Author Topic: Abortion doctor gunned down in Church (Read 4809 times)

HairyHeretic · « **Reply #25 on:** June 01, 2009, 05:52:34 PM »

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*

Trieste · « **Reply #26 on:** June 01, 2009, 09:52:14 PM »

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 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 01, 2009, 10:00:45 PM »

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 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 01, 2009, 10:08:24 PM »

Quote from: Mathim on June 01, 2009, 12:34:20 PM

I'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: Zakharra

so 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.)

Zakharra · « **Reply #29 on:** June 02, 2009, 08:37:22 AM »

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 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 02, 2009, 12:44:24 PM »

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 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 03, 2009, 02:59:04 AM »

Quote from: Trieste on June 02, 2009, 12:44:24 PM

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

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 · « **Reply #32 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.)

Sabby · « **Reply #33 on:** June 03, 2009, 10:05:48 AM »

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 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:36:03 AM »

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.

Trieste · « **Reply #35 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:59:23 AM »

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 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 04, 2009, 01:16:44 PM »

Quote from: Oniya on June 01, 2009, 09:02:47 AM

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.

I feel the same way. Killing is not the way to represent 'Pro-life' and it just makes him look like a hypocrite.

jilorbb · « **Reply #37 on:** June 04, 2009, 06:24:13 PM »

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 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 04, 2009, 08:59:18 PM »

Quote

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.

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

consortium11 · « **Reply #39 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:44:13 PM »

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 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 05, 2009, 01:12:29 AM »

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 05, 2009, 01:59:45 AM »

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 · « **Reply #42 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.

Bliss · « **Reply #43 on:** June 05, 2009, 06:06:55 AM »

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).

Valerian · « **Reply #44 on:** June 05, 2009, 09:17:42 AM »

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.

Trieste · « **Reply #45 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:46:15 AM »

*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 · « **Reply #46 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:53:09 AM »

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 · « **Reply #47 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:37:00 PM »

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 · « **Reply #48 on:** June 11, 2009, 09:31:37 PM »

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 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 12, 2009, 03:46:26 PM »

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.