Abortion doctor gunned down in Church

Started by Sabby, May 31, 2009, 08:54:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sabby


The Overlord


And here's how the far right handles things if they don't get their way. Maybe we need a leftist militant movement to adopt a similar measure. If you can't live with them without them wanting to shoot at you, then you can't live with them.

Sabby

Quote from: The Overlord on May 31, 2009, 09:00:29 PM
And here's how the far right handles things if they don't get their way. Maybe we need a leftist militant movement to adopt a similar measure. If you can't live with them without them wanting to shoot at you, then you can't live with them.

Now that is a lil extreme. I'm pro-choice, so naturally I'm okay with Abortion. but this was the actions of one very intolerant man masking his hate with Faith. While I believe the majority of these Anti-Abortion people are utter dicks, at least they keep their protests non-violent. Their victims in this as well, as they'll get the backlash from this, when all their doing is expressing those American Rights people so love to throw around these days.

The Overlord

Quote from: Sabby on May 31, 2009, 09:05:19 PM
Now that is a lil extreme. I'm pro-choice, so naturally I'm okay with Abortion. but this was the actions of one very intolerant man masking his hate with Faith. While I believe the majority of these Anti-Abortion people are utter dicks, at least they keep their protests non-violent. Their victims in this as well, as they'll get the backlash from this, when all their doing is expressing those American Rights people so love to throw around these days.

Problem is, I know he's not the only one that thinks like this, he's just the one that acted. John Wilkes Booth...James Earl Ray...the perpetrator here is just the latest in a long line of sad little men that find only one solution if their beliefs on human rights are upheld to their satisfaction.

rafufu

Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, to shoot someone in a church, while claiming to be Christian, is just wrong on so many different levels

Darius

During the late 80’s when the fundies were ‘protesting’ at his Wichita clinic I worked one summer as a volunteer escorting patients into that clinic. You’ve never met a worse group of people. These people who claimed to hold life so sacred attacked everyone, and the viciousness of it was the worst thing I'd ever experienced. 

The only thing I can say is that I’m surprised it took one of them so long to get close enough to do it.

It makes me ashamed to say that I’m from KS.
When the avalanche has started, the pebbles no longer get to vote.
Ons and Offs
absence to make hearts grow fonder
Story ideas
Darius & His Ramblings
No one is an unjust villain in their own mind… we are all the hero of our own story.” A Lucio

HairyHeretic

I expect this story to draw strong emotion from people. I still expect the discussion to be kept civil.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Oniya

Quote from: rafufu on May 31, 2009, 09:52:36 PM
Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, to shoot someone in a church, while claiming to be Christian, is just wrong on so many different levels

This really sums up everything I feel about this incident.  Whatever group this guy claims to represent, he has done them the worst possible disservice by his actions.  I blame him as an individual for the crime he has committed.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

The Overlord

Quote from: rafufu on May 31, 2009, 09:52:36 PM
Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, to shoot someone in a church, while claiming to be Christian, is just wrong on so many different levels

Especially if you're a member of that faith, but even as an agnostic I feel there's some lines you don't just cross...committing heinous crimes in anyone's church is just wrong.

Mathim

There will never be any resolution to this issue, it's pointless debating it. Fact is, if women aren't allowed to do this then they'll either A. do it at home themselves and either hurt themselves in the process or even die, B. pay someone to do it illegally or go to another country to do it, C. have it and give it up for adoption which would condemn it to a living hell, believe you me, and then that leads to the inevitable critical overpopulation of emotionally unhealthy people who are forced to commit crimes or turn to drugs or have more unwanted kids. It's a spiral in one direction, and a brick wall in another. There's no happy ending for anyone involved in this, on either side.

I'm starting to think these doctors ought to be given 24-hour, secret-service style bodyguards, though.
Considering a permanent retirement from Elliquiy, but you can find me on Blue Moon (under the same username).

Avi

Quote from: rafufu on May 31, 2009, 09:52:36 PM
Regardless of whether abortion is right or wrong, to shoot someone in a church, while claiming to be Christian, is just wrong on so many different levels

Exactly.  I'm against abortion in most cases, especially late-term, but to shoot someone in the name of God, in a place that is dedicated to His worship, is just disgusting, no matter what their moral views might be.  "Thou shalt not murder", people.  Heard of it?
Your reality doesn't apply to me...

Avi

Quote from: Mathim on June 01, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
-snip-
C. have it and give it up for adoption which would condemn it to a living hell, believe you me.
-snip

*blinks*  Ummm... most kids who are put up for adoption live normal, healthy lives.  My sister and I are two of them. 
Your reality doesn't apply to me...

Zakharra

Quote from: Mathim on June 01, 2009, 12:34:20 PMC. have it and give it up for adoption which would condemn it to a living hell, believe you me, and then that leads to the inevitable critical overpopulation of emotionally unhealthy people who are forced to commit crimes or turn to drugs or have more unwanted kids. It's a spiral in one direction, and a brick wall in another. There's no happy ending for anyone involved in this, on either side.

You have facts to back that up? I cannot believe that a majority or even a large minority of adopted children suffer like that. There are no news stories being plastered all over the news about it. Which there would be if it was happening.

Mathim

#13
Orphanages are hell on earth. That's all you need to know. The lucky ones who do get adopted won't have to go through that, but those who aren't so lucky, those who end up in the foster system or whatever, are basically put in concentration camps for children. Believe me, I've asked the same questions myself, how any of that is allowed to happen, and I never get an answer I like hearing.

And no, you wouldn't hear about this on the news, or people might actually be outraged enough to demand the government do something about it, which they're not about to do. It's the same reason you never hear about the children who are murdered or commit murder in juvenile hall or anything like that.
Considering a permanent retirement from Elliquiy, but you can find me on Blue Moon (under the same username).

Bliss

I'll be happy to split the discussion regarding adoption into its own thread, if you wish to continue.
O/O ~ Wiki ~ A/A ~ Discord: Bliss#0337
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
<3 <3 <3

Zakharra

Quote from: Mathim on June 01, 2009, 01:36:14 PM
Orphanages are hell on earth. That's all you need to know.

Cough up proof or we'll assume you are just lying and blowing smoke. Just saying something does not make it true. Proof or it's just insuniation and lies.

HairyHeretic

Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

Quote from: HairyHeretic on June 01, 2009, 03:44:16 PM
Let's keep the tone civil, shall we?

Right. I will.

Quote from: Bliss on June 01, 2009, 01:58:13 PM
I'll be happy to split the discussion regarding adoption into its own thread, if you wish to continue.

That might be good if we continue to discuss it.

Zakharra

 The shooting was  a bad thing, and will only hurt the anti-abortion movements cause. I've already heard it on the radio as a possible wedge to start censoring radio broadcasts for 'inflammatory retoric'. Mind you this was on what is considered a right wing radio, as  their view of how it can be used as an attack against the anti-abortionists.

HairyHeretic

Considering some of the comments I've seen attributed to a certain right wing presenter (Bill O'Reilly), concerning the man who was murdered, I can see why they might be worried about that.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/

QuoteTiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

 Has he called for the killing of the Dr though?

HairyHeretic

Overtly, not that I am aware off. I doubt he'd be stupid enough to say that on air.

What he has said doesn't exactly require much interpretation though, does it?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

 Only if you are inclinded to want to do that. To be using that as a justification because of the potential of someone reading something into it and acting, as a reason to censor is wrong.

It wasn't too long ago there was a book published that went over the step by step plan of how to assassinate a president.  It was put out as two men talking about a hypothesis to a President that was extemely similar to the then sitting President Bush. There were cries of plots, but the left defended it saying it was 1, fiction,   2, not talk about a real plot, and 3, Free Speech.

HairyHeretic

I see repeated use of words designed to provoke an emotional response. Nazism. al-Qaida. Communism. If you are repeatedly told that something is bad, and you already are inclined to think that way, it will just serve as reinforcement.

QuoteHe's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly

How exactly does that require reading in to? Everyone with a decent knowledge of history is aware of the atrocities commited during the Nazis time in power. That wording is designed to provoke revulsion and anger. Continually refering to him as 'baby killer' ... that doesn't require much reading into either, does it?

I'm not aware of this book, or of any controversy around it, so I can't comment on that.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Zakharra

 The book didn't get a lot of national press, mainly because it was the right that was objecting. so the mainstream media  ::) just did not cover it that much.

HairyHeretic

I expect there are plenty of books that have assassination plots in them. Given how unpopular Bush is, it wouldn't suprise me to see him used as a focal character. Maybe the author figured they'd sell more and cash in that way. *shrugs*
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste

Reading the news on this, I came across this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/kansas.doctor.killed.charges/index.html

... he could have been in jail. He could have been in jail instead of killing someone. -_- It's awful.

Sabby

You know, if a very loud and aggressive group of Churchies passed some unfair law here that I highly disagree with, I'd be pissed, sure, but if someone who shares my views went and gunned the leader of that group down, I'd be just as apalled.

Vandren

#28
Quote from: Mathim on June 01, 2009, 12:34:20 PMI'm starting to think these doctors ought to be given 24-hour, secret-service style bodyguards, though.

The thing is, he had a bodyguard (after being shot in both arms in 1993).  Who wasn't there on that particular day, for whatever reason.
__________________________________________________________________

Quote from: Zakharraso the mainstream media  ::) just did not cover it that much.

Yes, yes, and as we all "know" all of the "mainstream" media is "liberal" (because Limbaugh and others like him tell us so, and they must be telling us the truth, right?) . . . despite all evidence to the contrary - of the three major 24 hour news networks FOX is decidedly conservative, CNN is conservative leaning (a bit less so since they ditched Glenn Beck), and MSNBC leans liberal but tries to be reasonably balanced on the whole; and with few exceptions most of the daily newspapers in the U.S. are decidedly conservative (simple poll, the vast majority of newspapers endorsed McCain in the last election and Bush in the previous two).

But that's an entirely different story for another thread, not this one.

On a related note, though, had this been one of O'Reilly's buddies shot down by a liberal, he'd be going off about left-wing terrorists trying to shut him up.  Instead, just this evening, he was covering Tiller's murder as "vigilante justice."
__________________________________________________________

Now, for those claiming this is an isolated incident from a single deranged individual . . .

Dr. George Tiller - murdered 2009
Dr. Barnett Slepian - murdered 1998 (by a sniper)
Dr. David Gunn - murdered 1994

And these are just the three that made the news.  The list doesn't include the thousands of doctors who are subjected to death threats, threats of physical violence, and other attacks on a daily basis. Nor the thousands of nurses who are similarly attacked.  Nor the tens of thousands of counselors.  Nor the list of young women similarly threatened on a daily basis.  Every Saturday, I drive by a clinic that doesn't perform abortions but offers counseling that includes the option of abortion.  Without exception there are always a handful of protesters shouting at anyone who even seems to be turning into the parking lot . . . and 90% of the time said protesters are male, aged 60+, although sometimes they bring a full age range from five year olds to 60+ year olds.

Let's please call it what it is: a semi-organized campaign of terror in the name of religion.  This is not the work or random act of a single deranged person, this is the work of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of people.

This is not to say that all pro-lifers are terrorist wackos, however there is a segment of the pro-life movement that cannot be truthfully characterized any other way.  To characterize them as deranged loners is, I think, to shrug off the problem and leave the door open for similar acts to occur in the future.

(I suppose I should say, even though it should be obvious, that I'm pro-choice, although not pro-abortion . . . there is a major difference, not that many of the pro-lifers'll admit that.)
"Life is growth.  If we stop growing, technically and spiritually, we are as good as dead." -Morihei Ueshiba, O-Sensei

Zakharra

Quote from: Vandren on June 01, 2009, 10:08:24 PM
Yes, yes, and as we all "know" all of the "mainstream" media is "liberal" (because Limbaugh and others like him tell us so, and they must be telling us the truth, right?) . . . despite all evidence to the contrary - of the three major 24 hour news networks FOX is decidedly conservative, CNN is conservative leaning (a bit less so since they ditched Glenn Beck), and MSNBC leans liberal but tries to be reasonably balanced on the whole; and with few exceptions most of the daily newspapers in the U.S. are decidedly conservative (simple poll, the vast majority of newspapers endorsed McCain in the last election and Bush in the previous two).

From what I've seen and heard, most of thje mainstream, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, in the video arena, and the major newspapers, -are- liberal leaning. They also endorsed Obama over McCain. The major ones certainly.

Back on topic. I haven't been able to hear O'Rielly, so I cannot comment on that, but if he is covering for the murder, shame on him. If he is calling it the work of a vigilante .. that is technically true, but it's also murder. The killer should be tried and sentanced. (If convicted beyond a doubt, I'd also like to see the death penanty applied too, but that is highly unlikely.)

Trieste

Killing the man won't make the fact that he should have been locked up before he could kill a contributing member of society go away. Out of deference for innocent-until-proven-guilty, I will use 'if', since there seems to be a lot of evidence but he has not yet been tried.

Scott Roeder is not only a protester of (apparently) many things, he is a criminal who has no respect for others property at the very least. The fact that he was caught with a bomb in his car in combination with being a militant protester just boggles my mind. Stuff like this does not just dissipate; it escalates. Putting this man to death is just as wrong as his (alleged) actions against Tiller, and overshadows the fact that this man should not have been on the street. Period. End of story. It gives me cold shivers all over.

Silk

Quote from: Trieste on June 02, 2009, 12:44:24 PMThe fact that he was caught with a bomb in his car in combination with being a militant protester just boggles my mind. Stuff like this does not just dissipate; it escalates. Putting this man to death is just as wrong as his (alleged) actions against Tiller, and overshadows the fact that

Time and time again i bring this argument to people about "Oh how the death penalty is wrong" and such as. But here is the interesting thing

I would sooner kill the guilty than risk another innocent at a later time. Serial killers/rapists and alike should be given the death penalty, prison for strike 1, don't let them reach a strike 3 if they didn't learn at strike one. I'm a bit more sympathetic to one off murders though they should only have a prison sentence and at a chance of redemption.

But people who kill more than once, be it before going to prison the first time or committing the crime again should be killed. They've shown they are not going to learn and should not have the chance to kill someone who did nothing wrong again.

And to the "no abortion" nutballs out there. What about a woman who was impregnated during a rape. Or if it is dangerous for the woman to try and conceive, or if the parents are not fit or stable parents, you just going to let the kid suffer for a few years before letting social services take them away?

Vandren

#32
Regarding Tiller and his practice of late term abortions . . .

This came out from one of his former patients (appeared on the AP online), whom many of the anti-choice crowd don't want us to hear from.  Basically, she refuses to show her face or use anything but her first name because of the death threats and harassment she's received since choosing to have a late term abortion.  She and her husband wanted a child and tried for some time.  When she was seven months pregnant, every available medical test showed that her fetus had not developed a brain.  That is, it was literally, medically, and physically brain-less.  So, rather than carry a dead fetus to term, she decided that the psychological strain of knowing that she was carrying a dead fetus was worse than the physical strain of a late term abortion.

They lived in Illinois, but had to go to Kansas to get the procedure done because the places in Illinois that could do it (grey legal ground at the time) refused to due to the potential for threats against the hospitals/clinics.

(On a side note, the FBI has been classifying fringe anti-choice organizations as terrorist organizations and placing certain members of said organizations on their Most Wanted List for the last three decades - three were arrested for violent acts and are currently serving time according to the National Abortion Federation and the FBI.  And, currently, because of these terror tactics, we have scores if not hundreds of federal marshals assigned to protecting doctors as of this past Sunday.)
"Life is growth.  If we stop growing, technically and spiritually, we are as good as dead." -Morihei Ueshiba, O-Sensei

Sabby

Quote from: Vandren on June 03, 2009, 06:53:12 AM
Regarding Tiller and his practice of late term abortions . . .

This came out from one of his former patients (appeared on the AP online), whom many of the anti-choice crowd don't want us to hear from.  Basically, she refuses to show her face or use anything but her first name because of the death threats and harassment she's received since choosing to have a late term abortion.  She and her husband wanted a child and tried for some time.  When she was seven months pregnant, every available medical test showed that her fetus had not developed a brain.  That is, it was literally, medically, and physically brain-less.  So, rather than carry a dead fetus to term, she decided that the psychological strain of knowing that she was carrying a dead fetus was worse than the physical strain of a late term abortion.

They lived in Illinois, but had to go to Kansas to get the procedure done because the places in Illinois that could do it (grey legal ground at the time) refused to due to the potential for threats against the hospitals/clinics.

(On a side note, the FBI has been classifying fringe anti-choice organizations as terrorist organizations and placing certain members of said organizations on their Most Wanted List for the last three decades - three were arrested for violent acts and are currently serving time according to the National Abortion Federation and the FBI.  And, currently, because of these terror tactics, we have scores if not hundreds of federal marshals assigned to protecting doctors as of this past Sunday.)

Thank you for posting all that :)

Avi

I personally have little problem with situations like that, when it is blatantly obvious that either the mother, the child, or both would not survive past birth, or would even be dead upon arrival.  In the case of that brain-less child, the abortion should not even have been classified as such, honestly.  You're not killing the child if it's already dead. >_>

Abortions to save the life of the mother, when she could get the problem fixed and, later on, go back and have a healthy, normal childbirth and raise the child, are a special case and should not immediately be discounted, in my opinion.

It is abortions done because the child would be an "inconvenience" or it was an "accident" are the ones that I have a problem with.  My birth mother and father had not intended to have my sister and I, and yet they chose to have us, put us up for adoption, and give us a chance at life rather than just snuff us out.  That is why I'm anti-abortion in just about every circumstance other than life-threatening situations.
Your reality doesn't apply to me...

Trieste

It comes down to the physiological equivalent of free speech, for me. I do not condone abortions 'just because'. I do not think it should be used as convenience or a form of birth control. However, I also think that people who call the morning-after pill 'murder' are insane. I don't understand how killing one cell by menstruating or preventing pregnancy with birth control or IUDs is any different than the morning after pill - all of them make the uterus an unpleasant environment for an embryo somehow and the only difference with the morning-after pill is that you're killing sperm cells in addition to the egg cell. They haven't even had a chance to settle in and fertilize - you're just making sure they don't have a chance to. Like every other form of birth control.

I do understand the insistence that once an egg has been fertilized, it's a person and therefore sacrosanct. I get it. But I don't think anyone but the woman, her family, and her doctor should be deciding what's 'healthy' for her. What's 'right' for her. Give me a minister with an M. D. and I will concede his possible qualification - contingent on his acceptance by the family - to pass judgment on what is done with a fetus. If he doesn't have an M. D. and the family hasn't sought him (or her, since there are female ministers) out, then he needs to get his beaky nose out of their business. End of story.

It's like freedom of speech - I may not like what you say, but I believe you have the right to say it. Likewise, I may not like what you choose, but I believe you have the right to choose it. This doctor was upholding the law, and providing a service that is legal and necessary. Those people that would force the woman whose fetus had anencephaly - literally 'lacking the inside of a head', for those of you who don't know medical terminology - to carry her fetus to term, to deal with nine months of dread on top of the hours of labor it would take to birth a dead body ... I admit, I really do wonder where their compassion is.

And - the reason she had a late-term abortion was because the doctors took those months to be sure that the baby would not live. By gunning down a doctor who performs these types of abortions, the anti-choice fanatics are essentially doing their best to force mothers into a hasty decision. 'It might not be okay; I need to have an abortion in less than two weeks, so we have only that long to figure out if this baby will live.' ... no. Just ... no. That is not the way to go about it. Instead of forcing women not to abort, they are forcing the decision to be rushed, hasty, and ill thought out.

Not cool.

Caehlim

Quote from: Oniya on June 01, 2009, 09:02:47 AMWhatever group this guy claims to represent, he has done them the worst possible disservice by his actions.  I blame him as an individual for the crime he has committed.

I feel the same way. Killing is not the way to represent 'Pro-life' and it just makes him look like a hypocrite.
My home is not a place, it is people.
View my Ons and Offs page.

View my (new)Apologies and Absences thread or my Ideas thread.

jilorbb

I would say that I was "pro-life" though I acknowledge a huge gray area for cases like what Vandren  was talking about and rape, incest, etc....

I'm against the idea of abortion for convenience, constant use of it as birth control and VERY against most late-term abortions since the fetus is often viable and could live to be adopted.

Regardless, I uphold the sanctity of all life and "two wrongs don't make a right" so it makes no sense to me to have the doctor killed. Even if someone felt like he wasn't being punished because he was doing something that is legal but against "god's plan" then what gives them the right to play god and decide to kill them?

This is horrible.

schnookums

QuoteI'm against the idea of abortion for convenience, constant use of it as birth control and VERY against most late-term abortions since the fetus is often viable and could live to be adopted.

Can you provide any cites/sources backing up that claim about late-term abortions?

consortium11

Quote from: schnookums on June 04, 2009, 08:59:18 PM
Can you provide any cites/sources backing up that claim about late-term abortions?

Is a source really needed?

In nearly all cases a fetus isn't viable before 21 weeks and will definately be viable after 27 weeks of gestation, with those weeks in the middle being a case by case basis. "Late-Term" is often defined widely (I've seen it ranging from the 12th week... to the 16th... to the 20th... to the 27th...) but any abortion between the 21st and 27th week risks the fetus having been viable and any after the 27th mean that the the fetus would almost certainly have been viable.

Also keep in mind that roughly after the 28th week a fetus is able to feel pain... which makes me very wary of any abortions beyond that point even without the viability issue. Late-term abortions (if defined as being after the 21st week) are a very questionable area.

On topic it's incredibly tragic that this has occured. But, looking at it, in some ways it's inevitable. If you have a large subsect of people who genuinely believe that abortion is murder then eventually you'll have someone who will "do something about it." If down the street from you lived a man who routinely executed toddlers and the government and courts were condoning it, how long till you took it into your own hands?

Which makes the entire idea a very hard thing to find a compramise on...

schnookums

Yes, a source *IS* needed. Because there's a HUGE difference between a late-term abortion involving a viable pregnancy and a late-term abortion done for therapeutic reasons.

consortium11

The source on what?

That the term "late-term" abortions is vague and refers to different periods for different people?

That after a certain point fetus's can become viable?

That there is a cross-over point between those "late-term" abortion periods and the point where a fetus can be viable?

schnookums

Okay, I'm going to assume you're not being deliberately obtuse here, so I'll try this again.

It was stated that most late-term abortions involve a viable fetus.

I wanted a source for THAT statement, because, believe it or not, late-term abortions COULD involve a fetus that was not viable, that would not live for long outside of the mother's body. It happens, ya'know.

Bliss

You are correct in your assertion, Schnookums, but reread the statement you're picking at; consortium11 said "most", not "all", which leaves room for non-viable later-term... fetuses? Feti? Fetae?

Although I actually would like to see some credible statistics on the ratio of viable to non-viable fetus/i/ae in late-term abortions. In this discussion, "most" is very vague - does it meant 51%, a bare majority? Does it mean 98%?

For that reason, I would like to see additional citable source(s).
O/O ~ Wiki ~ A/A ~ Discord: Bliss#0337
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
<3 <3 <3

Valerian

Found this after a quick search (because I got curious myself):

TABLE 4.  Percentage of women who reported that various reasons
contributed to their having a late abortion and who cited specific
reasons as accounting for the longest delay

      Longest
All   delay
(399)  (311)  Reason

71%    31%   Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48     27    Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33     14    Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24      9    Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
  8      4    Woman waited for her realtionship to change
  8      2    Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
  6      1    Something changed after woman became pregnant
  6    <0.05  Woman didn't know timing is important
  5      2    Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
  2      1    A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11      9    Other

I found this here, for anyone who wants to look more closely.  Apparently only about 2% are due to serious fetal problems.

Do note, however, that these statistics were gathered for abortions that occurred at 16 weeks or more, and not all doctors consider 16 weeks to be the starting point for 'late-term'.  There may very well be serious birth defects (such as the problem Vandren mentioned above) that don't show up until well past the 16 week mark.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Trieste

*eyes percentages* ... *adds up numbers* ... *looks perplexed* ... *looks up original source* ... ah..

I find the second table to be more telling there, too.

Quote
TABLE 5.  Among women who provided additional information relating to
three specific reasons for having abortions at 16 or more weeks'
gestation, percentage who gave various detailed reasons for delay.

     Woman failed to recognize pregancy or misjudged gestation (N=277)

50%  She didn't feel physical changes
50   She hoped she was not pregnant
33   She had irregular periods
32   She thought she had her period
20   Her MD underestimated gestation
20   She was practicing contraception
9   Her pregnancy test was negative
7   She didn't know where or how to get a pregnancy test

     Woman found it hard to make arrangements for an abortion (N=185)

60%  She needed time to raise money
32   She tried to get an abortion from a different clinic or MD
26   She had to arrange transportation because there was no nearby provider
20   She didn't know where to get an abortion
16   She couldn't get an earlier appointment
11   She took time to notify her parents or get their consent
9   She needed child care or a Medicaid card
0   She needed time to obtain court permission

     Woman took time to decide to have an abortion (N=74)

78%  She found having an abortion to be a difficult decision
19   She had religious or moral reasons for waiting
11   She talked with her parents/husband/partner

I think it's very interesting that such a large percentage of women waited because of denial. "I can't be pregnant, that would be horrible." ... blech.

However, 48% (of all the women) "found it hard to make arrangements" and another 24% (of all the women, so there could be some repeats) waited to have the abortion. The first of these is a problem, and the second among these should not be discouraged. However, what would have been an absolutely killer combination is that it's possible a woman took several weeks to come to the decision ... and then she had additional trouble with the arrangements. It would be like punishing her with more stress and agony for taking that time and really thinking it over ...

I just find that scenario to be sad.

consortium11

Quote from: schnookums on June 05, 2009, 05:08:29 AM
Okay, I'm going to assume you're not being deliberately obtuse here, so I'll try this again.

It was stated that most late-term abortions involve a viable fetus.

I wanted a source for THAT statement, because, believe it or not, late-term abortions COULD involve a fetus that was not viable, that would not live for long outside of the mother's body. It happens, ya'know.

So, what do we mean by "late-term" abortions?

Because depending on who you ask a "late-term" abortion can be as early as 12 weeks... and as late as 27.

At 12 weeks? Virtually no (I'm tempted to say none at all) pregnancies will have a viable fetus.

At 27 weeks? The vast majority... although my source is an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, so the only link online is if you're a member...

It's the danger of discussing late term abortions... the term is so widely defined that it becomes almost meaningless.

Using wiki as a source (and I know all the flaws with that) it rates a fetus's survivial rate at 50% at roughly the 24th week. Roe vs Wade likewise put their earliest point of viability at 24 weeks. With advances in medical science babies born at 20 weeks post-fertilisation have survived.

If you use the short definition of 12 weeks for late-term abortions then they will almost certain never be viable.

The 27 week definition? Almost certainly.

And if we look back to jilorbb's original statement it's already qualified heavily: "most" and "often". If he's using the 27th week version of late-term abortion then I have no doubts that in most cases the fetus is often viable. The 12th week version... not so much.

Trieste

Keep in mind also your sources. The JAMA has always seemed to me to lean somewhat conservative, depending on who happens to be writing in it at the time. Sometimes it comes out as being more moderate, but not often.

For the purposes of a legal discussion (at least int he U.S.), probably the most relevant benchmark is the state regulation. (A good table can be found on page 2 of this PDF.) As of this month, states like Texas, Virginia and Georgia define late-term as "3rd trimester", while New York, Florida, and Massachusetts place it at 24 weeks (which is still 3rd trimester but less foggy). And then you have places like Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee placing it at the ever-popular "viability".

Actually, "viability" seems to be the most common restriction - if a fetus can live outside of the woman's womb, it is considered a late-term abortion, which makes it more difficult to do. However, given that a woman may still not want the child, would an adoption agency pay the medical expenses of keeping that child alive? Would an adoption agency take responsibility for the viable fetus once the mother has expelled it from her body?

The basis of the arguments against this seem to be that a woman somehow 'deserves' to suffer for being sexually active. If she didn't want the fetus, she should not have had sex. In light of views like this, there needs to be stricter paternal enforcement, as well. If the man didn't want to pay for the fetus, he should not have had sex. After all, we all know that condoms, the pill, IUDs, withdrawal, jellies, all of that ... none of it is 100% effective. Not even sterilization techniques are 100% effective, even when performed absolutely correctly. As Dr. Ian Malcolm was so fond of saying in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way."

It's very possible that if the moralistic doubletalk was taken out of the abortion debate, it would actually get somewhere. I'm not saying that anyone here has done so, but I'm personally kind of annoyed at being preached at about what I do with my uterus, especially by old men who spend their time proselytizing about a God in whom I do not believe. Ethics are one thing, religion is another, and I'm tired of the facet of debate that essentially asks me to feel guilty for having sex. That is the argument that seems to piss off the most people, including myself, and I think that arguments based on religion are what draws out this whole mess.

And when you have a bunch of religious anti-choice placards aimed at you saying "Thou shalt not kill", the firebombing, the terror, the taunting, the harassment, and definitely the shooting ... sort of gets in the way of that message.

Jude

To me, the abortion debate comes down to your definition of life really.  I don't see any position as innately wrong unless it's self-contradictory, which a lot of them are.  And I don't just mean pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty, but also pro-choice people who believe in animal rights.

If you believe in the sanctity of life, then you must be against its taking in all legal capacities, that includes the death penalty and war.  And if you're okay with the taking of life so long as its not a sentient life, then you must be okay with the taking of ALL non-sentient life.  That includes nearly every creature in the animal kingdom (arguably) save some of the most highly evolved mammals.

There's too much thinking of the action and not the consequence when it comes to abortion in my opinion.  Your action is going to result in one less human being existing, that is undeniable.  In most other cases if a human being's existence is terminated directly by your actions you're guilty of something.  The reason why it's okay in abortion's situation is because the child isn't born yet?

I'm not saying abortion is wrong, I'm just saying, there's more reasons to believe it is than just religion.  Painting all pro-life people as the devout isn't accurate.  I'm just as agnostic on the existence of god as I am on the morality of abortion.  All I'm saying is; things are a lot more complicated than they seem to people who think they have this issue figured out.

PanzerDivisionBOM

The taking of life is always distasteful at least, and more often than not morally reprehensible. To me, abortion is offensive, and a tragedy. Having to have one is always an indication of a sequence of poor life decisions and/or a set of very unfortunate circumstances.

That said, I recognize that it is not my business. Attempting to deny a sentient human being the sovereignty over her own body is worse by far than destroying a subsentient organism. And even if we suppose that the fetus had the same absolute sovereignty over life and property as a sentient human being, then enforcing the protection of its life is still unfeasible:

Being incapable of communicating complex ideas, a fetus cannot ask anyone to defend its life, meaning that no one can reasonably claim to act on its behalf. But even if we accept such a claim and the supposition upon which it rests, then the fetus still does not own the rights to the womb of an unwilling woman.

In short, if abortion is a questionable practice because of the infringement upon the supposed rights of the fetus, then certainly, forcing a woman to carry and birth a child is an absolutely reprehensible practice, similar to rape but lasting for several months.

As distasteful as I find the late Dr. Tiller's line of work, I cannot abide by the actions of Mr. Roeder. The initiation of violence is never an acceptable expression of personal preference. Whether he believed himself to be doing the will of a divine being, a spirit, the Tooth Fairy or even Frodo the Hobbit makes no difference, because murder is murder is murder.

In any sort of free, reasonable society, Mr. Roeder would have had the right to boycott Dr. Tiller's work - choosing for himself whether or not to seek personal or professional relationships with Dr. Tiller, as per freedom of association. Dr. Tiller would have had the right to offer his services, and any pregnant woman would have the right to choose for herself whether or not to hire him, as they each see fit.
"If there's anyone else out there, disillusioned just like me,/
It's time we tried to turn the tide, with an overwhelming minority."

www.freedomainradio.com - The philosophy of personal and political freedom.

Coming soon to a signature near you: ON & OFF Thread! ;D

Trieste

Quote from: PanzerDivisionBOM on June 12, 2009, 03:46:26 PM
In any sort of free, reasonable society, Mr. Roeder would have had the right to boycott Dr. Tiller's work - choosing for himself whether or not to seek personal or professional relationships with Dr. Tiller, as per freedom of association. Dr. Tiller would have had the right to offer his services, and any pregnant woman would have the right to choose for herself whether or not to hire him, as they each see fit.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think a good way to look at abortion is the thought experiment - I forget whose it is - of the famous musician and you:

A famous musician who is very talented is diagnosed with a terrible illness that destroys his liver. He cannot get a transplant, for whatever reason, but there is the technology available that allows him to make use of someone else's liver. You are found to be the only person in the world with a matching blood type, and the musician's followers/fans/groupies kidnap you. You wake up one morning attached to this musician, and he is now using your liver to survive. If you disconnect the cord, he dies. If you keep the cord intact, you're responsible for the well-being of a complete stranger for the next 20-odd years, maybe longer. There is the chance you will come to like the musician, and of course there is the chance you may hate them, but you are stuck with him. The point is that you have not chosen this outcome - although you may have volunteered for it had you been aware of his plight, depending on who you are.

Do you disconnect the cord?

Zakharra

 The difference is that the both of you are adults. Not an adult and a baby. If it happened to me personally? I'd unplug his ass and let him die. He stole MY life, MY body for his own personal and selfish reasons. Screw him. I do not want to be plugged in and immoble for the next 20 years to save some rich (probably a no hack talent) bastard's life.  With my luck he'd be a country musician (dislike that style of music).

I would not have volunteered to give up MY life to be someone's blood pump.

Trieste

Ah, but he didn't. A third party acted without his consent or yours.

And if it's okay to unplug his ass and let him die when he's already a talented and contributing member of society, why is it wrong to abort a fetus who a) may not survive to adulthood and b) is completely a blank slate, neither good nor bad?

For that matter, why would you condemn a random woman (this particular thought experiment addresses rape victims specifically) to being chained to a random stranger for the next 20 years, responsible for being their blood pump for the next 9 months and responsible for the (highly expensive) process of providing for them for 18 years after?

PanzerDivisionBOM

Quote from: Trieste on June 12, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
[...]I think a good way to look at abortion is the thought experiment - I forget whose it is - of the famous musician and you:

A famous musician who is very talented is diagnosed with a terrible illness that destroys his liver. He cannot get a transplant, for whatever reason, but there is the technology available that allows him to make use of someone else's liver. You are found to be the only person in the world with a matching blood type, and the musician's followers/fans/groupies kidnap you. You wake up one morning attached to this musician, and he is now using your liver to survive. If you disconnect the cord, he dies. If you keep the cord intact, you're responsible for the well-being of a complete stranger for the next 20-odd years, maybe longer. There is the chance you will come to like the musician, and of course there is the chance you may hate them, but you are stuck with him. The point is that you have not chosen this outcome - although you may have volunteered for it had you been aware of his plight, depending on who you are.

Do you disconnect the cord?

I like how the experiment conveys the essential nature of the matter. Everyone involved is put in an emotionally heartwrenching situation, through no great fault of their own, and is faced with their own set of tough moral decisions. That said, it suffers from similar problems as other "lifeboat scenario"-type moral experiments.

First off, no sentient being is created in a particular situation, without any responsibility for the choices that caused it. If a grown man has no money and steals food in order to survive, then this theft is one in an escalating sequence of poor life decisions.

Quote from: Zakharra on June 12, 2009, 04:06:49 PM
The difference is that the both of you are adults. Not an adult and a baby. If it happened to me personally?[...]
This is true. The singer is a sentient human being, capable of negotiation and complex thought, unlike a fetus. Also, the victim in the example is presumed to be an adult human, capable of advanced moral decision making, which is not always the case with unwanted pregnancies.

The example does not specify whether the singer chose to be hooked up to the patient. He might have been reduced to a vegetative state before he even knew of the possibility, giving him no chance to protest at his fans' overzealous actions, or he might simply have chosen to go along with it. In contrast, a fetus has no capability to make moral decisions, and no say in the matter of which mother to be born to, if any.

Quote from: Trieste on June 12, 2009, 04:12:09 PM
Ah, but he didn't. A third party acted without his consent or yours.

And if it's okay to unplug his ass and let him die when he's already a talented and contributing member of society, why is it wrong to abort a fetus who a) may not survive to adulthood and b) is completely a blank slate, neither good nor bad?[...]

I take some offense at the notion that the singer might have more right to the body of another person, based on the fact that he is famous or rich. Should not all people have the same right to their own life and property, regardless of who they are and where they are from?

Quote from: Trieste on June 12, 2009, 04:12:09 PMFor that matter, why would you condemn a random woman (this particular thought experiment addresses rape victims specifically) to being chained to a random stranger for the next 20 years, responsible for being their blood pump for the next 9 months and responsible for the (highly expensive) process of providing for them for 18 years after?

Ultimately, even with the aforementioned minor caveats, I'm going to agree with you on this one. The victim in the example and a woman who is suffering through an unwanted pregnancy both have the right to do as they see fit with their own bodies, and only a morally retarded barbarian would use force or violent threats to deny either of them that right.
"If there's anyone else out there, disillusioned just like me,/
It's time we tried to turn the tide, with an overwhelming minority."

www.freedomainradio.com - The philosophy of personal and political freedom.

Coming soon to a signature near you: ON & OFF Thread! ;D

Trieste

Quote from: PanzerDivisionBOM on June 12, 2009, 04:52:34 PM
The example does not specify whether the singer chose to be hooked up to the patient. He might have been reduced to a vegetative state before he even knew of the possibility, giving him no chance to protest at his fans' overzealous actions, or he might simply have chosen to go along with it. In contrast, a fetus has no capability to make moral decisions, and no say in the matter of which mother to be born to, if any.

In the interests of conveying the experiment briefly but clearly, I didn't go into a whole lot of detail about the musician, but the implication is that basically you're both in it together - he didn't arrange it any more than you did, and is faced with the same situation through no fault of his own. A fetus is in the same boat, obviously.

That said, no thought experiment is a perfect comparison and they all have limits. I like this one because it's very relatable, whereas not everyone you talk to - men especially, due to biological fundamentals (people only have so much empathy) - is able to place themselves in the position of a young woman who has just found out she's pregnant.

Quote from: PanzerDivisionBOM on June 12, 2009, 04:52:34 PM
I take some offense at the notion that the singer might have more right to the body of another person, based on the fact that he is famous or rich. Should not all people have the same right to their own life and property, regardless of who they are and where they are from?

It plays to the idea that a baby is a blank slate. They could grow up to be the next Yo Yo Ma or whatever. They could grow up to be the next Manson (Charles or Marilyn, take your pick). They could end up giving you a lot of pride, or you could end up disowning them. You don't know, especially if the child is fathered by a rapist and could have genetic predisposition of some sort toward violence... whereas this thought experiment eliminates that and clarifies that the person is useful, talented, and doesn't 'deserve' to die. I think it's important since it takes the death penalty out of the equation - if someone is pro-death penalty and you tell them a serial child rapist has been hooked up to them, it's going to change their answer.

PanzerDivisionBOM

Quote from: Trieste on June 12, 2009, 05:06:14 PM
[...]That said, no thought experiment is a perfect comparison and they all have limits. I like this one because it's very relatable, whereas not everyone you talk to - men especially, due to biological fundamentals (people only have so much empathy) - is able to place themselves in the position of a young woman who has just found out she's pregnant.

That comment caused me to stop and think for a moment. As a man, it is impossible for me to fully comprehend the emotional experience involved in a mother's bond with her child, and it helped to be politely reminded of that just now.

Thinking about it, there are a lot of complicating factors. The father might claim some say on the matter, and friends or family besides. Not to mention people like Mr. Roeder and his ilk, which are a lot more common in the world than we often like to think. And that's not even touching on the subject of rape, which I frankly cannot even begin to imagine.
"If there's anyone else out there, disillusioned just like me,/
It's time we tried to turn the tide, with an overwhelming minority."

www.freedomainradio.com - The philosophy of personal and political freedom.

Coming soon to a signature near you: ON & OFF Thread! ;D

Trieste

Yes, and then remember that the estimates of unreported rapes can go as high as 1 in 3 women. Out of every woman with whom I am intimately familiar, fewer have not been raped, so the question of what to do with the product of such a thing is very valid.

Getting back to Dr. Tiller, I think that it's incredibly distressing that anti-abortionists fight for the doctor's rights only when it suits them. Doctors/pharmacists/etc should be able to refuse to dispense birth control if it's against their religion... religion takes such a center stage in it that it's difficult to cut straight to debating on the ethics of things (as Random touched on up there). On the subject of death, I believe the death penalty is wrong. Always, no matter the crime. An eye for an eye does not cut it, for me. However, when I get my MD, I fully intend to offer my services as a medical professional to the state for executions, if the state allows them, and to hell with the AMA's sanctions against it. Why? Because as long as they remain legal, they should be done correctly by people trained to administer medications.

If you do not like the law, you change it. You do not break it.

So the fact that this doctor's clinic was the target of vandalism and his patients were the subject of so much hate is horrifying. The way that women who are even exploring a legal and possibly necessary medical procedure - and the loved ones that accompany them - are terrorized is unacceptable, and even worse is how this doctor was treated. And what about his wife? What about her life? As far as I can see, Mr. Roeder is guilty of basically 271st trimester abortion, which is as late-term as it gets, and far beyond 'partial' birth, eh?

Then again, I haven't seen anyone here say he's any hero, either.

Zakharra

Quote from: Trieste on June 12, 2009, 04:12:09 PM
Ah, but he didn't. A third party acted without his consent or yours.

And if it's okay to unplug his ass and let him die when he's already a talented and contributing member of society, why is it wrong to abort a fetus who a) may not survive to adulthood and b) is completely a blank slate, neither good nor bad?

For that matter, why would you condemn a random woman (this particular thought experiment addresses rape victims specifically) to being chained to a random stranger for the next 20 years, responsible for being their blood pump for the next 9 months and responsible for the (highly expensive) process of providing for them for 18 years after?

I'd still unplug him from me. Whether or not he is able to make his own decision, the decision to be his blood pump WAS taken from me. The fact he is/might be a contributing member of society is totally irrelevant. Being wealthy or a 'positive' influence does not give him or his followers the right to take away the next 20 years of my life to support him.  I was not given the choice. If he is in so much need, let him go out of the country and buy a liver that way. Or let him just die. Death comes to us all.

That might be harsh, but I would take great offense if someone did that to me. I'l probably be beaten to a pulp by his fans, but f%*k 'em.

On the other part, the woman,if forced to bear the child, does not need to be with or care for the child for the next 20 years. Adoption is a possibility.

On the abortion debate, I would let the woman decide, but I am opposed to the late term abortions (3rd trimester), unless it is for the safety of the mother.

Oniya

Quote from: Zakharra on June 12, 2009, 08:06:00 PM
On the other part, the woman,if forced to bear the child, does not need to be with or care for the child for the next 20 years. Adoption is a possibility.

There's still being the blood pump for nine months there.  (In keeping with the rape victim premise of the original thought-experiment, I am assuming that the woman had no choice in the matter.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zakharra

 Yeah, that is the hard choice, but you missed the 'if forced' part. A rape victem should be given access to an abortion if she wants it, if she gets pregnant. To force a woman to bear a child that way is horrible.

But if she is forced to bear it, adoption is an option for her.