Famous abortionist killed on his way into church

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HOOT

And those woman that decided to have their babies "murdered" came into his office by choice. Why should your beliefs effect what others do with their lives?

I would correct this a bit. I don't think the majority of women came to him by "choice". I'd wager that given why he ran the clinic and the justifications needed to provide this service, that MOST (likely not all) were not there by their own choice but rather because their lives were in danger and/or the fetus was not viable. A choice perhaps but one they were forced into to save their own lives or to avoid the hell of a spontaneous abortion at that late a date.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by ernie

I would correct this a bit. I don't think the majority of women came to him by "choice". I'd wager that given why he ran the clinic and the justifications needed to provide this service, that MOST (likely not all) were not there by their own choice but rather because their lives were in danger and/or the fetus was not viable. A choice perhaps but one they were forced into to save their own lives or to avoid the hell of a spontaneous abortion at that late a date.

Regardless of why they went in or not the point is they were not forced into his office. The doctor didn't hold a gun to their head and say you have to do this. They have a choice to make and using his service was their best and maybe only option. What right does anyone have to tell them different? They are not breaking the law.

[Canuck-Hater]

Ignore the title its George Carlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDI82tMiYog

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Regardless of why they went in or not the point is they were not forced into his office. The doctor didn't hold a gun to their head and say you have to do this. They have a choice to make and using his service was their best and maybe only option. What right does anyone have to tell them different? They are not breaking the law.

Don't disagree just saying the way it was phrased was very black and white when i think the real situation for the large majority of women that used the services was all sorts of gray.

I hope no one is ever in the situation most of those women were in. Let me tell you from experience it's a hell of a choice to even maybe have to make/considee.

Luckily for us everything ended up correcting itself around week 21, so in the end we never had to make the choice between my wife and the fetus. If indeed we were ever ALLOWED to make that choice. Most physicians will save the mother first and then the fetus if something happens no matter what you say.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

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.

The question of when life begins. It used to be the answer of the day for pro-choicers to say that life doesn't begin until birth. Clearly, science said otherwise and they moved on to more difficult questions to protect their completely unrestricted abortion stance.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by ernie

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.

They weren't just lawsuits, they were indictments on criminal charges. The main contentions were that he used doctors he had financial ties to for his second opinion on third trimester abortions, which is illegal in Kansas.

He was cleared on all charges. He's been the subject of a witch hunt for quite some time here.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by ernie

I would correct this a bit. I don't think the majority of women came to him by "choice". I'd wager that given why he ran the clinic and the justifications needed to provide this service, that MOST (likely not all) were not there by their own choice but rather because their lives were in danger and/or the fetus was not viable. A choice perhaps but one they were forced into to save their own lives or to avoid the hell of a spontaneous abortion at that late a date.

You're trying to make it sound as if this were his entire practice. That's simply not true.

LOTS of minors had their pregnancies aborted there.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

LOTS of minors had their pregnancies aborted there.

in the third trimester? I am asking because I don't know.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Sowa

in the third trimester? I am asking because I don't know.

No, some I'm sure. I'm just saying his practice wasn't limited to adult women who had medical complications due to their pregnancies.

The former AG of Kansas tried to subpoena the medical records of hundreds of minor girls under the guise of filing rape charges to those who were raped or the victims of incest. What he was really looking for was a way to hang Tiller for violating abortion laws. He lost re-election as a result of that tomfoolery actually. Yes, believe it or not, my medeivel state did not re-elect a Republican incumbant AG because he tried to illegally investigate an abortionist.

You all are SOOOO lucky you don't live here!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

FYI--Kansas law forbids aborting "viable" fetuses. Tiller only performed late term abortions where the fetus was not viable, or when it presented a grave threat to the health of the mother. I say this not because I have any knowledge of him but because I presume that a clinic operated in the open in Wichita would have to comply with Kansas law.

He may also have performed abortions for minors, but that is a separate issue from third-trimester abortions. If he ever performed a third-trimester abortion for a minor, presumably it met the test provided by Kansas law, which is that the fetus was non-viable, or the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You're trying to make it sound as if this were his entire practice. That's simply not true.

LOTS of minors had their pregnancies aborted there.

I'm not trying to make it sound like that. That's not my intention. But it was the most contentious part of his practice and it isn't simply black and white.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

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.

Can't say I'm shocked that you're on the side of the murderer here. But I also won't even pretend to understand what it's like to walk around with that much hatred in your heart. I'm sorry for you.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

FYI--Kansas law forbids aborting "viable" fetuses. Tiller only performed late term abortions where the fetus was not viable, or when it presented a grave threat to the health of the mother. I say this not because I have any knowledge of him but because I presume that a clinic operated in the open in Wichita would have to comply with Kansas law.

He may also have performed abortions for minors, but that is a separate issue from third-trimester abortions. If he ever performed a third-trimester abortion for a minor, presumably it met the test provided by Kansas law, which is that the fetus was non-viable, or the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother.

Exactly. I was simply pointing out that his practice was not limited to adult patients who faced medical difficulties due to their pregnancy. Nothing more.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by ernie

I'm not trying to make it sound like that. That's not my intention. But it was the most contentious part of his practice and it isn't simply black and white.

No it isn't....and that's what the people on the polar sides of this issue refuse to admit...and why I respect very, very few of them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No it isn't....and that's what the people on the polar sides of this issue refuse to admit...and why I respect very, very few of them.

As you can probably guess, I'm probably in the most literal sense "pro-choice"--in that I think abortion is a complicated enough issue to be above my pay grade in terms of telling other people what to do. But when asked about my feelings about abortion, I usually reply that "it's complicated."

To me, if you think abortion is a simple issue, you haven't thought about it yet. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to feel the need to reflect profoundly on an issue before coming to an opinion. What makes discussing abortion so frequently pointless is that both sides perversely refuse to understand the ethical grounding of the other point of view, preferring to paint each other as evil, or as "baby-killers" or "patriarchalists." I've often found that it's only through genuine understanding of your ideological opponents that true wisdom is achieved--and it often takes the ironic shape of admitting the limitations of your own wisdom and knowledge.

So, to sum up... for me it's "complicated." I'd prefer that abortions, and unwanted pregnancies, not happen. I'd also prefer that doctors not be shot for doing their jobs. I also believe that it would be the height of presumption for me to assume that I am in a moral position to tell a woman what she should do with her body.

I believe that there must be a point during development at which we can say that a fetus is a "person," but I don't know when it is, or how we could know with any certainty the moment at which it occurs. And both sides use the extremes to illustrate their point; a third-trimester fetus is obviously a baby. A blastocyst is just as clearly not. If we want to point to something abstract like "self-awareness," we're in even bigger trouble: new-born babies are probably not "self-aware" in any sense that we could recognize. If we go with "viability," then we're in the realm of medical science, not morality--because we might develop a technique to-morrow that would allow babies born at 18 weeks gestation to survive--does that retroactively make early second-trimester abortions murder?

Personally--by 12 weeks gestation--to me, that's a baby. But that's my opinion, and I don't base it on science--just on my gut. My gut is hardly the basis for me to tell other people what to do.

[photon]

As kind of an aside, why can't adoption be placed within a system that makes it the easier choice for a woman?

Rather than the stick one side employs (look at these gross pictures you evil person you deserve to die baby killer) and the moral stick the other side employs (omg don't restrict my right to choose!), it seems to me both sides would support adoption as a viable alternative.

So make the adoption system as easy as possible for the mother. Adoptive parents or the government pays medical bills for the mother, and make the next one that she carries for herself free to. I don't know, there must be lots of ways to make adoption seem like the easier and more attractive option vs. abortion.

[jammies]

At its core, abortion is about the definition of humanity; I don't think it is plausible to define a first-trimester fetus as "human" without the dualistic (and religious) assumption that it has a soul. I am not aware of anything definitive in the Bible that talks about when the soul binds to the body, and in antiquity many pagans believed that babies were soulless until their first birthday, which is just as plausible - if not more - as the idea that a blastocyst has a soul.

Even if you do not believe in souls, however, it is difficult to condone the practice of terminating viable fetuses, as the only difference between a viable fetus and a baby is location, and not anything morphological. Leaving theological questions aside, this leads us to a solution much as has been implemented in most Western societies - abortion available up to the last trimester, and thereafter only if the fetus is not viable or the mother's life is threatened if the baby is brought to term.

Anything else is difficult to argue except on the basis of religious belief - without the "soul" acting as a clear indicator of humanity, there are simply too many ways of defining "human" that can be proposed, some of them too broad in scope, and some too narrow. It is because these definitions are arguable that the decision must be left to the individual conscience, as you cannot *prove* a fetus is human any more than you can *prove* it is not.

This is why, despite assertions in this thread to the contrary, that it is the religious - and specifically the fundamentalists and the Catholics - who drive the anti-abortion movement. Only those who believe in the soul can definitively claim they know the "truth" about when a human is a human. From the perspective of the State, however, their "truth" should not hold any privileged position, and to give in to these views is to devolve back towards the harmonization of church and state as opposed to the separation thereof.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well put, jammies.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The question of when life begins. It used to be the answer of the day for pro-choicers to say that life doesn't begin until birth. Clearly, science said otherwise and they moved on to more difficult questions to protect their completely unrestricted abortion stance.

You talk about the issue as if it is solved and defined as life starts at some point (a point I don't believe you have stated). No such resolution has been resolved by any stretch of the imagination. Life is a very nebulous term. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "clear, science said otherwise". You are going to have to be more specific. Also characterizing all pro-choicers of wanted unrestricted abortion is a straw man because not all pro-choicers are in favour of that idea.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

You talk about the issue as if it is solved and defined as life starts at some point (a point I don't believe you have stated). No such resolution has been resolved by any stretch of the imagination. Life is a very nebulous term. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "clear, science said otherwise". You are going to have to be more specific. Also characterizing all pro-choicers of wanted unrestricted abortion is a straw man because not all pro-choicers are in favour of that idea.

I didn't say all pro-choicers. Not once. Nor did I imply that the beginning of life has been defined at any single point. Not even close.

Find me a biologist that says life begins at birth and then I'll indulge your request for specificity. Until then, I'll stand by my claim that life clearly begins before birth.

Back to the original post, the shooter was arraigned today and the courthouse 2 blocks from where I work was graced with the presence of uncounted news agencies from around the world. It surpassed, even, the arrest of BTK which was HUGE when it went down. Strange to see that kind of attention 2 blocks from where you conduct your business.