Dr. George Tiller: a physician who helped people under "desperate circumstances"
The murder over the weekend of Dr. George Tiller, one of a handful of physicians who performed late-term abortion, is an absolute tragedy. As Kristen wrote yesterday, many are in mourning and angry over this disgusting and hate-filled act.
This was an act of political aggression against a doctor who helped people who were in absolutely desperate circumstances:
Anti-choice activists often cast late-term abortions as the murder of a viable baby at the whim of a woman who doesn't wish to be inconvenienced, carried out by a doctor who looks at her and sees only cartoon dollar signs. They're egged on by relatively mainstream figures like Bill O'Reilly, who declared that Dr. Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." Such misinformation and outright lies about procedures that are in fact rare and only performed when medically necessary are what led anti-choice activists to call Tiller "America's Doctor of Death," and accuse him of running a "murder mill." The reality of what Dr. Tiller did, however -- helping women in absolutely desperate circumstances, when almost no one else would -- is what led one woman who had to terminate a wanted pregnancy because of a terrible late-term diagnosis to call the doctor and staff at his Women's Health Center "our heaven when we were living in hell."
This was a man who was treating patients in dire need of help. His cold-blooded murder for what looks like political and religious reasons is revolting. The justifications for his murder by the repugnant Randall Terry and the swill that is Free Republic are a stark reminder that the Americanized version of the Taliban are alive and well.
Dr Tiller is a hero and a martyr and should be remembered as such. His murder should galvanize Americans further against the hate-filled, fear-mongering fringe that treat women and choice with visceral disdain.
|
June 1, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (143 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: naed | Jun 1, 2009 6:04:38 PM
"Dr Tiller is a hero ..." - Carla
So, how many babies do you have to kill to be labeled a "Hero" of the political left?
I would imagine, killing, say 2-3,000 you would at least get a Carla Axtman Swimsuit calendar.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 1, 2009 6:30:33 PM
Naed:
You really aren't interested in the fact that this was a medical doctor helping desperate patients in horrific situations, are you? This wasn't just the random ending of pregnancies based on whims. This was a doctor helping people whose lives were at risk or whose potential infants were going to suffer in wretched and painful ways.
Anyone who believes this is somehow justifiable is demonstrating themselves as no better than human refuse. It's the American version of the Taliban...murdering at whim because they think oppression and fear are the way to further a religious and political cause.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jun 1, 2009 6:44:40 PM
Dr. Tiller killed no babies. Dr. Tiller performed therapeutic abortions, among other medical procedures. These are human rights and constitutional rights guaranteed to women. His name will be celebrated among the heroes of the poor when his killer's is long forgotten or worse.
Posted by: Rarian Rakista | Jun 1, 2009 6:52:26 PM
Um, I am leftist pro-lifer so please take note your stereotypes cast aspersions on your own kind. As I have been fighting against abortion, the death penalty, poverty, police brutality and fighting for gay marriage, immigrant rights and women's rights for over 15 years I have noticed how often liberals like to claim that to be 'one of them' you have to be pro-choice on the issue of abortion. For you to usurp the banner of liberalism for yourself while disparaging others who work diligently on many shared social issues shows that you operate under measures of contempt and disdain for those people who stand so close to you on almost every other issue.
That noted, this sophomoric screed from an abortion apologist is par for the course on how this issue makes both sides irrational in their depiction of the other side.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 1, 2009 6:58:17 PM
Spare me, Rarian.
All "pro-life" people were not singled out in this piece. Just those who justify the murder of this heroic physician.
If that's what you've been doing, then you deserve to be cast in with the those who I mention in this piece. Anyone who apologizes for the murder of a man whose practice was devoted to helping desperate people belongs attached to the adjectives I used.
I don't care if we have other "social issues" in common. If you are justifying the murder of this physician, your opinion on this matter is disgusting and beneath contempt.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Jun 1, 2009 7:15:18 PM
As John Scott unsurprisingly ignored my question on the other post, I'll ask Rarian:
I am interested whether you support making contraceptives readily and freely available as well as providing thorough sex education to ensure proper usage of contraceptives?
-tl (in sw)
Posted by: throowrocks | Jun 1, 2009 7:32:58 PM
The idiot should have used a coat hanger instead of a gun! Tiller the baby killer will not be missed!
Posted by: Carla | Jun 1, 2009 7:35:26 PM
Thanks for proving my point, throowrocks. You make it a lot easier with crap like that.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jun 1, 2009 7:47:46 PM
Ahh to be a non-theist and to be spared the hatred and contempt that fills the hearts of so many of the "enlightened" ones.
Posted by: John Griffin | Jun 1, 2009 7:51:50 PM
While I am against abortion in most cases except when a woman's life is in danger, I was sickened by this act of terrorism. I take offense to the suggestion that all pro-lifers applaud this murder as justified. I do think that prior to his death, Dr.Tiller was too liberal in his interpretation of those cases that justified late-term abortions. For this reason, he was brought up on criminal charges (although he was declared "innocent" by the court system.) Our government should make birth-control more readily available for those who can't afford a baby so this procedure isn't used as a barbaric form of "birth control". Millions of innocent unborn babies are unwanted & aborted each year and people like myself grieve over their needless deaths too. Dr.Tiller may have been a kind and helpful Dr. but many people are against late-term abortions in all but the most extreme cases. Many people (including me) think his interpretation of "extreme" cases wasn't strict enough.
Posted by: David | Jun 1, 2009 7:56:29 PM
Left-right-up the middle or down each side, it really is totally irrelevant. To uphold those who kill only serve to prove the point that you also are accomplices to that act.
Posted by: marv | Jun 1, 2009 7:59:34 PM
The murder of George Tiller is a crime. In Kansas, Dr.
Tiller followed state and federal law and performed a medical procedure to save the life of the mother. Today,
regardless of how one defines one's political identity it
is of paramount importance to recognize that it is the rule of law that must be upheld.
This means that Mr. Roeder should spend the rest of his
life in jail. It also means that Mr. Obama must prosecute
those responsible for crimes in the Bush administration.
Those who authorized torture specifically. Further, it
seems to me that creatures like Bill O'reilly and his
clones must be stopped. Zero tolerance applies here.
First, and most important Obama must grow a spine.
Posted by: Gary Hammond | Jun 1, 2009 8:04:36 PM
So, let's see if I get this correctly. Those of you that contend that Dr. Tiller was a hero for "saving people in desperate circumstances" need to ask yourselves: "When does this fetus, product of conception or any of the other multitude of terms used to avoid calling it a b_ _ y
become a person?" We are talking a mere few inches between partial birth and total birth. You can justify this gruesome act of abortion with the head out of the womb as "choice." Would it suddenly be a crime in your view if the remainder of the "fetus" were out of the womb while the procedure was done?
I find the murder of Dr Tiller abhorant along with the procedure he so proudly performed. One violent act doesn't justify another. Sadly, those of you who consider yourselves "progressive" in support of the procedure need to get a grip on reality.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jun 1, 2009 8:06:50 PM
If only the "pro-lifers" cared about ALL LIFE and not just the unborn this world might be a better place.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 1, 2009 8:12:52 PM
Gary:
What of the 11-12 year old rape victims who didn't understand what was going on with their bodies until it was late in a pregnancy? What of the women who discovered cancer and can't have life-saving chemo treatment because they're pregnant?
These are the people Tiller was treating. Women who were carrying fetuses that wouldn't survive outside the womb..or barely only to face multiple organ transplants and still have a vastly abbreviated life.
The grip on reality that's required is yours. Tiller was the treating physician who was helping desperate people in desperate situations. And he was murdered for it.
Truly disgusting.
Posted by: marv | Jun 1, 2009 8:17:45 PM
Apparently, Gary Hammond does not believe that there is
a law requiring more than one doctor to verify that the
mother's life is at risk in order to perform the procedure
for which Dr. Tiller has been murdered.
Gosh, Gary, is that based on faith? You apparently hate
women. Why? What is wrong with you?
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jun 1, 2009 8:24:19 PM
Gary Hammond, we have laws and doctors and medical boards to decide the questions you ask. Thus women consult with their doctors in the context of those laws.
I understand that you are frustrated that those laws are not what you think they ought to be.
I understand your frustration in some sense as, believe me, this society is not configured as I think it ought to be.
Nevertheless, your kind of rhetoric is not very helpful. Simply, you don't get to decide. Women get to decide. That's the law.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jun 1, 2009 8:45:53 PM
Thanks for the post, Carla.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | Jun 1, 2009 8:47:35 PM
Uh, John Griffin, why put quotes around "innocent" when you said that he was "declared 'innocent.'"?? Because really, a jury's declaration of "innocence" is a lot like saying he's innocent, just like a jury's declaration of "guilty" is a lot like saying he's guilty. Only he was innocent.
The sky was "blue" yesterday.
Snow is "cold."
Dr. Tiller was "murdered." As in, he was a person legally declared to be living (unlike a fetus), and killing him is therefore "murder."
See?
Posted by: Gary Hammond | Jun 1, 2009 9:33:06 PM
Thus far it is evident that progressive does not mean tolerant of other viewpoints especially when it forces one to answer the simple question I asked earlier of when it is considered a person. Does no one have the ability to answer the question? No, in your view I am the intolerent one because I have challenged your thinking.
It has nothing to do with hating women Marv. So Mr O'Reilly is a creature. So much for your tolerence of other viewpoints. It's your way or else.
Joe Hill, rhetoric? A simple question is rheoric? Afraid to tackle the hard question I guess and pass it off to Dr's and Medical Boards? Heavens a three year old's intellect will declare it a child.
and Carla, you bring up the rarest of cases as if they are the norm and I need the grip on reality. Sorry, reality stares me in the face when I look at the gruesome act. I'll agree with you on one point, the murder of Dr. Tiller was truly disgusting.
and finally a question for mp97303: In what way do you think 'prolifers' do not care about ALL LIFE?
Posted by: Luke | Jun 1, 2009 9:39:03 PM
Meh. The is spinning this much the way the south spun Harper's Ferry in 1859: trying to paint all, or even a substantial number, of abolitionists as nuts.
The actions of this modern day John Brown do not impune the pro-life movement anymore than John Brown's did the abolitionist movement.
Posted by: Luke | Jun 1, 2009 9:49:03 PM
I have a hard time imagining even 80% of the pro-choice (notice I have the decency to use an official label, unlike Carla), normal people like my girlfriend, who consider Tiller anything other than a sick killer himself.
Yes, that doesn't justify taking the law into one's own hands, but your statements Carla are just sick and revolting. Tiller? The man brought up on criminal chargers in Kansas... a hero?
In that case, OJ Simpson is a saint or something.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 1, 2009 9:54:17 PM
Apparently there was a vigil at Pioneer Courthouse Square at 8 p.m. tonight to honor Dr. Tiller, unfortunately I didn't find this out until just now. Maybe we can get a report.
The Feministing blogsite has a list of suggested actions with some good links to Medical Students for Choice and National Network of Abortion Funds & some other stuff.
Credo has offered an action page you can use in response to this Dr. Tiller's murder, one piece of which is addressed to Fox and Bill O'Reilly.
The Reformation Lutheran Church (ELCA) to which Dr. Tiller belonged and where he was murdered has a brief media statement up; I've written to their office to ask if there is anything people at a distance can do to be supportive of the family or congregation.
Posted by: rw | Jun 1, 2009 10:01:31 PM
Gary, if you are allowed to be intolerant and outspoken on this passionate issue, why is it you cry unfair to receive the degree of firepower comin' back atcha that you put out? I think the laws of physics would be of help to all in this discussion. It's a riled up topic. I am curious - tell us about your moments of actually viewing the gruesome act [sic]. Whose hand were you holding to get her through? Whose tears did you wipe as you stared into the disposal bin? Just curious if you are speaking theoretically [ummm sorry, RHETORICALLY] or if you have ANY direct experience with the issue and reality beyond your lonely XY thoughts in the night?
Posted by: J Renaud | Jun 1, 2009 10:05:41 PM
The Operation Rescue site was down most of last night and this morning getting scrubbed of, I assume, posts advocating the murder of Tiller. Let the FBI sort out the IT issues, but take a moment yourself and trip with the Wayback Machine to see what the OR site looked like, say six months ago.
The upshot is donations of all denominations are piling up at Operation Rescue and other wackjob organizations as their fundraising-d'etre reaches it's zenith.
Pissed about this? What will shut them down? What happened in Portland, Oregon in 1990? Berhanu v. Metzger. It's up to you angry people to fund lawyers like Morris Dees who will sue the sh*t out of Terry and his ilk.
Otherwise the terrorists win.
Posted by: Pedro | Jun 1, 2009 10:06:50 PM
From the Meriam Webster dictionary:
Choice
1: the act of choosing : selection
My dear departed mother used to have to remind her friends at NOW (then National Organization of Women now The National Organization FOR Women) meetings that choice was the all inclusive position that allowed her to reject her male doctor's advice to abort and and continue with a risky pregnancy.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jun 1, 2009 10:13:38 PM
That's one of the things I love the most about the Gary Hammonds of this world (and they are legion).
They don't need no steenkin' doctors or law books to tell them the differences among zygote, fetus, and baby. They just KNOW. It's that inner light. It's truthiness. It comes from the gut. Why a three year old could tell you.
And if some doctors and some constitutional lawyers and judges rule differently . . .
Posted by: carla axtman | Jun 1, 2009 10:15:19 PM
Thus far it is evident that progressive does not mean tolerant of other viewpoints especially when it forces one to answer the simple question I asked earlier of when it is considered a person. Does no one have the ability to answer the question? No, in your view I am the intolerent one because I have challenged your thinking.
I'm not tolerant of people who advocate for the murder of physicians who are helping people. I see no reason why it's ever appropriate to tolerate that.
In fact, I think it's fundamentally insulting to the intelligence to even suggest that there ought to be tolerance toward these sorts of actions.
You don't get to "choose" to murder people, either.
Posted by: J Loewen | Jun 1, 2009 10:16:33 PM
The Tillman murder was another example of Right wing domestic Terrorism like OK City. I doubt those who use incendiary terms that inspire guys like this will ever take responsibility for their contribution to Tillman's killing. There is room for people to debate this issue and to work to minimize Abortions But never to kill those who disagree with you.
Posted by: TrishDish | Jun 1, 2009 10:47:50 PM
"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons"
See http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Doesn't really seem that Tiller or any of his contemporaries were helping desperate people in "horrific" situations. And sure, many of you might argue that it's a woman's right to end a pregnancy (even if it is because of socio-economic reasons). But even those who cannot speak here in the United States have rights (at least those who aren't in a womb)! We wouldn't kill a deaf or blind person or any other person who might be deemed defenseless. Why does it have to be different with a baby?! Killing a baby is a crime. And if 98% of babies are aborted for trivial socio-economic reasons, we are losing a multitude of healthy, promising individuals who could greatly contribute to our posterity. Sadly, abortion's availability has created a new source of birth control. And from what I have heard of personal accounts, women's health is not in the interest of those at abortion clinics. There is no therapy for the emotions that linger years after a baby is taken.
Tiller was shot to death. How many of the babies he took endured more horrific deaths? How many babies struggled with their last breaths and felt pain? Tiller is one man; but the babies he killed would populate a city. I am relieved that no more babies will die at his hands.
I only hope that our country will awaken to this crime, just as they have in the crimes against slaves and the mentally ill, and give rights to life for those who have no voice.
Posted by: Liz | Jun 1, 2009 10:49:30 PM
As a passionate pro-life American woman, I think what happened to Dr. Tiller was absolutely horrible and indefensible. The man who committed the crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Violence is not the answer to ending abortion and bringing about a culture of respecting all life, born and unborn, in this country. Although I believe what Dr. Tiller did to thousands of defensless babies was horrible, he did not deserve to be murdered and I grieve for his family, as I grieve for the babies he aborted.
Also, I take offense at the assertion made by many in the media over the last 36 hours that pro-lifers and anyone who speaks out against abortion is some how responsible for this horrible act. Their are hundreds of pro-life organizations and tens of millions of pro-life people in this country and I can think of only one that condones violence. I have been active in the pro-life movement for a number of years and I have never come across anyone who condones violence. Yes, there are some deranged people out there, but as a whole the pro-life movement in a peace loving movement. Blaming pro-lifers for this murder is like blaming everyone who is against the war when a military recruiter is attacked.
Carla, interesting you should say "you don't get to choose to murder people". That is exactly what the pro-life movement is about. The circumstances that women find themselves in when they visit Dr's like Tiller are tragic and we should support them and care for them with compassion. However, no matter what the circumstance, the humanity of the baby does not change. It is still a viable human being with a heart beat, that does not deserve to be killed in the gruesome ways that it is. Just like Dr. Tiller did not deserve to be killed.
Posted by: Gary Hammond | Jun 1, 2009 11:34:42 PM
Liz and TrishDish: Thanks for your contributions! As you can see we are seeing the blatant disregard for the ultimate issue, the Baby. It's all about "choice", their choice-their way. Choice in the pro-abortion community dosesn't really mean the possiblity of choosing LIFE.
You would think as 'progressives' they would at least address my question of when "it" is a person. Nothing progressive about their inability to have a clear discussion and answer a simple question. Progressive is just a euphemistic term for Left Wing Extremist. Another term to hide under, to see who they can fool today.
See the way in which Carla wants to turn my discussion of tolerance around? She would rather paint me as the intolerent one by attempting to infer that my mentioning of it refers to tolerating a murder.
Gosh, Carla, you posted this discussion. Can't you take the lead, show some responsibility and once again answer my "inflamatory question" of when that fetus becomes a person. Maybe you would rather fall into JoeHill's world of letting "doctors and some constitutional lawyers" tell him the difference. Sadly, you will all probably pass again.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Jun 1, 2009 11:58:27 PM
Gary,
I'll bite. I believe a fetus becomes a person at birth. But the question is moot.
You will never convince me that life begins at conception (or anytime prior to birth), and I will not convince you that life begins at birth. Call me or anyone who agrees with me names and show me graphic photographs and I will not be swayed. Nor will you be swayed by my arguments. Moreover, making abortions illegal, stigmatizing or penalizing girls or women who get pregnant (regardless of circumstance), or harrassing medical professionals who offer the legally protected procedure of abortion will not reduce the number of abortions performed. What will reduce the number of abortions is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.
So why don't unite to support proven strategies for reducing unwanted pregnancies:
- free and available contraception including the "morning after pill" (which, regardless of what anyone says is not an "abortion pill")
- good sex education to ensure proper use of contraceptives
What say you, Gary?
-tl (in sw)
Posted by: LT | Jun 1, 2009 11:59:27 PM
Liz, while I agree with you on this, "what happened to Dr. Tiller was absolutely horrible and indefensible", have you been an adoptive parent or a foster parent?
Do you accept the possibility of saving a mother's life by abortion, or does the woman's life become secondary at the moment of conception?
Are rape victims crime victims, or women who should be required to carry pregnancies to term?
"Abortion stops a beating heart"? At what point does the heart start beating? Certainly not at conception.
Would you be willing to take in a child if parents could not afford to feed another child?
Have you ever done volunteer work with Special Olympics or Games for the Physically Limited? Or just used words to praise those who do?
I can remember verbal and other attacks against anyone who didn't vote and speak the Right to Life "party line".
I don't take that from anyone, regardless of their cause.
(Look at some of the blog posts from the 2008 primary and you will find people here who were just as verbally nasty about a primary battle as any anti-abortion activist ever was.)
It is not a simple issue. I have known women who worked with disabled kids who told anti-abortion activists "come down to where I work and volunteer, and if you last 3 weeks, I will gladly listen to anything you say". Generally, the activist didn't last that long as a volunteer.
I once had a conversation with a young man who said "Isn't it great that --- is prolife?" and I responded "Webster wasn't making a statement on abortion when he defined the prefixes 'pro ' and 'anti', so tell me what constructive things that person is involved with that make him prolife".
Next time I saw the young man, he had joined Court Appointed Special Advocates because he decided I had a point about the meaning of pro-life.
My point is this: I admire people I know who have adopted hard to place kids. They have the right to any opinion on abortion they wish to have.
I have no use for the folks who blockade clinics or engage in violence, or even stand on a streetcorner with an anti-abortion sign or go to a rally. A rally of 7000 people just means 7000 volunteer hours wasted.
Many of us were fed up with the nastiness long before the century changed. I know there are many quietly anti-abortion law abiding citizens who believe all life is precious.
But just as famous activists from other causes make everyone from their cause look bad, Randall Terry can't be blamed on anyone who believes women have the right to make their own medical decisions. Perhaps the shunning process set off by this murder will help silence his rantings.
But don't expect those of us who have known someone threatened by an anti-abortion activist (or even someone who was the victim of rude treatment like the marchers around a Planned Parenthood clinic smashing the edge of someone's garden), or the subject of phone or other harassment simply because they were the landlord for Planned Parenthood or other women's clinic which did not have the RTL seal of approval.
This murder just brings back all those bad memories from the previous century. I'm sorry Liz, but you haven't encountered the same people I have
" as a whole the pro-life movement in a peace loving movement."
There are families of people who work for Planned Parenthood or other women's clinics. Sometimes they have been threatened to the point of law enforcement taking action. Should all OB GYN facilities be required to get a "pro-life" seal of approval so they won't be vandalized?
Truly "prolife" individuals spend their time caring for others. I've known a family with a child born early, a family with twins born really early, and a college friend who died in childbirth.
I've also seen statistics that the Senators who got contributions from Right to Life in the 1980s were more likely to vote for Reagan's budget cuts to programs for women and children than Senators who did not get such contributions.
Every movement at one time or another needs to take stock of whether the actions of all their members are furthering the cause. Now is the time for the anti-abortion movement to do some soul searching.
Groups like this have been around for decades:
http://main.nc.us/wncceib/CHOICEact31305.htm
seeking common ground on abortion issues.
Sometimes they were a way to pick up the pieces after a national anti-abortion group came to town to protest, disrupted the community, then moved on. Locals decided maybe they should get to know each other over dinner or whatever.
Also, see if someone can find the 1985 Wisconsin law called THE ABORTION PREVENTION AND FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY LAW OF 1985.
I once had a pen pal in Wisconsin who sent it to me. It is 9 pages of details, worked out by a group forced into common ground by politicians tired of the back and forth. 9 pages of details that are a good starting point to get beyond the slogans and start dealing with the nitty gritty issues involving abortion. It includes sections on what to do if teens become pregnant.
Now, if after such soul searching the movement can say things like "we understand that in the 21st century women have the vote, hold office, and are not willing to surrender their medical decisions to total strangers, but maybe we can come to common ground on how to deal with teens who have sex before marriage", then we can start a dialogue.
But until then, be aware that the same sentiments which drive ordinary folks to say "Do you really expect me to ever vote for that person who ran the nasty ad?" cause people to be suspicious of any abortion opponent who doesn't show the good works of those like Mark Hatfield and Hubert Humphrey.
Posted by: Taliban #23 | Jun 2, 2009 7:07:45 AM
"His name will be celebrated among the heroes of the poor" - Joe Hill
You're right Joe! I heard that after the abortion, patients get a framed, autographed picture of Dr. Tiller they can hang in their home. Along with a pack of sugar-free gum. What a great guy.
Posted by: Taliban #23 | Jun 2, 2009 7:11:33 AM
"Anyone who believes this is somehow justifiable is demonstrating themselves as no better than human refuse" - Carla
You mean like the human refuse that Dr. Tiller threw in dumpsters behind his building?
Posted by: Joe White | Jun 2, 2009 8:26:53 AM
The woman is said to be in 'desperate circumstances' as she seeks an abortion.
If a man were about to puncture the back of your skull and suck your brains out with a vacuum, are you also in 'desperate circumstances'?
This is partial birth abortion folks.
The baby is delivered, except for the head, and as his body dangles outside of the birth canal, he is killed in the manner described.
All that Tiller had to do was allow the head to emerge and the mother would be free of the 'burden'.
But no.
He had to kill in order to get the big bucks. And make no mistake, his abortion practice was very lucrative.
Posted by: Joe White | Jun 2, 2009 8:30:19 AM
LT wrote:
"At what point does the heart start beating? Certainly not at conception. "
In the first month, before most women even know they are pregnant, their baby's heart is beating already.
At conception, the baby's DNA is distinct from his mothers' DNA.
It's not 'the woman's body' that we're talking about.
It's another body. The baby's.
Posted by: fbear | Jun 2, 2009 8:34:22 AM
Joe,
Do you believe that the law should require you to risk your life in order to save the life of another person?
If you were in a situation where you could save one newly-born baby or 20 fertilized eggs, which would you choose?
Posted by: Joe White | Jun 2, 2009 8:38:31 AM
tl (in sw) wrote:
"I believe a fetus becomes a person at birth. But the question is moot."
Is it possible that the baby is a person 24 hours before birth?
What magic is there about the process of birth that makes the baby a person?
What if the baby is removed by C-section early and doesn't go thru the birth process? How does the baby become a person then?
The question isn't moot. It is THE question of the whole abortion issue. When does the child become a living human being?
If the baby isn't living before birth, is he (or she) dead?
If the baby isn't a human being before birth, then what species is he (or she)?
You cannot pretend that this is not THE central issue, because everyone knows it is.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jun 2, 2009 8:44:32 AM
The basis of Choice is that everyone minds their own damn business.
You want to have 6, 10, 22 kids? That's your choice. I sincerely hope you can financially afford it and have a lot of help, but regardless of that fact, you have a legal right to have as many kids as you want and are able to physically bear. It's YOUR choice.
You want to have an abortion? Again, you have that right under our current laws. Some may hold personal or religious beliefs that would deny you that right, but again it's YOUR choice.
I've never seen anyone screaming at a woman on a sidewalk outside a clinic, telling them they should/must have an abortion. And I've noticed that the extreme anti-choice crowd doesn't give a damn what happens to the kid once it's born.
For many (not all, but many)in the anti-choice crowd, this issue is about control over women's bodies and sex, not about babies. This is shown by the fact that frequently these folks also argue that no one should have access to birth control or sex education which leads to more unplanned pregnancies and abortions. If the goal is to "stop the killing of babies" and a simple sex ed class or pill might prevent that, why wouldn't they be in favor of it? Because it's not really about the babies, it's about controlling what other people do with their bodies prior to conceiving the baby---ie birth control and sex.
Make all information available in an intelligent, accessible manner....then everyone leave everyone else alone and let everyone make their own choices. Focus on working with and helping the people already in the world, including newborns and young mothers/families who need assistance. Work on getting health care and education for everyone. Work on improving the way we fund our infrastructure, technology and our future businesses. Work on helping people develop their communication skills and tolerance so we can end conflict and war. Work on helping each other instead of tearing each other down for making personal choices which are none or your personal business. Then everyone will be truly Pro-Choice...and truly Pro-Life.
Posted by: TrishDish | Jun 2, 2009 9:03:35 AM
tl (in sw): Now that you have so wonderfully defined when life begins and I quote "I believe a fetus becomes a person at birth." So, I am just wondering, how do you define BIRTH?! Because babies are often "born" (brought forth from the womb) in abortion clinics and left to die in dumpsters. Do you term birth as being initiated by baby? Because that rarely happens in today's society. Most births are induced or require a c-section (hmm...a medical process like abortions, eh?!).
Too bad that you are so set in your ways that you will never consider when life begins. That's a tragedy. More sad, is the thought that there are countless others just like you.
And you are right, I am not swayed by your arguments, because I don't think they are really arguments, you do little to convince me. However, you you are right in saying that "what will reduce the number of abortions is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies." This is common sense. But, people's values are going to have to change and we have to move from a "quick fix" mentality, not just find a pill that will do the trick. We have a president who believes as you do, that pregnancies and babies are mistakes that he wouldn't want Sasha and Malia to have a baby that would hold them back, which is the reason for 98% of abortions (socio-economic reasons). I wonder if he ever considered the fact the he was a "mistake" baby? After all, he was born six months after his parents married and was only two when they separated. How available were abortions in the early 60s, when Obama was born? Not as available as they are now, that's for sure. If they would have been widely available and easy to get, would Ann Dunham have chosen to abort Obama? Our current president was worn in the middle of the civil rights movement to a white, Kansas mom and a black, Kenyan father. Controversial? In many ways. Yet, she did not go on to abort Obama and Obama became President. What I am getting at is this: controversial, "mistake" pregnancies have happened. I have heard statistics jumbled around, some reasoning that 97% of babies are unplanned regardless of whether the individuals are already married. The situation has been the same; but the way that people have dealt with it has changed. When abortions became widely available more people opted for them (duh). But, when they weren't available, women like Ann Dunham adapted. I can't imagine what a difficult task it was for Obama's mother. Even Obama felt the pain. Yet, he has grown and been made stronger. How many future presidents have been aborted? How many scientists? How many counselors? How many friends?
Sex education may help; but honestly, I think most people in their 20s (the age of most mothers who choose abortion) understand where babies come from.
Sadly, people don't value life, which is what leads to the taking of life, whether it be from gunshot or abortion clinic bed, or Presidential podium.
Posted by: joshua | Jun 2, 2009 9:06:01 AM
Those who think a person like Gary Hammond can be reasoned with are mistaken. It's unfortunate, but debating with a person who believes in what boils down to popular fairy tales is a complete waste of time.
Posted by: Joe White | Jun 2, 2009 9:07:08 AM
Ms Harmon,
Anyone who believes that 'sex ed classes' will lead to a decrease in unplanned pregnancies hasn't been paying attention for the past several decades.
But that is a separate issue than abortion. The abortion issue is what is the status of the baby in the womb?
Do they have a legal right to protection of their life?
Many states now are adopting laws to prosecute a killer for 2 murders (instead of 1) if he kills a pregnant woman and the child dies also.
How can this be if the unborn is not a human being? How can he be charged with a second murder?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jun 2, 2009 9:17:17 AM
Doesn't really seem that Tiller or any of his contemporaries were helping desperate people in "horrific" situations.
According to the many women he helped who are speaking out, you're very, very wrong.
You mean like the human refuse that Dr. Tiller threw in dumpsters behind his building?
Do you really need me to get into the difference between medical waste and live, healthy people? Cuz we can do that, but its stupid and a waste of time.
Carla, interesting you should say "you don't get to choose to murder people". That is exactly what the pro-life movement is about. The circumstances that women find themselves in when they visit Dr's like Tiller are tragic and we should support them and care for them with compassion. However, no matter what the circumstance, the humanity of the baby does not change. It is still a viable human being with a heart beat, that does not deserve to be killed in the gruesome ways that it is. Just like Dr. Tiller did not deserve to be killed.
"We should support them and care for them with compassion..."..but they still get to die from their cancer, or the fetus is still allowed to be born into an excruciating existence, or the 11 year old rape victim still has to carry a fetus to term--often at risk to her to her own life and mental health? No. You don't get to make those decisions.
These are deeply personal questions between doctors and patients. And they don't belong in the same conversation with a guy that took a gun to the head of a physician for political and religious reasons. There is no equivalency here.
See the way in which Carla wants to turn my discussion of tolerance around? She would rather paint me as the intolerent one by attempting to infer that my mentioning of it refers to tolerating a murder.
You are tolerating a murder. By trying to justify it, that's exactly what you're doing.
Gosh, Carla, you posted this discussion. Can't you take the lead, show some responsibility and once again answer my "inflamatory question" of when that fetus becomes a person. Maybe you would rather fall into JoeHill's world of letting "doctors and some constitutional lawyers" tell him the difference. Sadly, you will all probably pass again.
Are you somehow more qualified to tell me when a fetus is viable than a physician or other scientist? Do you have some special insight into how to tell a pregnant 11 year old rape victim who could easily die in childbirth that they have to carry to term? What's your secret for women whose bodies are ravaged with cancer and can't get chemo to care for the fetus you're forcing to term because they'll be dead soon after?
This righteous and indignant morality you're attempting to foist in an effort to justify shooting a physician in the head is completely repugnant. I don't know how you sleep at night.
Posted by: TrishDish | Jun 2, 2009 9:19:11 AM
Exactly, Joe. A baby is alive when it is still in the womb. That's why doctors search for a heart beat within the first few months. It's just like with adults: Tiller was likely pronounced dead when there was no heart beat and he could not be revived. And though I believe life begins earlier than a heart beat, most legal abortions are performed in stages after a heart beat has been established. Often, women don't even realize they are pregnant until they are several months along. It is just ridiculous to think that some people don't believe that a life begins until a child is born. I mean, how can you even say that when the child is ALIVE by medical standards (beating heart)?! And if a pregnant woman is killed along with the child in her womb, it should be considered two murders, because two beating hearts were killed.
WEEK 5: BABY'S HEART STARTS TO BEAT
Posted by: Joe White | Jun 2, 2009 9:33:46 AM
Carla wrote:
"Do you really need me to get into the difference between medical waste and live, healthy people?"
The baby was alive until killed during the abortion procedure.
Referring to dead babies as 'medical waste' is horrible.
Many people give more dignity to their deceased pet than you are willing to give to a dead child.
When an animal is put down, we try to use the most humane means possible.
Abortions are painful, grisly procedures that are designed to fatten the bottom line of the abortionist.
Look up saline abortion and read how the baby dies of chemical burns as he inhales poisonous solution.
Look up other abortion procedures where a scalpel is used to slice the baby limb from limb.
Look up partial birth abortion where the baby is delivered, except the head, and as his body dangles outside the birth canal a scissors is shoved into the base of the skull and his brains are sucked out with a vacuum.
That's what you're defending, Carla.
You ought to educate yourself on it.
To you, human bodies are 'medical waste', eh?
I hope the whole world reads and understands what liberals like you are all about.
Obama voted 3 times to allow living babies that were fully born (completely out of the womb, no longer 'part of the woman's body') during botched abortions to be left to die unattended.
Do you support that too?
Posted by: TrishDish | Jun 2, 2009 9:39:08 AM
HEY FBEAR:
Don't assume that abortions are performed in dire circumstances where the mother's health would be compromised. That's what the people running abortion clinics want you to believe. The number of women that die from childbirth these days is extremely few. However, the percentage of babies who die because their mothers aren't socially or economically prepared is 98%. Arguing the use of abortion for rape/incest/health reasons is some sort of sheepish blanket to cover up the murder of millions of lives. It's really childish and incredibly dishonest. And it never fails to puzzle me how they succeed in selling their lies.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: joshua | Jun 1, 2009 5:32:20 PM
This is just another clear cut example of faith based terrorism. Like flying planes into skyscrapers, this kind of lunacy is impossible without a devout and unwavering belief in unsupported and unjustified absurd notions about the nature of reality. Like the 9/11 hijackers, this terrorist believes he will be going to a fantastical place called heaven. In the U.S., there is nothing that is shielded from criticism like religion. We must be able to talk openly and honestly about the differences between faith-based and evidence-based approaches to understanding the world. The least religious democracies are the most secure, happy, and healthy places on Earth.