Late-Term Abortion Provider Gunned Down In Church

[ICantSpellDawg]

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]

Here, here! Well said Lemur.

[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]

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, Link 2. 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).

[Lemur]

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]

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]

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.

[HoreTore]

Actually, forcing eveyrone else to use your preferred euphemisms makes you look Orwellian.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...

[KarlXII]

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]

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]

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.

[Meneldil]

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]

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]

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? 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]

maybe own up to your own selfish actions and raise it yourself.

Uhm....

Having sex is a "selfish action"...?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[PBI]

Why the focus on conception?

How is that any less an arbitrary cutoff point than anything else?

[Jolt]

Prison for life with the bastard.

[Andres]

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]

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.

[Andres]

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.

Man only has his short and pleasant moment of glory and that's it. Blame nature

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.