Famous abortionist killed on his way into church - Page 6 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Displaced Flames fan · 05-31-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

I'd qualify it a bit more for myself.

A single cell (to me anyway) clearly isn't human. There's no brain, no nervous system, no mechanism for it to suffer, for it to be aware of itself. I have no problem with the morning after pill.

On the other extreme, the day before a baby is born, it has all these things. I'd have a problem with an abortion the day before it's born.

So somewhere in the middle there's a line to be drawn, by some kind of criteria. Where that line goes and by what criteria is the heart of the matter IMO.

Agree completely.

I don't understand why we can't draw the line SOMEWHERE before the scientific question is answered. Who loses in that scenario and what do they lose?

peter12 · 05-31-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think that's fair at all. Of course it's a moral issue, I just don't think the moral question turns on the same point that others might. Life in and of itself isn't the crux.

Heck HUMAN life in and of itself isn't the crux; I'd be tentatively for extending human rights to chimps.

Why is that? Because I don't think the species we happen to be grants us some special place that we deserve special rights. Rather I think that there's some component of our brain that makes us "people" (for lack of a better word).

Science is just a way of measuring and evaluating something, in and of itself it has no moral position (or it shouldn't).

I think that higher life is the crux. "Higher" in the sense that it has a cerebral cortex large enough to consciously recognize its own existence.

The question of rights is... a hard one. Aristotle said that man is a political animal. It is in our nature to ruminate over these questions. Something in our spirit or mind makes us want to answer these questions, I don't think science has a very big place at all in the larger debate about ethics. Although I think it can help to dispel certain pretexts we have about abortion.

Azure · 05-31-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I can't buy that either.

Someone makes the claim that "Using more solar panels will cause aliens to invade."

Seems inane. But there is always the extremely remote possibility. I don't know if it is true or not. Probably not true, but I don't have scientific proof that it will never happen.

Therefore I am going to ban solar panels because "I don't know"?

Making law based on "I don't know" doesn't seem like a wise practice to me.

How is that even close to a 'remote' possibility?

We're dealing with the possible life of a human being, not an alien invasion. Completely separate issue.

Azure · 05-31-2009, 09:53 PM

I tend to agree with drawing the line as well.

Far as I'm concerned, nobody should be getting an abortion at more than 3-4 months, assuming they know the whole time that they're pregnant.

photon · 05-31-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

To answer the question....if science were to determine that then the laws could be tightened to reflect that. However, we are still aborting fetuses right up until birth....

Are they? I find it difficult to believe that someone could walk into a hospital 8 1/2 months pregnant where both are healthy and get an abortion no problem? Is it that different down there? Less than 1% of abortions are after 20 weeks here from what I understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm not sure how restricting abortion based on the ability to live, when it's possible that an earlier date could become morally responsible in the future, is at all out of line.

In theory, between the woman and the doctor the best course of action should be able to be determined without the need for a legal restriction.

I don't think it necessarily is out of line though, I don't think I'd oppose restricting abortions based on viability would be a bad thing as long as provisions were made with regards to the mother's and fetus' health. Viability would also cover cases where the fetus had no skull and such like that. But there are potential down sides.

The problem in doing that is the flip side; by making some legal restrictions on abortion do you open the door to further restrictions? Just like there's people on the pro-choice side who have an agenda, there's people on the other side with the same agenda who won't stop until even the morning after pill (or unprotected sex!) is illegal.

Plus if you put those restrictions in law, you have to quantify them somehow. The devil's in the details and if you try to ensconce a complicated decision like that in law, well you just end up undermining the doctor's authority and judgment. If there's no restriction, the doctor can use their best judgment to advise on health issues, complications, etc. If there's a law restricting late term abortions but allowing them in cases of health, how does that get decided? By what criteria? Or will all but the most radical refuse to do them just so they don't get sued (thereby harming women's rights)?

Some of the questions that pop to mind anyway.

photon · 05-31-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter12

I think that higher life is the crux. "Higher" in the sense that it has a cerebral cortex large enough to consciously recognize its own existence.

Sure, but even that might not be good enough. I remember when my son first was able to recognize that the baby in the mirror was HIM and not another baby. Is that a measure of self awareness? That happened quite a while after he was born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter12

The question of rights is... a hard one. Aristotle said that man is a political animal. It is in our nature to ruminate over these questions. Something in our spirit or mind makes us want to answer these questions, I don't think science has a very big place at all in the larger debate about ethics. Although I think it can help to dispel certain pretexts we have about abortion.

I think science has a very significant place in the debate about ethics. But as I said the science itself doesn't have an opinion in the debate, but it can surely enable it.

How much did a deeper biological understanding of ourselves contribute to the idea that slavery was wrong? If everyone still though that black people were a different, inferior species, would we still have slaves?

Science doesn't have an ethical opinion, but I think it can contribute information, criteria by which to evaluate, data by which to measure, etc.

It may change the debate at a fundamental level, how would it change our system of ethics if it was found that free will is an illusion?

Displaced Flames fan · 05-31-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Are they? I find it difficult to believe that someone could walk into a hospital 8 1/2 months pregnant where both are healthy and get an abortion no problem? Is it that different down there? Less than 1% of abortions are after 20 weeks here from what I understand.

In theory, between the woman and the doctor the best course of action should be able to be determined without the need for a legal restriction.

I don't think it necessarily is out of line though, I don't think I'd oppose restricting abortions based on viability would be a bad thing as long as provisions were made with regards to the mother's and fetus' health. Viability would also cover cases where the fetus had no skull and such like that. But there are potential down sides.

The problem in doing that is the flip side; by making some legal restrictions on abortion do you open the door to further restrictions? Just like there's people on the pro-choice side who have an agenda, there's people on the other side with the same agenda who won't stop until even the morning after pill (or unprotected sex!) is illegal.

Plus if you put those restrictions in law, you have to quantify them somehow. The devil's in the details and if you try to ensconce a complicated decision like that in law, well you just end up undermining the doctor's authority and judgment. If there's no restriction, the doctor can use their best judgment to advise on health issues, complications, etc. If there's a law restricting late term abortions but allowing them in cases of health, how does that get decided? By what criteria? Or will all but the most radical refuse to do them just so they don't get sued (thereby harming women's rights)?

Some of the questions that pop to mind anyway.

Part of the reason Tiller is so noteworthy is that he was one of the few late term providers in the nation. Third trimester abortions. I can't say how late, I don't know.

We seem to be on the same page. You are absolutely right about the other side wanting absolutely zero abortion.

flamey_mcflame · 06-01-2009, 12:10 AM

Aaaah, those wonderful, moral and ethical pro-life activists. Tremendous human beings. However, unfortunately, these people have serious issues and contradictions with their so called glorious ways. Go to any pro-life website and ask yourself;

1) Why don't these sites have a massive campaign for birth control devices?? The websites should be plastered with information and education on how to prevent unintended preganancies and abortions. Weird though, you'll likely find little or no information.

2) Why don't these pro-lifers promote adoption for all the millions and millions of babies and children dying of starvation, malnutrition and neglect. They should abandon their hedonistic and materialist lifestyles to save all those other human beings. Is life only worth saving when its only in the womb?? Odd

3) Why they support of the death penalty?? Enough said there.

4) Why do they allow the abnormal rules that are required of priests in Catholicism??

Here's why, these are the same people who if you charted the history of mankind, would believe

A) the earth is flat
b) witches existed

c) slavery is good

d) woman belong in the house

e) every other crazy belief and superstition in the human lexicon

Everyday, I am thankful that I was raised in Canada, rather than some of these medieval American states. That country is gonna rot from the inside out if the liberal northeastern states and the pacific northwest doesn't separate from south and middle America.

SkunkyJosh · 06-01-2009, 12:27 AM

Wow, killing someone just because he has a different opinion than you over a world question is quite low.

So I guess it's always the same debate over the same questions... Is the baby living right away or after 21 weeks, what's life and what's considered to be alive for a human being?

Putting him through pain for the rest of his life would have been so much better, don't you think so? (Forza Italia for putting in wheelchair to police officer who killed the G8 protester instead of killing him!) I hope the killer somehow gets sentenced to prison for life or something for the murder he committed but anyway he was getting old and he won't be able to get laid soon enough so he probably don't really care about whatever happens to himself.

I don't hate ######ed people because they make me look smarter but he's a ###### for killing someone who should have only been put through pain for having a dumb opinion. I don't mind abortion when the reason behind it is acceptable which for a fact, is bad 80% of the time abortion happens. (% out of nowhere stating woman are dumber than man.)

Displaced Flames fan · 06-01-2009, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Aaaah, those wonderful, moral and ethical pro-life activists. Tremendous human beings. However, unfortunately, these people have serious issues and contradictions with their so called glorious ways. Go to any pro-life website and ask yourself;

1) Why don't these sites have a massive campaign for birth control devices?? The websites should be plastered with information and education on how to prevent unintended preganancies and abortions. Weird though, you'll likely find little or no information.

2) Why don't these pro-lifers promote adoption for all the millions and millions of babies and children dying of starvation, malnutrition and neglect. They should abandon their hedonistic and materialist lifestyles to save all those other human beings. Is life only worth saving when its only in the womb?? Odd

3) Why they support of the death penalty?? Enough said there.

4) Why do they allow the abnormal rules that are required of priests in Catholicism??

Here's why, these are the same people who if you charted the history of mankind, would believe

A) the earth is flat
b) witches existed

c) slavery is good

d) woman belong in the house

e) every other crazy belief and superstition in the human lexicon

Everyday, I am thankful that I was raised in Canada, rather than some of these medieval American states. That country is gonna rot from the inside out if the liberal northeastern states and the pacific northwest doesn't separate from south and middle America.

Yet another calgarypucker who has his finger firmly on the pulse of Americans. Ridiculous stuff.

Burninator · 06-01-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Clearly, that is exactly the case with pro-choice groups. The scientific question was becoming more and more black and white and they had to change the key question to protect their stance.

What do you mean here? I'm not following. What scientific question and how was it becoming more black and white? What key question was changed? Please elaborated.

ernie · 06-01-2009, 09:53 AM

I haven't gone through everything in this thread so this may have been mentioned:

One thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Tiller didn't simply perform ANY third trimester abortion. The goal of the clinic has been to provide third trimester abortions for women carrying fetuses that were not viable or in cases where the mothers health/life where in jeopardy if they were to carry to fetus full term. They also have to provide reasoning ans justification for a late term abortion in order to perform it.

Now he's gone through several lawsuits and what not about the way he solicited for second opinions etc. but has thus far been cleared.

No matter which way you look at it abortion is an ugly business but it isn't simply black and white. There is all sorts of grey.

Calgaryborn · 06-01-2009, 10:01 AM

Wow! So many people on this site don't seem to have the capacity to understand anything but, their own narrow world view. This Doctor killed what I consider to be and obviously this gunman considers to be human life. The thousands of murders committed by this "doctor" were not only human but also completely innocent; these babies harmed no one. George Tiller killed for profit and if he were alive today he would probably be adding to his totals as I type. I'm glad he's gone.

Just because the government legalized the killing of one vunerable segment of society doesn't make that action any less murder. The german soliders who operated the jewish death camps were guilty of murder even though they were under orders. George Tiller built and operated his death clinic by choice. George Tiller was an evil man.

FFR · 06-01-2009, 10:24 AM

I haven't made it all the way through the thread yet. But I'm in the pro-choice, but strictly regulated camp (i.e. not used for birth control).

Because seriously, if you ban all abortion, is that not choosing to save one person's life over another in some cases? Some pregnancies get to the point that you can either save the mother and lose the fetus or save the fetus and lose the mother. Others get to a point where you could save the fetus and maybe save the mother, or save the mother and maybe save the feus. Who decides who has a right to live? Why should laws dictate that a woman with a severe health concern cannot abort her pregnancy to save her own life? Does the unborn fetus have more of a right to live than the mother?

ernie · 06-01-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote: