a light on what is happening.
I think it is far more productive to not go straight to 'there's a monster in there them hills' and focus on 'he was a man, with a family and that he was a human just like the rest of us'. For me evil is when we reject the humanity in others and it is what allows us to slaughter those we disagree with. First we vilify them and reject them as one of us and the eases the pain, as we would find it much more difficult to kill someone we recognise as a fellow human. That is the succor that is given to the murderer in this thread. By making the Dr a monster rather then a human we are aiding and abetting the mind set that takes the next step of 'freeing us of that monster'.
Actions are first formed in the mind. Mindsets are choices, and all choices have consequences.
Think a little bit before taking that step that others are not human because their choices and their consequences are not those that you would wish to take for yourself and your loved ones. It doesn't have to be love or hate, and we can all be polite to people even if we don't like their choices.
Cheeky. Some people kill people and are themselves killed. The whole situation is tragic and unfortunate. Moral posturing is fun, though, eh?
I personally said I would pray for the repose of his soul, despite how horrific I found his crimes.
It's hard to commit a crime when you're not breaking a law.
Strike For The South
06-03-2009, 03:21
It's hard to commit a crime when you're not breaking a law.
Semantics
Papewaio
06-03-2009, 03:25
Cheeky. Some people kill people and are themselves killed. The whole situation is tragic and unfortunate. Moral posturing is fun, though, eh?
Not cheeky, serious.
This is from my throne of reckoning.
Please note that the throne of reckoning is a glass toilet seat, in a glass toilet room, in a glass house. My guilt in group think and righteous rage is more then most, so I'm pontificating well and truly from the guilty spectrum. Also I probably should use the neighbours toilets, but Banquo's has too much artillery and that makes me feel inadequate. Lemurs has too many monkeys and their spanking is distracting, while Kukrikhan's has more knives then the Bobbets.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 03:35
Not cheeky, serious.
This is from my throne of reckoning.
Please note that the throne of reckoning is a glass toilet seat, in a glass toilet room, in a glass house. My guilt in group think and righteous rage is more then most, so I'm pontificating well and truly from the guilty spectrum. Also I probably should use the neighbours toilets, but Banquo's has too much artillery and that makes me feel inadequate. Lemurs has too many monkeys and their spanking is distracting, while Kukrikhan's has more knives then the Bobbets.
You act like I'm not in the room right next to you, giving the kitchen counter a righteous reckoning. I told you I needed to use the glass toilet, and your deaf ears have lead to me punishing the glass counter with a fresh brown paint job.
HoreTore
06-03-2009, 10:18
Well, it certainly sounds as though a measurable percentage of people opting for late-term abortions are folks with severely damaged babies.
Is there anyone left who doesn't know this?
Early abortion is the "I can't have a baby now!"-abortion. Late-term is the "something's :daisy: 'd up" abortion.
Let's face it, late-term abortion is a needed procedure. Just as needed as the earlier version.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2009, 10:22
Well what can you do, Gerry Adams thinks Orangemen are evil and doesn't care if they die, I think people that kill babies are messed up and though he should not die at the hands of a vigilante, I would be lying if I said I would lose sleep over it.
I've said his killing was wrong, but common, would all the people telling me that my views are terrible apply the same standard to themselves? How many of you would get upset if Bin Laden got mowed down by someone without getting a trial? You would probably say it was wrong, but after what he's did, it's hard to feel sorry for him.
I would apply the same position to Bin Laden, if he has to be killed it is yet another failure of the War of Ideas we are currently engaged in. In Bin Laden's case, however, his death might have some (debatable) strategic value, it might lessen the fighting for a time.
The killing of this man was totally pointless as well as tragic and morally disgusting.
We must be reading different threads. I haven't seen anybody claim he got what he deserved. I personally said I would pray for the repose of his soul, despite how horrific I found his crimes.
That wasn't particually aimed at you, Don, but even you feel the need to add "despite", why?
He's one of God's children, he's dead; why does there have to be a "despite"?
Maybe it's just me, but this seems incredibly simple from my point of view, and I also apply the same view to his murderer.
How is that a strawman? You made the point that since he was an usher at his Lutheran church, he was no monster. I responded that the BTK killer was an Elder at his (as it turns out, a Deacon to boot), and you call "strawman"?
Yes, because the BTK killer was a closet serial killer and a cociopath (tortured animals, apparently), his congregation didn't know what he was doing to his victims. Conversely, you could hardly not know what Tiller's job was, because he was shot before and had his place of work blown up. They aren't psychologically equivilant, nor is their treatment by their respective congregations.
They aren't comparable.
Reject a person? Yes, un-Christian. God reserves judgment of people for Himself. Reject their actions? Not only is it permissable, it is required. It is an act of divine charity to speak truth to sin in your brother. Pretending that performing elective 3rd trimester abortions is no different than removing melanomas is gauche and un-Christian. Love of your fellow man does not mean you accept all of their sins so that you don't hurt their feelings.
The term "monster" has been banded around here. I don't agree with his actions or his choice of proffesion, but at the end of the day I think you have to accept that society at large and his community were by-and-large happy that he was a normal human being.
Which leaves us to consider how a normal human being can think it is better to kill a foetus than let it live, that's the real tragedy.
rasoforos
06-03-2009, 10:36
I wish the term 'sinner' would not be flying around so much in this thread.
We can of course agree, disagree and pass judgment on people and their decisions. However, accusing people of sin is like putting words in the Gods' mouths. But what do I know, I am an Atheist.
LittleGrizzly
06-03-2009, 12:20
Those without sin cast the first stone...
Hey! where'd all the stone throwers suddenly go ?!
I find myself agreeing with philipvs position in this thread...
Rhyfelwyr
06-03-2009, 12:25
I don't think anyone really disagrees, its just for some people the shock factor of what Tilller did for a living numbs them to his murder. It's probably not the 'right' way to feel, but I guess its a natural reaction, maybe not all that different from what led to the killer shooting him, but I can't help it.
When it comes to what some people see as baby-killing, there's always going to be emotional responses.
rasoforos
06-03-2009, 12:41
When a human 'kills' fetuses he is considered a criminal by some people. (I am not trying to defend his actions here, the point has been discussed already. Just stating the fact)
When a baby dies by an 'act of God' (i.e. cancer, a congenital defect, freak accident) the same people say things like 'we thank God for bringing him/her to our lives' and 'they are now flying with the angels' and things like that. If said baby survives horribly disable and in a word of permanent pain, they say 'Oh it is a mircacle. We thank God for saving him', despite the fact that said God could prevent it in the first place. Noone brands God a criminal.
I do not say this as a criticism but it always perplexes me.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 13:03
When a human 'kills' fetuses he is considered a criminal by some people. (I am not trying to defend his actions here, the point has been discussed already. Just stating the fact)
When a baby dies by an 'act of God' (i.e. cancer, a congenital defect, freak accident) the same people say things like 'we thank God for bringing him/her to our lives' and 'they are now flying with the angels' and things like that. If said baby survives horribly disable and in a word of permanent pain, they say 'Oh it is a miracle. We thank God for saving him', despite the fact that said God could prevent it in the first place. None brands God a criminal.
I do not say this as a criticism but it always perplexes me.
The best people I know have undergone the most serious hardships imaginable. It makes you a stronger person. It is simply heartless bigotry to believe that being handicapped makes someone a miserable waste of life. No one should be executed because their parents refuse to let them experience life. It is all about selfishness. I've seen severely handicapped children enjoy their lives while their parents care for them. The state gives money for the childcare. Some children actually do get better, but even if they don't - some of the happiest children are the severely handicapped or retarded. To kill your own child because you refuse to take responsibility is the highlight of selfishness and it makes me sick.
Meanwhile, people with everything going for them can be the first ones to hate their lives, make the world worse for others, and lack any kind of perspective. When you abort you end a human life out of selfishness. You can try to warp it any way you'd like, but that fact is inescapable. Men like Tiller kill people for money. They have families, go to church, visit littler league games, crack jokes, wink at you when irony is in the air and decapitate and suction tens of thousands of unborn children with no remorse.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2009, 13:18
When a human 'kills' fetuses he is considered a criminal by some people. (I am not trying to defend his actions here, the point has been discussed already. Just stating the fact)
When a baby dies by an 'act of God' (i.e. cancer, a congenital defect, freak accident) the same people say things like 'we thank God for bringing him/her to our lives' and 'they are now flying with the angels' and things like that. If said baby survives horribly disable and in a word of permanent pain, they say 'Oh it is a mircacle. We thank God for saving him', despite the fact that said God could prevent it in the first place. Noone brands God a criminal.
I do not say this as a criticism but it always perplexes me.
I don't believe God has a decisive role in human affairs. pretty much everything I see around me is the immidiate result of human action.
That may sound like a cop out.
rasoforos
06-03-2009, 13:49
The best people I know have undergone the most serious hardships imaginable. It makes you a stronger person. It is simply heartless bigotry to believe that being handicapped makes someone a miserable waste of life. No one should be executed because their parents refuse to let them experience life. It is all about selfishness. I've seen severely handicapped children enjoy their lives while their parents care for them. The state gives money for the childcare. Some children actually do get better, but even if they don't - some of the happiest children are the severely handicapped or retarded. To kill your own child because you refuse to take responsibility is the highlight of selfishness and it makes me sick.
Meanwhile, people with everything going for them can be the first ones to hate their lives, make the world worse for others, and lack any kind of perspective. When you abort you end a human life out of selfishness. You can try to warp it any way you'd like, but that fact is inescapable. Men like Tiller kill people for money. They have families, go to church, visit littler league games, crack jokes, wink at you when irony is in the air and decapitate and suction tens of thousands of unborn children with no remorse.
You do see that :
a) I explicitly mentioned that I am not trying to discuss his actions
(I am not trying to defend his actions here, the point has been discussed already. Just stating the fact)
b) Your post has nothing to do with my post whatsoever
...a misquote?
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 14:23
b) Your post has nothing to do with my post whatsoever
...a misquote?
Potentially. I read "disablility" and my senses were inflamed. I take offence at the various posters who have no problem with late term abortions when they target the disabled, but then aknowledge viability at that stage. To me sayign that a mentally retarded baby can and should be killed on a technicality 2 weeks before he/she is born while 2 seconds after birth it becomes immoral is a massive cop out. You (not you) say you shouldn't kill a viable normal baby at a late stage, but it is ok or understandable to kill a baby with downs syndrom at the same stage. Nonsense. Your belief system is corrupt and barbaric - in need of an audit
You know who you (not necessarilly you) are.
Dutch_guy
06-03-2009, 14:28
When you abort you end a human life out of selfishness. You can try to warp it any way you'd like, but that fact is inescapable.
Sure it happens out of, as you call it, selfishness - but again you're on shallow ground there. I completely understand why a raped woman would want to have an abortion, how a 16 year old girl does not view pregnancy as God's birthday present and I completely understand why a family would want to abort a fetus who shows signs of chromosomal irregularities and or anatomical defects. I can understand that said parents are able to make the decision, which is probably never ever easy, based on the quality of life both for themselves and for the fetus - soon to be child. And I also understand that the only person capable of actually doing said procedure is a doctor, and not your friendly neighborhood cop.
Men like Tiller kill people for money. They have families, go to church, visit littler league games, crack jokes, wink at you when irony is in the air and decapitate and suction tens of thousands of unborn children with no remorse.
I've said this before but I'm surprised at your hatred against the people doing the procedure and not against those who ask for it (in the literal sense). Morally it's just as bad, even if one of the two get's paid for it. I believe at least in the US the person who pays the killer for hire actually gets more jail time, or is at least just as guilty as the person wielding the gun or whatever. They don't let him or her off under the pretense that 'they'll live the rest of their lives in shame'.
:balloon2:
I would be interested in any breakdown of how many of Dr. Tiller's patients were there because of damaged fetuses versus true "convenience" abortions. Interesting article here (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/):
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." [...]
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.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 15:00
I would be interested in any breakdown of how many of Dr. Tiller's patients were there because of damaged fetuses versus true "convenience" abortions. Interesting article here (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/):
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." [...]
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.
Sounds like he was a hero, huh Lemur?
It sounds like some people were there for reasons that were far more complicated than you are willing to admit, certainly. Why not crawl down off that high horse and actually address the points I have raised?
Also, didn't your mama raise you better than to quote the entirety of a long post only to add a single-sentence comment? She'd slap you silly for such bad posting etiquette.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2009, 15:32
I would be interested in any breakdown of how many of Dr. Tiller's patients were there because of damaged fetuses versus true "convenience" abortions. Interesting article here (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/):
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." [...]
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.
This rather tallies with what I was expecting, and sadly proves my point. Underage rape victims, undiagnosed conjoined twins and threats to the mother's health. In the first case I don't believe abortion should be allowed, I'm sorry, I realise how incredibly hard that is for the mother but I can't ever condone it. In the second case one has to wonder how doctors do not stop such defects before eight months (Rory may have insight on this). In the final case, in the final case, where the children cannot survive and the mother's life is in danger I see only one option, which is the one she took.
The question though, is how many of Tiller's patients should have never been in such a position.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 15:42
It sounds like some people were there for reasons that were far more complicated than you are willing to admit, certainly. Why not crawl down off that high horse and actually address the points I have raised?
Your point is that people should kill other people if they feel that they must and the law allows them to. Your point seems to be that Tiller was a defender of life. I won't entertain your equivocation here. You are an enabler and apologist of killers in this instance and are content to be one.
Pro-life doctors would perform an abortion to save the life of a mother.
TuffStuff, if you can bear to address "an enabler and apologist of killers" for a moment, you might want to unpack your statements there. "Pro-life doctors would perform an abortion to save the life of a mother?" Examples, please? Can you back this up, or is this you speaking from your gut? I've now read accounts of women who couldn't get already-dead fetuses removed from their bodies because doctors didn't want to do anything that even resembles abortion. I take it you know something the rest of us don't?
Also, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to those who demonize Christians: Dismissive, extremist rhetoric does not advance this conversation. If you are so certain that you have all of the answers to this problem, you should be able to articulate your reasoning without resorting to broad attacks sans logic.
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 16:03
TuffStuff, if you can bear to address "an enabler and apologist of killers" for a moment, you might want to unpack your statements there. "Pro-life doctors would perform an abortion to save the life of a mother?" Examples, please? Can you back this up, or is this you speaking from your gut? I've now read accounts of women who couldn't get already-dead fetuses removed from their bodies because doctors didn't want to do anything that even resembles abortion. I take it you know something the rest of us don't?
Also, I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to those who demonize Christians: Dismissive, extremist rhetoric does not advance this conversation. If you are so certain that you have all of the answers to this problem, you should be able to articulate your reasoning without resorting to broad attacks sans logic.
I am speaking form the gut. Most pro-lifers that I know understand that you need to save the life of a woman. Most doctors that I know believe that saving lives is important. It stands to reason that if there was no other alternative but to let the woman die or to terminate a pregnancy that a choice would be made. Fortunately that situation rarely ever happens. By the time a pregnancy becomes life threatening it is either ectopic or the child is viable and can be birthed through cesarian.
Bringing the arguement forward in your opinion would condone the killing of the mentally retarded as a concession. You litterally condone the execution of the unfit as long as they are in the womb. I've seen you say as much. You don't hold the middle ground on this issue as long as you advocate eugenics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-03-2009, 16:04
Here, here! Well said Lemur.
Bringing the arguement forward in your opinion would condone the killing of the mentally retarded as a concession. You litterally condone the execution of the unfit as long as they are in the womb. I've seen you say as much. You don't hold the middle ground on this issue as long as you advocate eugenics.
TuffStuff, can I have some of whatever you're smoking, please? Go ahead, find the place where I've advocated, condoned or praised the abortion of retarded children. Please, find a quote. I can wait all year for it, 'cause it doesn't exist. But you get to searching, by all means.
Every example I've raised in this thread has to do with non-viable fetuses, something I know a little more about than you do, kid. I've lived through a miscarriage, have you? I've attended the birth of my own children, have you? Hmm? Frankly, I'd say I've experienced a lot more reality around pregnancy and childbirth than you have, so maybe you should chill out with the wild, baseless and emotional accusations. You seem to believe that making flailing ad hominems gives you some sort of moral standing. This is not the case.
Here are two questions I would like you to address without ducking or dodging:
(1) Your wife is pregnant. Yay! You make it past the critical three-month mark. Yay! At six months your baby is diagnosed with a terminal illness that guarantees he will die immediately after birth. Expensive and painful operations might prolong his life by a week. What should you do?
(2) Your wife is three months pregnant when she is diagnosed with terminal cancer. If she undergoes chemo, the fetus will certainly die, but your wife will have a 60% chance of survival. If she foregoes chemo she may die before giving birth. What should she do?
ICantSpellDawg
06-03-2009, 17:34
TuffStuff, can I have some of whatever you're smoking, please? Go ahead, find the place where I've advocated, condoned or praised the abortion of retarded children. Please, find a quote. I can wait all year for it, 'cause it doesn't exist. But you get to searching, by all means.
Every example I've raised in this thread has to do with non-viable fetuses, something I know a little more about than you do, kid. I've lived through a miscarriage, have you? I've attended the birth of my own children, have you? Hmm? Frankly, I'd say I've experienced a lot more reality around pregnancy and childbirth than you have, so maybe you should chill out with the wild, baseless and emotional accusations. You seem to believe that making flailing ad hominems gives you some sort of moral standing. This is not the case.
Here are two questions I would like you to address without ducking or dodging:
(1) Your wife is pregnant. Yay! You make it past the critical three-month mark. Yay! At six months your baby is diagnosed with a terminal illness that guarantees he will die immediately after birth. Expensive and painful operations might prolong his life by a week. What should you do?
(2) Your wife is three months pregnant when she is diagnosed with terminal cancer. If she undergoes chemo, the fetus will certainly die, but your wife will have a 60% chance of survival. If she foregoes chemo she may die before giving birth. What should she do?
The best I can say is that I swallowed poop in the womb, was being strangled by my umbilical cord and came out blue.
I remember you stating that you believe late term killing might be acceptable if they find a "serious problem". I took that to mean if there was brain damage, painful physical problems for the child, etc. Link 1 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2252804&postcount=25), Link 2 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2252804&postcount=36). Link 1 merely uses an atricle about killing children with downs etc as a rationale. Link 2 contains more of your personal confusion on the issue. I was under the impression that you were against late term abortions as birth control ONLY, but for them in the case of mental or physical defect. Am I incorrect in this assumption?
As for the 2 questions:
1) I would prolong his life by a week, because the week might turn into a month into a year into a "oh sorry about that, he's fine".
2) I would urge my wife to make up her own mind. The treatment would kill the child, but the chances that she would survive are legitimate. Either way I stand to lose everything, so the ball is in her court. In that instance it is a fair call. Luckily that is an absurd minority of cases. I have always said that the mothers life needs to be preserved if that is what the mother would prefer, I don't dodge that one. I know a number of mothers who would die for their child, but others who would kill their children if they could save $100 on their car insurance.
Now that I've answered, what would you say to those questions?
I apoligize if my post was more ad hominem and less an attack on your position. I believe you to be a decent and reasonable person from our interactions on these boards over the years. In muddy waters even the best people can do and say things that they regret, and it seems that the water is muddy for you here; you are gettign out on the wrong side of the pool (to complete an analogy).
I remember you stating that you believe late term killing might be acceptable if they find a "serious problem".
I never said it was "acceptable." You're inferring.
Link 1 merely uses an atricle about killing children with downs etc as a rationale. Link 2 contains more of your personal confusion on the issue. I was under the impression that you were against late term abortions as birth control ONLY, but for them in the case of mental or physical defect. Am I incorrect in this assumption?
Well, both of your links lead to the same post for me. Maybe there's something wrong on my end.
"Mental or physical defect" is waaaaaaaay too vague for me. Polydactyly, for example could be considered a physical defect, as could baldness. (This is why codifying a sane policy would be so difficult; the law is a blunt instrument.)
My main concern is with non-viable fetuses. This is where I get conflicted. As I said earlier in the thread, I wouldn't wish a short, painful life on my dog; why would I wish it on my own flesh and blood? There are conditions that are incompatible with life. Some are detected late. These are the situations that make me hedge.
Now that I've answered, what would you say to those questions?
Question 1 would depend on the exact diagnosis. If there was, say, a 30% chance that the child might survive and thrive, I'd seriously consider taking the pregnancy to term. If there were no realistic hope for more than a week, I'd abort.
Question 2 is even worse than I made out, since no doctor will administer chemo if he knows the woman is pregnant, so my wife would need to go through an abortion and then begin chemo. Devastating all around. As you say, the ball would be in her court. The only lucky thing is that I don't believe cancer can be transmitted to a fetus, can it?
In muddy waters even the best people can do and say things that they regret, and it seems that the water is muddy for you here; you are gettign out on the wrong side of the pool (to complete an analogy).
As I said, I oppose late-term abortion as a rule. But I'd have to be a willfully blind person to ignore the cases that are troublesome. Frankly, when you get into medical decisions of life and death the lines can be much more blurry than we like to admit. And well-meaning policies can result in absurd cruelties.
Example: Doctors can be very sparing with painkillers due to national problems with addiction and dependency. But I remember when my father was dying, having to argue repeatedly with doctors who didn't want to give hi more morphine because they'd been schooled in "just say no." Which doesn't apply even slightly to a dying Marine, thanks very much. Just give him the ******** morphine while he dies, you idiot. Dead people don't have addictions.
I think it's the most natural thing in the world to look for exceptions and problems with a position you hold. Truth and reality are all about particulars and details.
HoreTore
06-03-2009, 19:16
late term killing
Oh please, cut the crap language. All it does is make you look like a loony, sorry.
it also obscures your meaning and makes me use more time reading your posts
Don Corleone
06-03-2009, 19:22
Oh please, cut the crap language. All it does is make you look like a loony, sorry.
it also obscures your meaning and makes me use more time reading your posts
Actually, forcing eveyrone else to use your preferred euphemisms makes you look Orwellian. :shrug:
HoreTore
06-03-2009, 19:24
Actually, forcing eveyrone else to use your preferred euphemisms makes you look Orwellian. :shrug:
Oh come on.
It's like using all sorts of different names for socialist, conservatives, liberals, etc. When they get silly enough, and they're used too much, it starts getting ridiculous and loony. All in good quantity, I say.
Don Corleone
06-03-2009, 19:51
Oh come on.
It's like using all sorts of different names for socialist, conservatives, liberals, etc. When they get silly enough, and they're used too much, it starts getting ridiculous and loony. All in good quantity, I say.
Sometimes I would agree with you. But in this particular case, you're trying to win the argument by playing semantics.
Assume a baby is born on June 1st at 0100. If the doctor sticks a scalpel into the base of its skull at 0101, you'd agree with us that he killed the baby. But if he inserted the scalpel at 0059, you're arguing we should change the terminolgy to performed a procedure on a mass of tissue. Tuff is saying, no, he still killed. And now, to boot, you're claiming he's playing linguistics games because he won't adopt your euphimism. :dizzy2:
The whole abortion issue turns on this very point. If you believe a fetus magically becomes a baby by popping out of the vagina, then you wouldn't use the term killed. But for those of us who believe no special physical transformation in the child happens pre-to-post birth, then the term "killed" is very apropos.
HoreTore
06-03-2009, 22:26
Sometimes I would agree with you. But in this particular case, you're trying to win the argument by playing semantics.
It actually wasn't an argument. It was simply me getting tired of word-swaps, the fact that people who change words like this all the time are seen as loonies, and, finally, because I had to use more time reading his posts, by figuring out whether he actually meant killing as in "abortion", or killing is in "killing"...
Also, there's the whole "being polite to others"-thingy. While I may not have anything against my sister(she's had an abortion) being called a killer, murderer or whatever, it may be a sore point with others. For someone who considers a 3-week old fetus a human being, you should certainly understand that such things can upset people.
Don Corleone
06-03-2009, 22:33
It actually wasn't an argument. It was simply me getting tired of word-swaps, the fact that people who change words like this all the time are seen as loonies, and, finally, because I had to use more time reading his posts, by figuring out whether he actually meant killing as in "abortion", or killing is in "killing"...
Also, there's the whole "being polite to others"-thingy. While I may not have anything against my sister(she's had an abortion) being called a killer, murderer or whatever, it may be a sore point with others. For someone who considers a 3-week old fetus a human being, you should certainly understand that such things can upset people.
You appear to be speaking in circles. We should refrain from using the term "kill" because it might hurt the sensibilities of people who "made a choice to remove some extraneous tissue"? If all they did was "make a choice...", why would they have any sensibilities on the matter to offend? I'm sorry your sister went through such a horrific ideal, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my statements, just to avoid hurting her feelings, especially since I presume its an ordeal she chose with full knowledge of what she was doing.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you unilateraly define the vocabulary for the debate. Words matter. We view it as taking a human life, which is why we say kill. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. I don't use the word kill to poke a finger in your eye... if that was my intent, I would refer to you as pro-abortion, not the pro-choice tag you prefer. I find it mildly irritating when people refer to me as anti-choice, but such is their right.
And where did the 3 weeks come from? The good doctor was performing elective abortions in the 3rd trimester.
Papewaio
06-03-2009, 22:49
Sometimes I would agree with you. But in this particular case, you're trying to win the argument by playing semantics.
Assume a baby is born on June 1st at 0100. If the doctor sticks a scalpel into the base of its skull at 0101, you'd agree with us that he killed the baby. But if he inserted the scalpel at 0059, you're arguing we should change the terminolgy to performed a procedure on a mass of tissue. Tuff is saying, no, he still killed. And now, to boot, you're claiming he's playing linguistics games because he won't adopt your euphimism. :dizzy2:
At what point are the mass of cells a baby? When it can be born and survive with medical intervention?, When it can safely survive by itself without medical intervention or at the point of conception?
Assume a couple conceive at June 1st at 0100. If the husband withdraws at 0101, you'd agree he was responsible for the conception. But if he withdrew at 0059 then the stomach/tissue/mouth is the new death camp as millions are denied their right to life.
The whole abortion issue turns on this very point. If you believe a fetus magically becomes a baby by popping out of the vagina, then you wouldn't use the term killed. But for those of us who believe no special physical transformation in the child happens pre-to-post birth, then the term "killed" is very apropos.
That would be a big worry as Caesaren wouldn't be alive then by that definition...
HoreTore
06-03-2009, 22:51
You appear to be speaking in circles. We should refrain from using the term "kill" because it might hurt the sensibilities of people who "made a choice to remove some extraneous tissue"? If all they did was "make a choice...", why would they have any sensibilities on the matter to offend?
Read it again, Don. I didn't say "of people who", but I was referring to people with relatives(or friends I guess) who have had an abortion. And believe it or not, they exist! And they might not even be fond of abortion either! But, believe it or not, they might not enjoy having their close relative called a murderer every single day! Shocking!
Again, it's irrelevant really, but it's that "being polite to others"-thingy.
But again, as for myself, supporting abortion as I do, I could not care less. All my sister did was remove a lump of cells, and it was her choice.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you unilateraly define the vocabulary for the debate. Words matter. We view it as taking a human life, which is why we say kill. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. I don't use the word kill to poke a finger in your eye...
It doesn't bother me any more than say, swapping "socialist" and "hippie", or "conservative" and "inbred" does. However, when repeated, it gets tiring and makes me think that the person who uses said terms consistently is just some loony retarded I won't consider paying any attention to. Which explains why I've only bothered to read half of TuffStuff's posts in this thread...
if that was my intent, I would refer to you as pro-abortion, not the pro-choice tag you prefer. I find it mildly irritating when people refer to me as anti-choice, but such is their right.
I actually prefer the term "pro-abortion". I've only used the term "pro-choice" because that's what you silly english-speakers use, in norwegian the term is abortion-supporter(roughly translated). The word "choice" is the property of the conservatives here, I don't think it's legal for us socialist heathens to use it...
Semantics
A criminal is a criminal because he or she has broken the law and committed a crime. This man broke no law in his actions, therefore he did not commit a crime, therefore he is not a criminal.Calling him a criminal is 1. untrue and 2. an attack used to lower the guy because you have a different opinion from him.
Don Corleone
06-03-2009, 23:08
At what point are the mass of cells a baby? When it can be born and survive with medical intervention?, When it can safely survive by itself without medical intervention or at the point of conception?
Assume a couple conceive at June 1st at 0100. If the husband withdraws at 0101, you'd agree he was responsible for the conception. But if he withdrew at 0059 then the stomach/tissue/mouth is the new death camp as millions are denied their right to life.
I used to hold that one could put life at viability. After further study and reflection, I realized this was a fallacy. A 3 month old infant cannot exist on its own any more than a -3 month infant can. (Age 0 being the moment of birth).
I've come to hold a much stronger pro-life position over the years, especially with the birth of my daughters. I hold that life begins at the moment of conception, and that the only valid reason for intentionally reason for terminating a pregnancy is to protect the life or long-term physical health of the mother.
Your question is something of a non-sequiter, as you're asking about coitus interruptus, where no conception actually transpired. It has little to do with what we're discussing.
That would be a big worry as Caesaren wouldn't be alive then by that definition...
Luckily for me, I don't hold that definition. I DON'T hold that something magical transpires in one's trip through the birth canal, which is why I am so utterly opposed to 3rd trimester abortions particularly.
rory_20_uk
06-03-2009, 23:14
Mental health is as important as physical health.
But only in extreme cases will mental health issues not have surfaced by the 16th week - that's 4 months for God's sake!
Yes, having children does make someone loose their detachment and form more emotional points of view, but a fertilised egg isn't a healthy delivered baby. Roughly 1/4 will spontaneously abort in early pregnancy, some before those not closely monitoring themselves are aware they were pregnant.
As an aside, how late are we talking here? I personally think that excluding developmental defects that were picked up late unless the mother's life and physical health are in danger after 24 weeks is an absolute contraindication, and I'd want a damn good reason why it's taken so long probably after 12 weeks.
~:smoking:
Meneldil
06-03-2009, 23:45
Abortion is not nice, but it's a necessary evil.
If TuffStuff, Don and others are willing to adopt, raise and take care of every baby that should have been aborted for one valid reason (this include, "not having the means to raise a child", "not wanting to raise a genetically deficient baby", and anything of that standard) or another, then I say yes, we can get rid of abortion (except when the physical health of the mother is threatened).
As long as they don't, then I don't care about christian morals.
The murderer is a typical case of religious nutjob. To protect his "faith" (ie. his bastardized understanding of religion), he's willing to trample the very basics morals of christianity. Well done.
ICantSpellDawg
06-04-2009, 00:22
Abortion is not nice, but it's a necessary evil.
If TuffStuff, Don and others are willing to adopt, raise and take care of every baby that should have been aborted for one valid reason (this include, "not having the means to raise a child", "not wanting to raise a genetically deficient baby", and anything of that standard) or another, then I say yes, we can get rid of abortion (except when the physical health of the mother is threatened).
As long as they don't, then I don't care about christian morals.
The murderer is a typical case of religious nutjob. To protect his "faith" (ie. his bastardized understanding of religion), he's willing to trample the very basics morals of christianity. Well done.
Two of my five syblings are adopted. In reality, they are my favorite syblings. My mother would adopt more if more than 5 children wouldn't cause my fathers head to explode.
I expect to adopt the larger ratio of my children and my girlfriend is on board
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-04-2009, 00:25
If TuffStuff, Don and others are willing to adopt, raise and take care of every baby that should have been aborted for one valid reason
Isn't there a shortage of children in the West as compared to the amount of people wanting to adopt them? Also, what about orphanages? I'd rather live in an orphanage and have some kind of life than never live at all.
It isn't about the woman. It's about the child.
(this include, "not having the means to raise a child"
That's valid? :dizzy2: Abortion as birth control all the way then!
Really, if you have sex and don't have the means to raise a child, there are still more options for you. You can give it to a relative to raise, give it up for adoption, or maybe own up to your own selfish actions and raise it yourself.
"not wanting to raise a genetically deficient baby"
Don't raise it. Adoption. Use it.
Really, don't want to raise a "genetically deficient baby"? Have you ever met a person with special needs? Most of them actually enjoy living, you know.
As long as they don't, then I don't care about christian morals.
The pro-life group is not made up entirely of Christians, you know. And when it is, many of those Christians are not pro-life because of their religion. My Catholicism would only effect me not getting an abortion if I was a woman who was pregnant. My secular reasons for being pro-life are the reasons why I believe that there are many circumstances in which abortion should be illegal.
HoreTore
06-04-2009, 00:29
maybe own up to your own selfish actions and raise it yourself.
Uhm....
Having sex is a "selfish action"...?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-04-2009, 00:34
Uhm....
Having sex is a "selfish action"...?
You have sex, you deal with the consequences. If you don't have the means to raise a child and don't want to give it up for adoption...your fault.
Papewaio
06-04-2009, 00:52
Your question is something of a non-sequiter, as you're asking about coitus interruptus, where no conception actually transpired. It has little to do with what we're discussing.
It is about timing and definitions. Your own quote wanted to lampoon the semantics around this debate. That post-natal abortion is defined murder while pre-natal is defined as a cell scraping. (Edit Note: I totally agree with your stance, on this part)
My own point is that is that the other end of the time scale conception. If conception is the moment a human being starts, does that make the avoidance of it some sort of tragic event? (Edit Note: But the logic of it does beget the other end of the scale, and I'm being tongue in cheek... or something in cheek)
=][=
IMDHO I think it is up to women to decide about abortion for themselves, just like guys get to decide about vasectomies.
When all us blokes are ready to have a group of women on the internet decide if our 'nads should be chopped off or not then we can have an equally weighted argument in deciding women's reproductive strategies.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-04-2009, 01:11
IMDHO I think it is up to women to decide about abortion for themselves, just like guys get to decide about vasectomies.
When all us blokes are ready to have a group of women on the internet decide if our 'nads should be chopped off or not then we can have an equally weighted argument in deciding women's reproductive strategies.
You know, that's just the thing. Most of us don't have any problem with a woman deciding her own reproductive health. The problem is that we believe that has crossed the line. It isn't about the woman any more - there's something else there now. So why should only women have the right to decide when they aren't the only ones being effected? Or, for that matter, the ones being effected the most?
The whole "women should decide" argument is a fallacy. If anything, we should have a plebiscite of fetuses and infants - but since that is impossible, it becomes a decision for everybody.
HoreTore
06-04-2009, 08:04
You have sex, you deal with the consequences. If you don't have the means to raise a child and don't want to give it up for adoption...your fault.
...And that's precisely why we invented abortion.
And you are aware, that even if you ban abortion, that fetus will still be aborted, right?
Louis VI the Fat
06-04-2009, 12:06
You have sex, you deal with the consequences. The consequence would be an abortion, which I am perfectly (un?)happy to deal with.
If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.
For the hurt feelings of the Gods of soul-equipped kitchen utensils or the Gods of soul-equipped lumps of cells, I do not care.
Why the focus on conception?
How is that any less an arbitrary cutoff point than anything else?
Prison for life with the bastard.
The consequence would be an abortion, which I am perfectly (un?)happy to deal with.
If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.
For the hurt feelings of the Gods of soul-equipped kitchen utensils or the Gods of soul-equipped lumps of cells, I do not care.
Such an attitude disturbs me and I think it's in poor taste to compare a pregnancy with a kitchen accident.
1) If you want to be a man, then you'll let the mother take the decision. "It" is not in your belly, but in the belly of the woman. In the end it's her decision, not yours. No, forcing her to do what you want her to do is not = being a man, it's being selfish and cruel. If she choses to keep the child and not to give it away for adoption, then you'll be a man by either raising your child yourself or financially support the mother;
2) Ask any couple that is pregnant for a couple of weeks to describe it. They won't call it "lumps of cells". Don't be so insensitive and don't act like there are no emotions whatsoever involved when talking about a pregnancy, being it wanted or unwanted.
3) It's not so easy as you make it sound.
rory_20_uk
06-04-2009, 17:46
So a pregnancy is at 20 weeks. The man wants it and always wanted it.
Woman decides to dump the man and run off with somone she's just met. She has an abortion.
Who here is being selfish and cruel?
I feel you illustrated very well how that, although both men and women are equal, the man has no say at any point in the pregnancy as to what happens, although has to deal with the consequences of the choice the women makes.
~:smoking:
So a pregnancy is at 20 weeks. The man wants it and always wanted it.
Woman decides to dump the man and run off with somone she's just met. She has an abortion.
Who here is being selfish and cruel?
I feel you illustrated very well how that, although both men and women are equal, the man has no say at any point in the pregnancy as to what happens, although has to deal with the consequences of the choice the women makes.
~:smoking:
Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature :shrug:
If the woman choses not to abort the child, then the man will have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it can be perceived as unfair, but the third party involved, namely the child, is innocent and needs to be taken care of by both parents.
Or do you suggest that there would come a legal possibility that allows the man to make a written statement in which he writes down that he wants either an abortion (and is willing to cover half of the expenses) or an adoption and if the woman choses not to, then by law he has not to take any responsability? For the sake of equality?
And if the woman wants an abortion and he doesn't, that she could be forced to give birth and the man can have the child with no rights whatsoever for the woman? Also for the sake of equality?
It feels... wrong.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-07-2009, 16:15
Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature :shrug:
If the woman choses not to abort the child, then the man will have to deal with the consequences. Yes, it can be perceived as unfair, but the third party involved, namely the child, is innocent and needs to be taken care of by both parents.
Or do you suggest that there would come a legal possibility that allows the man to make a written statement in which he writes down that he wants either an abortion (and is willing to cover half of the expenses) or an adoption and if the woman choses not to, then by law he has not to take any responsability? For the sake of equality?
And if the woman wants an abortion and he doesn't, that she could be forced to give birth and the man can have the child with no rights whatsoever for the woman? Also for the sake of equality?
It feels... wrong.
I think you demonstrated the basic problem with elective abortion. A man owns his sperm, fine, a woman owns her eggs, fine. Actually, this isn't quite so clear cut, there have been cases of women using frozen eggs from their ex's, which then makes the father liable for child support. It also means he has a child, it's the closest thing to a rape baby a man can have.
However, I digress. A feotas is 50% the woman, 50% the man. As you can't kill one half without the other, how can the feotas be viewed as simply part of the woman's body. From my perspective it can only be viewed as a seperate entity, and therefore the woman has custodianship of that human being until she gives birth.
What she does not have in ownership, any more than once the baby is born.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-07-2009, 18:53
If I'm cooking and my kitchen accidently catches fire, I will not 'deal with the consequences of cooking'. I will simply put out the fire instead.
If I'm having sex and there's an accidental pregnancy, I will not deal with the consequence by not doing anything about it. I will be a man and deal with it by having an abortion.
Bad analogy. You're not killing anything by putting out a kitchen fire.
...And that's precisely why we invented abortion.
And you are aware, that even if you ban abortion, that fetus will still be aborted, right?
We invented abortion so you can be irresponsible and get away with it?
HoreTore
06-07-2009, 20:36
We invented abortion so you can be irresponsible and get away with it?
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.
And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-07-2009, 20:46
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.
And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented abortion so that men could rape and seduce women without having to take responsibility for the resultant bastards. After all, the original method of abortion was a solid kick to the belly.
Yay, better than nature!:wall:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-07-2009, 20:47
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.
Considering that we have been practicing abortions for thousands of years, I doubt that it was invented specifically for the reason you say - or, rather, that you can verify when the first abortion was practiced and why.
Abortion should not be used as birth control just because you don't feel like having a child. Has our society really become that selfish?
And as part of the womens rights movement, to avoid them being stuck as a housewife married to someone they don't want.
Fortunately we have divorce, so you don't need to murder to get out of an unhappy marriage.
As well:
Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented abortion so that men could rape and seduce women without having to take responsibility for the resultant bastards. After all, the original method of abortion was a solid kick to the belly.
Yay, better than nature!
HoreTore
06-07-2009, 20:48
Actually, I'm pretty sure we invented abortion so that men could rape and seduce women without having to take responsibility for the resultant bastards. After all, the original method of abortion was a solid kick to the belly.
Yay, better than nature!:wall:
Epic fail.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-07-2009, 20:52
Epic fail.
Because I'm right? Pretty sure you can find it in Plato.
Face facts, abortion is as old as pregnancy and mostly it is done for selfish reasons.
HoreTore
06-07-2009, 20:54
Considering that we have been practicing abortions for thousands of years, I doubt that it was invented specifically for the reason you say - or, rather, that you can verify when the first abortion was practiced and why.
Who's talking about "the first abortion"? I'm talking about modern abortion.
Abortion should not be used as birth control just because you don't feel like having a child.
Says who? You? Who cares about your opinion anyway? What matters is the opinion of the woman in question. And if she wants to get an abortion because she doesn't feel like getting a kid, well, that's all good and intended.
And I'm (not) sorry to say; the law isn't going to change anytime soon. And even if it does, women will still continue to take abortion. That's just not anything you or anyone else can change. Sorry.
The only thing you can do, if you want to stop abortions, is to preach the gospel of safe sex and birth control. There really isn't anything else you can do that will have any real effect.
Fortunately we have divorce, so you don't need to murder to get out of an unhappy marriage.
No, but you need abortion to avoid being stuck with a kid instead of getting an education/working.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-07-2009, 20:57
So, basically you're selfish and you think everyone else is worse, so abortion should be allowed because people are irresponsible?
"Who cares about your opinion anyway?"
Real mature, if you're so arrogant why should we care about yours?
HoreTore
06-07-2009, 21:29
So, basically you're selfish and you think everyone else is worse, so abortion should be allowed because people are irresponsible?
People are irresponsible and selfish because they want careless, good and pleasurable sex? Hah.
Not that I know how you have sex though, of course. You might be the selfish kind, what do I know? As for me, I find that sex is at its best when both are giving and receiving equally, being selfish in bed is counter-productive, at least if you're able to find joy in other peoples happiness.
"Who cares about your opinion anyway?"
Real mature, if you're so arrogant why should we care about yours?
You shouldn't. Which is why I said you shouldn't. The only opinion that matters, is the opinion of the pregnant woman. Why? Because that's the opinion that decides whether there will be an abortion or not. If she wants an abortion, there will be an abortion. No matter what you say. No matter what the law say.
All you can do, is try to make life either harder or easier for her.
And as I said, if you want to stop abortions, the only thing you can do is to preach about condoms.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-07-2009, 22:05
Says who? You? Who cares about your opinion anyway? What matters is the opinion of the woman in question. And if she wants to get an abortion because she doesn't feel like getting a kid, well, that's all good and intended.
And I'm (not) sorry to say; the law isn't going to change anytime soon. And even if it does, women will still continue to take abortion. That's just not anything you or anyone else can change. Sorry.
Says who? You? Who cares about your opinion anyway? What matters is the opinion of the child in question. And if he/she wants to commit suicide because he doesn't feel like existing, well, that's all fine.
Just because someone will do something regardless of it being illegal doesn't mean it should be legal. Serial killers, for example, will murder regardless of the law.
In short, I don't give a damn what the woman or the father of the child want. I care about the child, because out of those three there is only one that can't defend its own rights.
The only thing you can do, if you want to stop abortions, is to preach the gospel of safe sex and birth control.
We can always do both.
No, but you need abortion to avoid being stuck with a kid instead of getting an education/working.
Babysitting. Adoption. There are alternatives, why are you ignoring them?
Tristuskhan
06-08-2009, 06:45
In short, I don't give a damn what the woman or the father of the child want.
Can't you understand once and for all that if the woman wants an abortion there will be an abortion no matter the laws? Is it so hard?
Adrian II
06-08-2009, 07:37
One day the guy who starts all these abortion threads on forums is going to be shot. 'bout time too.
One day the guy who starts all these abortion threads on forums is going to be shot. 'bout time too.
That would result in a gun control thread :bigcry:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-08-2009, 10:33
Can't you understand once and for all that if the woman wants an abortion there will be an abortion no matter the laws? Is it so hard?
No, that's not true. If a woman is determined she will have one, but if you made it illegal there would be fewer overall. People would be more careful, and many people would just accept the pregnancy; have the child and then either raise it or put it up for adoption.
One day the guy who starts all these abortion threads on forums is going to be shot. 'bout time too.
You mean Lemur?
You always get a vote before the abortion problem even comes up, if you can't restrain yourself, you get these sorts of problems. Having sex is not a basic human right or anything like that. You know what you are getting into and if you don't it's still your own fault unless you got raped.
Tristuskhan
06-08-2009, 12:43
No, that's not true. If a woman is determined she will have one, but if you made it illegal there would be fewer overall.
"Fewer" means more than zero and a single woman bleeding herself to death because abortion is illegal is still too much to be accepted, my two cents.
Louis VI the Fat
06-08-2009, 14:21
Come on Andres, I do not recognise my words in the reading you gave them. What of the principle of charity?
Such an attitude disturbs me and I think it's in poor taste to compare a pregnancy with a kitchen accident.The pregnancy is not compared to a kitchen accident. What is compared is the meaning of 'facing consequences'. The comparison serves to show that 'facing consequences' does not equal passively undergoing one's fate.
Passively undergoing consequences is slavish. Active acceptance of consequences, on the contrary, is what separates the men from the boys. An abortion is not trivial. Real men do not drop of their girlfriend at the clinic in between visits to the dvd rental and the liquor store. Instead, they accept and deal with the full consequence of being an adult, and of having sex.
1) If you want to be a man, then you'll let the mother take the decision. "It" is not in your belly, but in the belly of the woman. In the end it's her decision, not yours. No, forcing her to do what you want her to do is not = being a man, it's being selfish and cruel. If she choses to keep the child and not to give it away for adoption, then you'll be a man by either raising your child yourself or financially support the mother;Far from forcing anybody into anything, my very convinction that the mother alone can decide on the integrity of her body explains the fierceness of my abortion stance.
2) Ask any couple that is pregnant for a couple of weeks to describe it. They won't call it "lumps of cells". Don't be so insensitive and don't act like there are no emotions whatsoever involved when talking about a pregnancy, being it wanted or unwanted.Precisley because I believe abortion is not a trivial matter, I describe it as 'being a man, and accepting the consequences'.
Human embryos are lots of things. Precious and sacred. But not equipped with a soul. On this last bit, opinion differs. Those who believe a fertilized egg is endowed with a soul, will have an absolute stance on abortion. Those who don't, must regard abortion in light of many conflicting interests.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-08-2009, 15:05
"Fewer" means more than zero and a single woman bleeding herself to death because abortion is illegal is still too much to be accepted, my two cents.
On the other hand, you have the healthy and viable, or near viable, feoti being aborted at far too high a rate as well.
Whatever you do people will do stupid things (and back-alley abortions are idiotic), either way you get tragedy. The question is whether you try to reduce it to the absolute minimum possible, knowing that will never be zero, or you can make the tragedy socially acceptable and legally licensed.
Currently we allow, under law, the snuffing out of what are quite clealy human lives, not cancers in a woman's womb.
KukriKhan
06-08-2009, 15:32
Human embryos are lots of things. Precious and sacred. But not equipped with a soul. On this last bit, opinion differs. Those who believe a fertilized egg is endowed with a soul, will have an absolute stance on abortion. Those who don't, must regard abortion in light of many conflicting interests.
I understand this position, and respect it.
But I think it is an unnecessary stumbling block. I do not (and can not) understand the mind of god. I do not know if god exists. I do not know when a soul is attached to a body. I do not knows if "soul" exists.
However, I must decide when "Life" exists, because I am a member of society, and a sworn officer of a government. The first duty of Society and Government is the protection of the Life of its members, then the Liberty of its members.
Thirty years ago, I decided defendable "Life" (id est: life I would have a duty to protect and defend) began when breathing started. And ended when breathing stopped. Then ironically-named LIFE magazine published those famous in-utero photos of embryos and fetuses, and "preemies" started surviving their early births more often, and artificial breathing machines prolonged people's lives, and some of them survived formerly-death-dealing trauma...
The "when defendable Life began and ended" decision got blurred. But my obligation to defend life didn't go away. Medico's started defining death as a permanent cessation of brain activity (assuming a heart-lung machine had already taken over breathing and heartbeat). If true, then the opposite end of the spectrum - the beginning of life, would be when brain activity measureably begins. Somewhere around week 14 after conception, the brain starts sparking, measureably, according to my reading.
So: that's the line-in-the-sand for me - the female "owns" that lump-of-cells for 90 days, to do with whatever she decides is right. After that, society has an obligation, a duty, to protect and defend that once-a-lump-of-cells-now-a-citizen-with-a-right-to-life. A right equal to the female's same right.
Ironside
06-08-2009, 15:47
No, that's not true. If a woman is determined she will have one, but if you made it illegal there would be fewer overall. People would be more careful, and many people would just accept the pregnancy; have the child and then either raise it or put it up for adoption.
That is debatable, the abortion rates are lower now in Sweden than it was when abortion was illegal.
You never considered that the stance for most abortinists are adhering to is to reduce it to the absolute minimum possible, knowing that will never be zero and at the same make the tragedy socially acceptable and legally licensed?
HoreTore
06-09-2009, 07:09
No, that's not true. If a woman is determined she will have one, but if you made it illegal there would be fewer overall. People would be more careful, and many people would just accept the pregnancy; have the child and then either raise it or put it up for adoption.
Just like there are no Irish women who get an abortion, right? And people call socialism a utopia...
There are no official number on how many abortions performed in Ireland each year, being illegal and all, but I've seen estimates vary between 6000-10.000 per year, on a total population of a little under 6 million. The number of abortions in Norway last year was 13.000-ish on a population of just under 5 million. So... Banning abortion seems to cut the number of abortions roughly in half.
Banning abortion doesn't stop people having them. Especially not in the US, with a large pro-abortion group. Abortion is as simple as taking a pill these days, and that pill won't be hard to distribute illegally. And it's not very hard to take a trip to mexico or canada either, countries who will be more than willing to perform abortions on american women.
Thinking that you have a choice between having abortions or not is an illusion. The only choice you have, is between making abortions harder or easier, and making it available to the entire population, or just the ones with money.
As I've said, if you want abortions to stop, the only thing you can do is spread condoms, birth control pills and morning after pills. Anything else is utopia.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-09-2009, 11:45
Most countries that ban abortion are also behind on sex education, so the figures are not that reliable. For obvious reasons the two go together.
Now, sex education is important but you, like the UK government, seem to focus only on contraception. This has ben shown not to work in the UK, at all. It makes sense really, a spotty sixteen yea-old kid is most likely to sex the first time drunk, so he won't use a condom. He probably doesn't know how either, because all he did in sex-ed was giggle.
Thing is, you don't have to have sex when you meet someone you like. Over here promiscuity, casual sex etc. are linked to alchohol comsumption among teenagers. They're stupid, they get pregnant. It's then a question of how stupid they are as to whether they work out they actually are pregnant or not.
The problem in the UK is people just chuck condoms at kids, and everyone else. You are right that banning abortion will not stop all abortions, however the current threshold is 24 weeks, which is far too high, it should drop by six weeks at least.
Currently the attitude to abortion in the UK is becoming increasingly casual, this is not a good thing.
In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted or difficult pregnancies, no unhealthy children and no abortion. We will almost certainly never achieve that, but it's what I'll always aim for.
Oh, and for the record the Morning-After Pill basically induces a miscarriage, it's not actually contraception.
Somewhere around week 14 after conception, the brain starts sparking, measureably, according to my reading.
So: that's the line-in-the-sand for me - the female "owns" that lump-of-cells for 90 days, to do with whatever she decides is right. After that, society has an obligation, a duty, to protect and defend that once-a-lump-of-cells-now-a-citizen-with-a-right-to-life.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. And I am very sorry to hear that Adrian intends to kill me. It's been a good life, though, and I've enjoyed my time on this Earth, so I die with no regrets.
KukriKhan
06-09-2009, 15:34
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. And I am very sorry to hear that Adrian intends to kill me. It's been a good life, though, and I've enjoyed my time on this Earth, so I die with no regrets.
In fairness, he said "shot", not killed. Perhaps he intends to offer you an ounce of fine Dutch liquor.
HoreTore
06-09-2009, 16:00
Most countries that ban abortion are also behind on sex education, so the figures are not that reliable. For obvious reasons the two go together.
Now, sex education is important but you, like the UK government, seem to focus only on contraception. This has ben shown not to work in the UK, at all. It makes sense really, a spotty sixteen yea-old kid is most likely to sex the first time drunk, so he won't use a condom. He probably doesn't know how either, because all he did in sex-ed was giggle.
Thing is, you don't have to have sex when you meet someone you like. Over here promiscuity, casual sex etc. are linked to alchohol comsumption among teenagers. They're stupid, they get pregnant. It's then a question of how stupid they are as to whether they work out they actually are pregnant or not.
The problem in the UK is people just chuck condoms at kids, and everyone else. You are right that banning abortion will not stop all abortions, however the current threshold is 24 weeks, which is far too high, it should drop by six weeks at least.
Currently the attitude to abortion in the UK is becoming increasingly casual, this is not a good thing.
In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted or difficult pregnancies, no unhealthy children and no abortion. We will almost certainly never achieve that, but it's what I'll always aim for.
This is a myth. Teenagers don't account for the highest number of abortions, older women do. linky (http://www.ssb.no/abort/tab-2006-04-26-01.html).
As you can see, there are almost twice as many abortions performed by women aged 20-24 than there are for women age 15 to 19(27,4 to 15,4 per 1000 women). Women in their late twenties also get more abortions, while women in their early thirties get about the same number of abortions as teenagers.
For the record, I was drunk as hell(who isn't?) my first time. And I used a condom. Actually would've lost my virginity a couple of months earlier(also drunk), but I didn't have sex because I didn't have a condom at the time(I've had 3 condoms in my wallet at all times since then...).
Most countries that ban abortion are also behind on sex education, so the figures are not that reliable. For obvious reasons the two go together.
Now, sex education is important but you, like the UK government, seem to focus only on contraception. This has ben shown not to work in the UK, at all. It makes sense really, a spotty sixteen yea-old kid is most likely to sex the first time drunk, so he won't use a condom. He probably doesn't know how either, because all he did in sex-ed was giggle.
I was always under the impression that sex-ed was first rate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMlZSKEu-Y) in the UK. :inquisitive:
Adrian II
06-09-2009, 19:18
And I am very sorry to hear that Adrian intends to kill me. It's been a good life, though, and I've enjoyed my time on this Earth, so I die with no regrets.To be honest, I meant to say that since all Internet abortion threads across the world look the same they are probably all started by one and the same guy as well. Then I remembered Charles de Gaulle's famous words: 'One does not shoot a lemur.' Let it be known that Adrian II respects his classics.
Kadagar_AV
06-10-2009, 00:20
Hmmmmmm...
Ok, so I will share this with you other orghas.
1. I had a polish girlfriend some years ago... Don't generalize, she came from a wealthy family and was in Sweden to study at our finest school. Anyway, she got pregnant... She did not want the child, as she was in the middle of her studies and had no way to support the child... I... Well, what I thought isn't important, it's her desicion.
Anyway, she told me she "knew this doctor in Poland"... I then told her she could have an abortion in Sweden in a regular hospital,
POINT BEING: This abortion was gonna happen one way or the other. I VERY MUCH prefer it to happen in a hospital than on some kitchen table.
2. I had sex with an Austrian girl, and she got pregnant (condom burts or something). She did not want the kid with me, I did not want the kid with her.
She had an abortion without my knowledge... I didn't even know she had been pregnant till after.
I must say, I much prefered the abortion choice...
If abortion was out of the question there would be 2 very unhappy mothers and one father who couldnt pay enough to pay for them.
As it is, we have 3 people who have happy families, or are about to.
As a sidenote: My GF just got pregnant (love of my life contrary to the others).
I know some people will see this as 2 murders having been comited... I see it as 3, or 6 people having a happy life. 9 if you count the kids.
Oh, and also, I dont really see abortion as murder. Much the same way as I dont see having a hamburger as murder, or wanking as murder, or chopping down a tree as murder.
those against abortions should realise that a tree has more spiritual life than a couple of weeks old fetus. Do you cry everytime you see a piece of paper?
Strike For The South
06-10-2009, 02:29
those against abortions should realise that a tree has more spiritual life than a couple of weeks old fetus. Do you cry everytime you see a piece of paper?
Gun meet foot...enjoy.
Crazed Rabbit
06-10-2009, 05:13
We invented abortion to enable us to enjoy sex without the possibility of offspring. Sex is something we're meant to enjoy, not something we do to reproduce ourselves. As nature failed us in that regard, we made nature better, by inventing abortion.
Nature failed us? Who or what, exactly, determined that sex is to be enjoyed without reproduction? Who are you to say nature failed and that your own selfishness is a better way to determine things? Don't kid yourself. Many in this thread support abortion so they can selfishly dodge the consequences of their actions.
I am disgusted.
CR
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 10:14
Nature failed us? Who or what, exactly, determined that sex is to be enjoyed without reproduction?
I do.
Reproduction is irrelevant, sex is for pleasure.
ICantSpellDawg
06-10-2009, 12:46
The Texas facility is now closing permanently.
Comments in this thread give me more fuel to fight this blight. Some of your views disgust me and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 13:31
The Texas facility is now closing permanently.
Comments in this thread give me more fuel to fight this blight. Some of your views disgust me and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I can assure you, the feeling is mutual :yes:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2009, 13:35
I do.
Reproduction is irrelevant, sex is for pleasure.
No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 13:48
No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious.
Yes, that's what nature intended.
But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant! :2thumbsup:
Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.
That's what we humans do; we use our imagination to fix nature's mistakes.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2009, 13:57
Yes, that's what nature intended.
But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant! :2thumbsup:
Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.
That's what we humans do; we use our imagination to fix nature's mistakes.
I would argue we break nature, and particually in removing the reproductive element from sex. You could argue the other things you listed increase the chance of humanities survival, but casual abortion reduces it.
So you're broken the biological imperative. As an atheist you can't appeal to anything higher than the "natural", so anything that frustrates nature is bad; especially if it frustrates the survival of our species.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 14:59
I would argue we break nature, and particually in removing the reproductive element from sex. You could argue the other things you listed increase the chance of humanities survival, but casual abortion reduces it.
So you're broken the biological imperative. As an atheist you can't appeal to anything higher than the "natural", so anything that frustrates nature is bad; especially if it frustrates the survival of our species.
We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.
Hence, abortion makes our lives more enjoyable and better.
Also, who said I was an atheist? Atheism means that I've made and choice and care about it, while I belong in the "could not even care for a second about such nonsense I can't do anything about anyway"-group.
We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.
Hence, abortion makes our lives more enjoyable and better.
Are you being serious?
If so, are you talking about late-term abortions or abortions before the 12th week?
In case of the former, do you think a late term abortion is no problem, even if it's done just because you did want to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy and you didn't have time in your busy schedule for something as trivial as an early abortion?
Louis VI the Fat
06-10-2009, 15:57
But, as I've said, nature failed us, as we don't want that. We want the pleasure, but we don't want the reproduction. So, we've fixed nature, and taken away the reproduction part. The result? Sex with just pleasure, brilliant!
Nature didn't provide us with wings - we invented the airplane.
Nature didn't provide us with super strength - we invented hydraulics.
Nature didn't provide us with carefree sex - we invented abortion.
We are humans. We have evolved from the animals, we no longer need to concern ourselves with the simple need for reproduction. We can concern ourselves with making our lives more enjoyable, and carefree sex makes our lives more enjoyable.Well spoken!
Do people who prefer 'natural' sex abstain from the use of contraceptives like the pill or condoms too?
And what of peridocal abstinence. Is that natural? Or is counting the days already 'unnatural'?
And what of 'no sex before marriage'? Marriage is a recent invention. Therefore 'no sex before it' is unnatural too.
I also suggest that people 'accept the consequences' of running really fast and refuse to see a doctor in case of tripping over real bad.
No, sex is pleasurable so that you'll do it a lot and procreate a lot, thereby propigating the species. I yould have thought that blindingly obvious. Unlike many other animals, but like several, humans have sex as a means of social bonding.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 16:48
Are you being serious?
Yes?
Do you seriously think that we should only have sex in order to reproduce ourselves?
If so, are you talking about late-term abortions or abortions before the 12th week?
Abortion in general.
In case of the former, do you think a late term abortion is no problem, even if it's done just because you did want to enjoy sex without risk of pregnancy and you didn't have time in your busy schedule for something as trivial as an early abortion?
Late abortion is a larger medical procedure; that's the reason I think people should have the abortion as quickly as possible.
But if I hear a fetus say "no, I don't want an abortion", I'll happily agree that that one fetus shouldn't be aborted.
To avoid misunderstandings: do you think at a certain stage of the pregnancy (after x weeks), abortion should no longer be possible, or is it your opinion that as long as the child has not been born, abortion should be allowed?
Where do you draw the line?
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 17:09
To avoid misunderstandings: do you think at a certain stage of the pregnancy (after x weeks), abortion should no longer be possible, or is it your opinion that as long as the child has not been born, abortion should be allowed?
Where do you draw the line?
Birth.
Louis VI the Fat
06-10-2009, 18:23
Birth.Birth is much too late for me. I'd draw the line at six months. Rather, the moment at which a baby could live independently of the mother's body.*
And that is reluctantly. Preferably, I'd put it at three months.
*Which will eventually get me in trouble because of the ongoing advance in medicine. So too, will it get the pro-lifers. Modern medicine will have some real dilemmas in store for us all.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 18:31
Birth is much too late for me. I'd draw the line at six months. Rather, the moment at which a baby could live independently of the mother's body.*
And that is reluctantly. Preferably, I'd put it at three months.
I trust our fellow humans to make the right decision. I do not believe that anyone will take a convenience abortion at 7 months "because they didn't feel like doing it earlier".
If someone wants to go through with a late abortion, there will be an extraordinary reason for it, simply because noone would want to hurt themselves more than necessary(at 10 weeks its a simple and quick pill, at 6 months it's a large operation).
I have faith in my fellow humans. I trust them to make the right decision themselves.
I trust our fellow humans to make the right decision. I do not believe that anyone will take a convenience abortion at 7 months "because they didn't feel like doing it earlier".
If someone wants to go through with a late abortion, there will be an extraordinary reason for it, simply because noone would want to hurt themselves more than necessary(at 10 weeks its a simple and quick pill, at 6 months it's a large operation).
I have faith in my fellow humans. I trust them to make the right decision themselves.
That's not what you said previously now, is it?
You draw the line at birth, you allow your fellow humans to do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason and it would be very naive to think there wouldn't be some people who would do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason.
I'm all for a compromise: allow it until the 12th week; allow it under extreme circumstances until the 16th week (I believe amnioscentesis can be done after 14 weeks?).
What you propose (draw the line at birth) is madness.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 22:21
That's not what you said previously now, is it?
You draw the line at birth, you allow your fellow humans to do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason and it would be very naive to think there wouldn't be some people who would do a late term abortion for no extraordinary reason..
It's not what I've said previously no, but that might have something to do with me not having said anything about it before... Funny, eh?
As for "would some retards exploit it?" - just why, might I ask, would anyone do just that? Why on earth would they bring extra pain and suffering to themselves? I don't buy that.
But then again, this is subjective. I trust people to choose what is best for them. I won't make such a choice for anyone else.
Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?
Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?
Why do we have laws?
Why not just all live in complete anarchy and let everybody decide what's best for themselves?
:shrug:
But I'll back out of this one since I don't think we'll ever agree.
Let's just agree to disagree then, ok?
Why do we have laws?
Why not just all live in complete anarchy and let everybody decide what's best for themselves?
:shrug:
But I'll back out of this one since I don't think we'll ever agree.
Let's just agree to disagree then, ok?
I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 22:43
I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.
JACKPOT!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-10-2009, 22:44
Well spoken!
Do people who prefer 'natural' sex abstain from the use of contraceptives like the pill or condoms too?
And what of peridocal abstinence. Is that natural? Or is counting the days already 'unnatural'?
And what of 'no sex before marriage'? Marriage is a recent invention. Therefore 'no sex before it' is unnatural too.
I also suggest that people 'accept the consequences' of running really fast and refuse to see a doctor in case of tripping over real bad.
Unlike many other animals, but like several, humans have sex as a means of social bonding.
Oh, I know we have sex for social reasons, mainly to bond couples together, thereby increasing the stability of the environment into which the offspring are born.
Nature is canny like that.
But if I hear a fetus say "no, I don't want an abortion", I'll happily agree that that one fetus shouldn't be aborted.
So, we shouldn't provide CPR unless someone can ask? What about surgery for headshot victims?
Why do you want to play god with other people, by the way? Why this urge to control others, why not realize that you know what's best for yourself, and let other people and their doctors find out what's best for them?
I don't think we're playing God, Judge maybe, but definately not God. You are the one advocating the destruction of deffenceless life, is that not Godlike?
Also, a true atheist is someone without any beliefs about the supernatural etc. That's what you look like to me. In any case, my point was that you do not subscribe, so far as I know, to any higher principle than human experience. You cannot, therefore, claim any higher justification than nature because humans are merely animals. Highly evolved animals, but still animals.
HoreTore
06-10-2009, 22:48
Oh, I know we have sex for social reasons, mainly to bond couples together, thereby increasing the stability of the environment into which the offspring are born.
Nature is canny like that.
Yes, that's nature. And we have decided that nature sucks, so we fixed nature. The last thing life is about is reproduction.
So, we shouldn't provide CPR unless someone can ask? What about surgery for headshot victims?
Of course we should. But do remind me, what do we do to people in a veggie state...?
Also, a true atheist is someone without any beliefs about the supernatural etc. That's what you look like to me. In any case, my point was that you do not subscribe, so far as I know, to any higher principle than human experience. You cannot, therefore, claim any higher justification than nature because humans are merely animals. Highly evolved animals, but still animals.
I can disregard nature just as easily as I can disregard God, gods, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Tim.
I think you will find that most laws restrict what you may do to others....so your example doesn´t really apply.
That's what I meant indeed. My questions were rhetorical.
Kadagar_AV
06-11-2009, 01:03
Abortion should be an option at any time.
IF someone choose a late, or very late abortion there must be a reason for it.
Either because the offspring is severly damaged already, or because the mother is psychotic. I dont want psychotic people to raise kids anyway.
It's not like 2 people have sex, she gets pregnant, and then she decides some 8 months later to have an abortion just "because".
There is a reason.
On a sidenote, and this is IMPORTANT: History has showed that people will have abortions one way or the other no matter what the law says.
Can anyone argue against this?
Now, I would much prefer these abortions to be made in a controled enviroment than on some kitchen table with a butcher knife.
THIS is one of the most important aspects of this discussion, and it has been neglected thus far.
Louis VI the Fat
06-11-2009, 12:32
History has showed that people will have abortions one way or the other no matter what the law says.
Can anyone argue against this?This is the Backroom. We can argue against everything.
In this case, I'd argue that yes, indeed, people will have abortions regardless of legal prohibition.
Likewise, people will murder, steal, and pillage regardless of legal prohibition. This is not generally considered good cause for legalization of murder and theft.
This unlike, however, alcohol prohibiton. Which is owing to previous experience generally considered unfeasonable. In turn again, unlike drugs, the use of which is commonly prohibited, despite similar objections. Ah...the law...always balancing between the feasonable and the desirable, between the practical and the ideal.
If I would think abortion immoral, I might yet be against prohibition because of the reason you stated.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-11-2009, 21:54
If things should be legal because individuals will do them anyway, why make anything illegal at all? Those things that are illegal will be done regardless, and it will be unnecessary to make things illegal because the things that will be made illegal will be things that individuals already do not do.
Fallacy.
Rhyfelwyr
06-11-2009, 21:57
If burglaries were made legal, I think it would make the process of robbing someone a lot safer for both parties involved. The burglar would have a reduced chance of being attacked, since the defender has no right to self-defence. Also, the burglar is less likely to have to attack/kill the person he's stealing from, since he can't be taken to court by them.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-11-2009, 23:33
If burglaries were made legal, I think it would make the process of robbing someone a lot safer for both parties involved. The burglar would have a reduced chance of being attacked, since the defender has no right to self-defence. Also, the burglar is less likely to have to attack/kill the person he's stealing from, since he can't be taken to court by them.
Read any Terry Prachett recently?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.