Man, dead over abortion. I thought we were out of the darkages. This is what happens when people stop talking. This is what happens when people forget to live like people.
Abortion is a right and it is protected by law. Killing doctors is not the right way to make laws change. Amazing. Let me guess, this doctor was killed by an extreme Christian fundamentalist. What is wrong with people not being able to separate church and state? Abortion will never be overturned. Never. The Supreme Court just doesn't go around changing other Supreme Court Rulings. And they aren't about to change that fact now. If abortion was to be overturned, it would of happened under Bush. It stood a chance. But not now, not ever.
But why do people think it is okay to kill people over a law? I don't get it. I hate paying taxes. I do go around killing accountants and IRS workers. But you watch, people will say that this Doctor deserved to be killed.
Just to be clear about where I stand. I am pro choice so please don't make an assumption the wrong way about what I have to say.
You said, killing the doctor was not right, you said let me guess it was an christian fundamentalist that did it.
But to make an assertion that you will hate, I can say... you mean the doctor was killed for killing babies?
The doctor did not deserve to be killed, neither did the baby.
The abortion issue is not solely based on a difference between religion and government. There are just as many non religious people who are pro-life just as there are many religious people who are pro-choice.
Agreed. And people are also setting up a false dichotomy even hinting that "killing the doctor was wrong and killing babies is wrong."
You know, back not so long ago in what some might call an uncivilized culture, say the Mayans for example.
Some people might look at them and think, they were savage baby killers or ritualistic human killers and they thought this was okay and this was part of their culture and then say, today we don't do those thing, we are a civilized people.
But you know you look back to understanding them and why they did those things, "sacrificing virgins and babies" and you realize that the human sacrifices were voluntary, they thought if I give the "under world gods, the bad ones" my life in exchange for water to drink or food to sustain them then it was for a good cause.
They made a human sacrifice to the fertility gods believing that if they gave them one that they could have more babies because they loved babies and they loved life and took it very seriously and in turn it really was a "sacrifice" for them to give up a member of their community or a child that they so dearly loved so that they could continue to sustain the lives of their people.
Today, a woman may chose to abort a baby. She sacrifices her baby for her own life, not for many lives but just for her own. Maybe it is the finances that will place a heavy burden on her or maybe she will die herself if she goes through with it etc...
Yet many people believe that killing a baby then was savage and uncivilized but think that today we are a civilized people.
Just think about it...false dichotomy. You used false dichotomy. I thought a false division, a false pretense, a false what? False that neither the doctor or the baby deserved to die?
No one deserves to die regardless. For those who say that abortion is wrong, remember that we have to get women out of these situations in the first place. Aside from rapes and things of that nature, consenting sex can lead to unwanted pregnancy, can lead to abortion. People need to be be more active in the programs that are bringing the information needed to lower the rate of unwanted aborted pregnancies. The options should be explained that adoption is an option. But you cannot blame anyone for their decisions. Granted these babies don't have a choice but there are two sides to everything. One side is you can't just support abortions without creating options and the other side you can't be against it without creating options. There is no winner in this debate.
Nobody deserves to die , including unborn children. This has always been a very hot topic and they only time I can agree with an abortion is if it is rape, or incest. I believe that the problem is here in the U.S. to many people use it as a form of birth control, which is unneccesary. All of us all know how they are created and if you do not want children practice abstinence or get on some serious birth control and use extra protection. Should the doctor have died? Nobody should have to die for political reasons but sadly it does happen and none of us have any control.
AEvans, I do think we have control. I just think nobody is willing to stand up for the dead guy. That's terrible.
I am a conservative fundamentalist Christian and as far as I'm concerned, killing is killing, whether it is unborn babies or a doctor who performs abortions.
I heard about this on the news this morning. I sure hope they catch the guy!
You know this guy was shot in both arms in 1993. He had to drive to work in an armored car. It makes you sick. This is America. He was an American. He saved lives, just as much as he didn't. You don't know how many of those women would have killed themselves if he didn't performed an abortion for them. It makes my stomach crawl. And Kansas citizens should be ashamed of themselves for promoting such hatred. His whole adult life was feel with harassment. For this to occur in America, at this time in our lives is terrible.
Whoa, RK! I happen to be a citizen of Kansas and the majority of us DO NOT promote such hatred.
I met Dr. Tiller several times (not as a patient), and can tell you he was truly the nicest man you'd ever want to meet.
Yes, many of those women would have killed themselves had he not performed the abortion they sought, a task he did not undertake lightly.
But it's a sad day in America when *any* man can be gunned down in church, in front of his wife and longtime friends who'll miss him terribly.
RK--I know. When I lived in Omaha, a gynecologist was harassed by the same contingent--burning stakes on his front yard, showing up to disrupt his wedding, etc. And they'd harass the women at the clinic, too, as they were going into the building--and could have been going in for anything, I might add--for a check up, even. They harassers didn't know/care.
And I'm sorry, Sandra. No dice. I could go into a long argument justifying why what you say doesn't make sense, but won't. Suffice it to say my opinion on this matter was formed long ago and has been well-researched.
Unfortunately this Is a sad commentary on our current state of affairs In this nation . Both sides right and left are digging In their heels even further because dialogue always goes by the wayside when people are convinced they are right !
And unfortunately I believe this might be the first salvo thrown In a culture war that Is currently going on here In the USA . And we all know that Is happening . And I hope I am wrong .
No matter where you stand on this Issue this was murder ! I hope that there Is not some prochoice zealot who feels the need for reprisal against some prolifer who had nothing to do with this crime . But sadly enough I feel we have lost our way as a society . Parents kill their children on a regular basis . Judges and DAs nowadays require a firearm or a security team In order to get around .
The original premise on the opening hub was that they thought we had progressed beyond that , we have not ! We have made great strides technologically but as for how we treat each other and our neighbors we are as backwards as we have ever been If not worse .
Lita might be satisfied with letting you off the hook, Sandra, but I think you pretty much deserve the backlash that accompanies poorly reasoned arguments and just plain, stupid comparisons.
You tried to draw a line connecting ritualistic sacrifice with abortion in an effort to expose hypocrisy. We're expected to wonder how we could have considered the selfless sacrifice of the Mayans in order to benefit their people barbaric when we ourselves kill innocent babies. How dare we?
But wait! That selfless sacrifice? One might be naive enough to think altruism actually exists, but there is a much better reason for the willing sacrifice: the person who was sacrificed was promised immediate entrance into Mayan paradise (the "heaven-like" afterlife of the Mayans. This is similar to how suicide bombers are promised an eternity with Allah in paradise.
See what I did there? That's an actual comparison of two similar things.
Ok, so your attempt to make us see the error in our judgments fails long before the conclusion phase of reasoning. But it gets worse! You'll deny it, and you might not even mean to do it, but you are insinuating that the death of the doctor could reasonable be justified.
Your sentence might be "The doctor didn't deserve to die and the babies didn't deserve to die," but it is equivalent to "The doctor didn't deserve to die but those babies didn't deserve to die either."
There is a definite implication there, even if you chose your original wording wisely.
And for the record, abortion doctors don't kill babies, they kill embryos and zygotes. They aren't cleaving the heads off of toddlers.
Wow. I fully support the reading and study of your "How to Bullshit an Essay" hub, because I have a feeling it isn't bullshit.
yeah pretty much, glad you figured it out.
He (I'm thinking he is a he) didn't figure it out. He's refuting it, Sandra. And very well. I didn't go into it because I've found it pointless with those so sure in such a way...
That's OK, you are welcome to think as you like. But convincing me or some others might be hard going. Sorry!
Yes Lita I do recognize sarcasm when I see it. Anyways, it's not something that I need to convince you of unless of course you are looking for proof. LOL.
I could prove it but I am not that dumb. (not saying you are).
Am simply impressed with the well-stated argument.
I don't need proof, as on important issues--and as previously stated--I research something until I am satisfied. This was decided for me a while ago. I'm not really fond of the go-around/cant kind of rhetoric that happens in the religion forum, so it's good at leaving it at that. No need for me to convince someone I know is sure of her thoughts, and a friend at that.
Yeah condolences to the doctor's family. This murder is not right.
But this does need to be corrected. The doctor was "one of the few US doctors who performed so-called late-term abortions ... A late-term abortion is the termination of a foetus beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, when it is potentially old enough to survive outside the womb." A 20 week old foetus is not an embryo or a zygote. Sandra was asking whether we live in a civilized society or whether we just think we do. It's questionable.
"Potentially" is the key word here. Many late-term abotions are performed because it has been determined that a fetus is so deformed that it cannot survive outside the womb on its own. In such cases, it is kinder to terminate the pregnancy as quickly as possible.
MM, the 2% number is from 1987, to wit: "In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions."
Well I couldn't find any more recent statistics on late-term abortions even at the Guttmacher Institute web site. I just found commentaries repeating the same 2% and one saying about 1%.
Although I did find this page that quotes,
How do you sleep at night?
"Anti-abortion violence has killed at least seven people in the US, including three doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard and a clinic escort."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 401198.ece
Really Make Money - spreading this sort of stuff. Is that was Jesus would have done? Guess so huh?
How many times do I have to say it bonehead?
Whether Dr. Tiller's spokeswoman said about three-fourths of his late-term patients were teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it or not, I'll say it again, his murder was not right.
On the flip side of this whole abortion nightmare are families that can't conceive and are trying to adopt. I personally know a couple that had their names down to adopt for years until they were finally given a son to adopt. I know another couple that traveled to China to adopt. And another friend traveled to Russia 3 or 4 times before he was able to bring his daughter home. These teen-agers that are having late-term abortions for no apparent health risk could be putting their children up for adoption instead of couples having to travel half way around the world to find a child to adopt. This is my last post in this disgusting thread.
There are lots of children who need adopting, and can't find homes. But they aren't perfect newborns - they are disabled, older, have been abused, or are non-white.
Isn't too about carrying the child? So there is adoption. That's all good and well if you want to carry something in your gut for nine months just to give it away.
Make Money. Saying this and then continuing to find as many personal opinions that you can to reiterate the fact that you think abortion is wrong is just showing what a hypocrite you are.
"Yes, what a shame he was killed, but look how many people think he should not have been doing abortions because it is killing babies. "
So - how do you sleep at might?
I just don't get why people think doctors, or heavily pregnant women, do this for fun. You don't get to 25 or 30 weeks pregnant, and wake up one morning, "hey! I changed my mind!".
He must have been a very brave man indeed.
"I have two friends who had to make the heartbreaking decision to fly to Kansas for a late term abortion. These were not women who were sloppy with birth control or didn't desperately want to have children. As with many of the women who visited Dr. George Tiller, they had found out after their amnio tests that the babies they were carrying would be horribly deformed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-broo … 09686.html
I can't imagine the how horrible these women felt. Or how much pain they were in and probably with deformities such as you describe, how much pain the baby was in. But you know LG, it is not so much about the reason's why, it is about Dr. Tiller, his life and now his death. Which you clearly see. As you said he must have been an incredibly brave man and I'll add a compassionate one too.
When kids, teenage girls and mothers, aunts, friends, wives start showing up at ER's across the US, with coat hangers hanging out of their vagina's bleeding to death; maybe then people will realize that if a woman doesn't want something growing inside her- she will pluck it out!
Yeah, I honestly don't think anyone grows up wanting to be an abortion doctor...I can't even imagine making that tough career move.
Thanks and I'm glad you liked it, Lita! Just trying to help my fellow undergrads out
This, to me, was a genuine terrorist act. It was intended, as abortion clinic violence in general in intended, to create fear in the name of ideology.
Women as a whole in America are now worse off.
"Thou shalt not kill."
That applies in both circumstances.
The murder of this doctor was horrific and wrong - that is beyond dispute.
I'm sorry, people, however - so was the murder of the unborn babies. Abortion is wrong and abortion is murder - and no, I am not a Roman Catholic!
I was browsing on Yahoo! Answers today and there was a question about this. The person was asking what an abortion doctor was doing in a church.
I personally believe that abortion is wrong. I have always believed that it was wrong and this has nothing to do with my religious convictions. I'm going to be honest and throw out a guess that for me, as an adopted person, it's emotional and deeply personal. My mother could have chosen a different way out (an easier way out, as I now understand it from my own circumstances), but she didn't.
I don't agree with abortion. I don't believe that anyone should make the choice to perform an abortion or to have an abortion, but I'll be damned if I won't stand up for the individual's right to make the personal decision for themselves in terms of what they should do.
More often than not this is a painful decision, whether before or after the event itself. In the context of necessary late-term abortions, I cannot begin to imagine the pain that the mothers felt going to visit a clinic or their surgery and I cannot begin to imagine their grief afterward, even the fact that they may be questioning their decision. I know post-abortive women who have had this regret and the questioning and it's terrible and it's sad.
I really, seriously take issue with the fact that any individual would make up their mind that someone would deserve to die for a decision that they made. I think it's a terrible thing that in a country we consider civilized we would have such vigilante justice. As long as abortion is illegal, Dr. Tiller was not committing any crime. Our law does not define a fetus as a living human being. I may disagree with the law, but the law is, regardless, the law.
Dr. Tiller had a decision and he made his decision, for right or for wrong or for better or for worse. If one is a Bible-believing Christian I feel that we must accept that deformity isn't an "excuse" to abort a pregnancy (or, for that matter, to terminate a viable life outside the womb either). I also believe, however, that we have to accept that we are dealing with people who are experiencing intense emotional pain and loss.
Our responsibility is to love and to counsel, not to murder and steal. The killer stole from that man his life, he or she robbed a wife and children of a man they loved, parents of a son and so on. It is not justified. I will pray (and yes, I mean that!) that the killer be brought to justice!
This from a woman who had a late abortion at the Kansas clinic because of severe fetal abnormality:
"Thankfully, inside there was compassion, love, understanding and superb medical care. Finally, I met some other people who understood this hell we were in. I said goodbye to my son and then a few days later, I said good bye to the doctor who I will always look upon as the one shining light in the worst week of my life."
That compassion, love and understanding - gone now.
I've seen reports of clinics where the "service" isn't nearly so loving or compassionate. Certainly there are some good and some bad in every profession. So sad.
Darnit, LG, you got me crying... Stupid emotional wreck lately!
Let's not make excuses for ignorance.
Gordon, you're making an implication by tying his cold murder to another topic. Your means of tip-toeing are eloquent but just by questioning the morality of what he was doing (which is LEGAL in the his state, unlike killing someone in church) is an attempt (whether you mean it to be or not) of justifying his murder and taking away from the actual issue at hand.
I hope his murderer is utterly disappointed when he realizes how wrong he was.
I'll agree to that. All of it. Great case in point.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in the feelings of his murderer. Of course it was wrong and is totally inexcusable and my hopes that he is brought to justice equal your own.
The point I am trying to make is whether it is, "Legal," by man's decree in the, "State," which you refer to or not, abortion is nevertheless the brutal murder of a child. Think about it!
What is the difference between murdering a child before or after birth? It is still the brutal murder of a child - there is ZERO difference.
Let me tell you about some of the differences.
I had an abortion, 2 years before I got pregnant with my now 3, coming up to 4, year old son.
I suffered from an ectopic pregnancy. That's where the implantation doesn't happen as it should (in the womb) but happens somewhere else - the cervix, tubes, etc.
If not treated urgently, there is still no chance of a baby, but there is every chance of the mother suffering severe pain, blood loss, rupture, all kinds of lovely things.
Murder? No. 5 years on, I still regret it - but I regret that it happened that the foetus didn't implant in the right place. I regret that baby couldn't be born. I don't regret protecting my own life and health when there wouldn't be a baby anyway.
Or what of a woman who finds out, at 25 weeks, that her much-wanted child has no brain? What sort of monster would force a woman to go through another 15 weeks of pregnancy for no avail?
Women don't have abortions for the sheer fun of it. Like life in general, the issue of abortion is a messy, chaotic, scary one. Black and white answers might make you feel good, but so what? Life is about infinite shades of grey.
So much of the strident, aggressive anti-abortion movement is, I'm convinced, about being anti-women. Independent, strong women scare some men. Chaining and catagorising women by their reproduction ties them down a bit more.
I tell you what the abortion issue needs. It needs some empathy, some compassion, some charity, some love. It doesn't need "all abortion is murder!" rhetoric, which is simplistic to the point of idiocy.
Let me state, please, that I am no doctor nor expert but if the first scenario is absolutely provable, I will concede that my argument may not stand up. I am truly sorry regarding your personal circumstances and very glad that you appear to have recovered from same to at least some extent.
I am afraid, however, that in the case of your second scenario: absolutely no dice. Never in a million years!!! Who judges?
It is my assertion and positive belief that a much higher authority than either you or any doctor will make that distinction.
You can say that, LG, because you aren't over-simplifying the issue. You look at it from an intelligent and compassionate point of view. I've tried and tried to do the same, though I somehow always wind up with my foot firmly shoved in my mouth and somebody upset. I'm just not a terrific communicator.
I honestly believe that regardless of the stance one takes on this issue (I, for one, very much believe that abortion is inherently wrong except in extreme cases -- and both of your examples are "extreme" in my view) that we should look upon those who are in need with a great deal of compassion.
Many, many women suffer regret and guilt post-abortion. Many feel their loss just as sharply as those who have involuntarily miscarried. I have heard the argument that these women made their choice (as it is legally theirs to make) and that they don't deserve our compassion. And I think that argument is absolute bs. All too often there is a serious lack of information for women who are considering this choice and post-abortion care is often lacking.
Even those who do not regret their decision (such as one friend of mine) usually abort for a reason that they feel is very pressing (my friend was desperate to join the Army). While there are those who use abortion essentially as "birth control" (and I disagree with this on many levels), the majority of women who elect to have an abortion do so under great stress or duress.
For those Christians (and other religious folks) who want to shout and rail against the abortion doctors, understand that they have gone where the money is. "The love of money is the root of all evil." There is a demand for abortions and in many cases a reason why women need to have them performed. If you want to attack post-abortive women (or even those who are sadly considering an abortion), consider this: You've just given up an opportunity to witness to someone in need. You won't save a single soul with hatred and spite, but with sweetness, kindness and compassion.
I don't know what is wrong with some people!
LG, I am seriously sorry for your loss. My LO was almost aborted against my will because a hospital I visited with a bladder infection at six weeks couldn't find the pregnancy on my uterus. They believed I was ectopic and were going to abort the pregnancy without a follow-up or allowing me a second opinion. Thankfully my instinct was right when I left that hospital and saved her life. She is a healthy and happy 17 month old now. In my mind, I lost her twice before I almost lost her during my labor. The pain of "thinking" you might have lost your baby is incredible -- the pain of actual loss is unfathomable for me.
I don't think that's right, you are a good communicator. As far as your hubs and posts on the forums are concerned, you communicate very well.
I know I feel, and felt, the loss. It was, the same as for a miscarriage, going from getting all excited about expecting a healthy baby (and you know what that's like, wondering whether it'll look like different people, trying different names in your head, thinking about taking him or her to the park, all those things) to having to accept that there was no baby coming.
And it meant that when I was pregnant with Isaac, and found out about it, I didn't feel all excited and hopeful, I was terrified it would happen again. Fortunately, my doctor was great, and did early, specialist ultra-sounds at 5, 6 and 7 weeks to make absolutely sure it hadn't happened again.
It is the woman's body, and we should not be telling them what they can do with it. We live in America where a man is free to make himself into a woman, and a woman into a man. We are free to choose. But besides that- it is LAW, it is a RIGHT! NOW- we need to leave the people FOLLOWING the law alone!!! Want change, go beg your congressman and quit harassing woman and men alike who support the issue, have abortions or perform abortions.
Have a look at Wikipedia, for example, which starts its article on ectopic pregnancy thus:
"An ectopic pregnancy is a complication of pregnancy in which the fertilized ovum is developed in any tissue other than the uterine wall. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen.
The fetus produces enzymes that allow it to implant in varied types of tissues, and thus an embryo implanted elsewhere than the uterus can cause great tissue damage in its efforts to reach a sufficient supply of blood. An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to the death of the woman."
In repsonse to the second, the answer is clear, the woman does. Having carried my son through nine months, I can't begin to imagine how I could cope with the second half of a pregnancy, knowing the baby would die at birth, or die in severe pain shortly after birth. There are women who would prefer to carry to term anyway - and I'd support that decision absolutely.
But for a woman for whom, like me, it would be 4-5 months of hell, I don't see how anyone can possibly impose that on her.
Yeah, there's a huge difference actually. And I have thought about it. Thinking is that thing that generally occurs right before I arrive at most of my opinions, but thanks for the advice. But I'm not going to discuss the actual differences, because that would be letting you distract us from the actual issue. Instead I'm just going to undermine God for a paragraph:
Why can't abortions just be part of God's ultimate plan? I mean, whenever I ask why your awesome benevolent God let the holocaust happen, I hear, "God has his own plan," or "God operates above our own level of thinking."
Well, ditto on abortion.
You're right, only Marxist dislike the holocaust. So what are you?
This death is not part of the abortion issue. We have to be fair about this. This was the act of a wacko. Every right to life organization on the planet has condemned this act. I have a really hard time on what side to come down on when it comes to abortion but I do know that this murder should not be part of the debate.
This death is, absolutely, part of the abortion issue.
The organisations might be condemning it now, but some of them (not all, by a long chalk) have created the environment in which this happened.
I second this. The links between the murderer and some of the more extremist pro-life groups has been reported on. Examples of the kind of 'mixed rhetoric' noted in this thread have also been remarked upon by the media in regards to anti-abortion groups.
Here's another reason why this is part of the debate.
As a result of the USA's domestic terrorism against abortion, there are very few places where women in desparate need of such medical treatment can get it, even though it's legal. Dr. Tiller was one of those places, now he isn't.
"Tiller's death is an incalculable loss to women's health care. There are two other clinics that do late-term abortions, but neither are known for taking patients regardless of their ability to pay or for ministering so comprehensively to their emotional needs. Tiller's murder leaves a void that could imperil women across the country.
Ironically, though, many of the procedures Tiller did were as far away from the much-reviled concept of "abortion on demand" as one could get. Unwanted pregnancy can, to some extent, be prevented. A pregnancy that goes horribly wrong cannot. Almost anyone of child-bearing age could end up needing Tiller's services. And now some of them will be forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will even when their fetuses can't survive outside the womb."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art … _dr_tiller
I hate to say it, because it's shocking, but you are wrong. Several sites are enthusiastic about it. For example:
" George Tiller will never murder another child again.
Abortionist George Tiller, now in eternal hell fire for shedding the blood of innocent children"
from one choice example today.
Except for the fact that they have caused/potentially can cause so much damage, I don't even how one is to have any dialogue with these people, LG. They are out there.
Remember the Department of Homeland Security report about a month ago about right wing groups and the Republicans in Congreess went hay wire and demanded the resignation of DHS secretary for accusing innocent right wingers. I wonder what they have to say about themselves now that one of the group mentioned has done what DHS predicted would happen.
Man, what is wrong with Christians? Here is a typical, Christian American response to a man being murder, "I find it painfully hard to sympathize with the Abortion doctor who was killed. He was an usher at his church. Why his church did not kick him out in the first place is absolutely beyond me."
He goes onto to say, "Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek...... ,. He was killing tens of thousands of innocent children. So clearly "turning the other cheek" is not possible."
From Fort Hood, TX
Joined 4 months ago
Unbelievable! and his hub of hatred has a rating of 63. Now excuse me for a second, but what the hell is going on?
So turning the other cheek isn't an option?
So now we have people playing GOD?
Got Christians rewriting scripture!
Well Mr Comnenus, you make me sick. You and your wealth of knowledge, is repulsive. Good luck on that whole asking for forgiveness thing. You know, you just never know when God's good graces run a muck, fires Jesus as your savior and punishes you in the same way Dr. Tiller was, with brutality.
Oh by the way, I won't feel bad for you either.
Oh deary me. I read that hub and don't really know what to say. This is a prime example of what happens when you decide you are acting for god. And posting a photo of a dead baby like that.....
I refuse to comment on his hub because he is speaking with god's voice and he has been told to judge by god so I know how that will go.
Ignoring the fact that he kills people for money and there is nothing clear in the bible, I am actually thankful for people like him. They are proof as far as I am concerned.
RK whether you were referring to AlexiusComnenus or not I just want to tell you that I think this is the most inflammatory comment that I have seen online since the build up to the war in Iraq.
Mike Money, while I'll take no offense, please know my opinion of you isn't much higher. Remember your episode in the religious forum? Remember you insulting me for no reason and calling me a war monger? Go blow smoke up somebody else's ass who cares.
I honestly do not know why so many Christianists (for they are NOT Christians) are like this. Seriously. Anybody have a clue other than just sheer emotionality, personal/family social connections, or not understanding--that some just are unable to connect the dots? Would in all reality, somewhat condone murder?
For all the heat that Mark Knowles takes with his constant barrage against Christianists, perhaps there is, lol, a higher purpose and method to his madness. Maybe these forums are not representative, but man, there seems like there are quite a few that just don't get it.
Gotta say that you, RK, and this new FreshtoDeath guy remind me of what I actually loved about academia and the pursuit of knowledge--not for the careerist ed prep crap, cuz I'm embroiled in that, and wooo, but for the fact that people actually, like, THOUGHT and stuff (at least some). And that actual discussions (NOT merry-go-round devices or political devices to make CEO's and/or others you must tip toe around comfortable) were appreciated and encouraged.
Suffice it to say--there are lots and lots and lots of people who really don't make sense. Learning to deal with them and get along with them may be a good skill to learn/another kind of knowledge, BUT...maybe we also lose something else in the long run.
I am pro-life
I agree with when God says life begins ( At conception) not with any man,historian or Government laws decide life begins. ( 12 weeks , 14 weeks, etc etc )
My values are based on morals, survival and respecting all life!
Man likes to interfere with how life begins , how that life is formed , and when that life will end.
I wish he didnt.
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my UNFORMED body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
I understand its a moral decision and those are my values and not everyones.
What I do get tired of though is the politics and the dancing around religious issues when it suits a theory or convenient to push womens rights etc ( or an individuals)
There are and probably will be debates forever on who deserves life more ,the mother or the child.
They are important debates I agree and I will never support any act of violence to promote my views or support someone who does ,period.
But thats how I figured MY values by deciding when life began , if you dont beleive God then I guess that leaves you other options. Peace
The tragedy (which LG has pointed out very well here) is that almost all late term abortions are performed when a pregnancy is untenable. The babies are malformed, do not have brains, would die instantly after birth, etc. Most of the women involved WANTED their pregnancies, wanted children, and for some this will be one of the most difficult ordeals of their lives.
It isn't for ANYONE to decide and point fingers in these situations to what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' with the moralistic bombast of a 12 year old. And truly, the rhetoric surrounding this situation is on that level.
Those that obfuscate, to me, are either incapable of reasoning as an adult should be able to, or deliberately lie for their own purposes--purposes known mainly to them, for I (and many others) cannot fathom it.
It is completely up to the individual.
And I wont be looking down on anyone if you happen to 'not get how or why I think the way I do'
But in many cases the debate over medically induced abortions (mother/babies life in danger) are not whats causing people to rise up and express their disapproval.
It is giving authority to doctors and medical boards to have power where they should not , and influences that promote egalitarian attitudes.
Whose life is more important?
By whose morals do we decide?
A consensus maybe?
Also raises issues like, if its not fo medical reasons , why doesnt the father have equal say?
Test tube babies ,who plays God there?
How about the millions of people who want to adopt and turned down?
Yea there lots to sigh about.
To your best life:)
That's it-- "It is completely up to the individual." That would be where we agree and where we should agree.
And, fortunately, or unfortunately, , I'm kinda a serious girl, so I actually have satisfied for myself >most< of these questions by my own inquiry.
I tend to be a black and white kind of guy when it comes to situations like this. Personally, I do believe an unborn fetus is alive, so I believe it is wrong. Please note, I did not say it is murder or it is illegal. In our society, courtesy of Roe V. Wade, abortion is legal, and it is not likely to change.
On the other hand, I believe what that man did - killing the doctor - was beyond wrong. It was also illegal, and he knew it was illegal when he did it, and he will pay the price.
The irony is that even as a Democrat, I consider myself more pro-life than many of those who claim to be pro-life. I am opposed to the death penalty, in part because I believe it is far too final a penalty for a court system that is admittedly flawed on every level. I oppose the war in Iraq, because as a Catholic Christian, I believe all killing is wrong.
Keep it black and white and say that when God, the Creator, or whatever name you ascribe to the Supreme Being, decides it is time for you to go, you'll go home. And God, being all-powerful, does not need help from the likes of us to implement His will.
What amazes me is how one can support Capital Punishment, and be opposed to abortion. Death is death is it not in cases such as this?
An innocent unborn child has no say in the matter. Generally speaking, An adult convicted of a capital offense voluntarily participated in an activity that directly resulted in the death of another. The 'death penalty' isn't randomly handed down for no reason, or because the alternative is inconvenient.
That is no excuse to commit murder. Murder is murder anyway you want to look at it in these circumstances. Murder. I don't appreciate my tax dollars paying for murder. No more than I would appreciate them paying for abortions. No more than I appreciate them paying for Capital Punishment. A death sentence is a death sentence anyway you look at it. Got it?
I agree with RK on that one but, even without that, one wrongly convicted person put to death is too many.
Murder is murder any way you look at it. Did the doctor deserve to die? No, he did not deserve to be gunned down in church or anywhere else for that matter. However. It says sick things about us as a society that we treat kids as hindrances instead of blessings. Not very long ago the expectancy that a child would live to survive birth, much less childhood itself was vanishingly small. It's a wonder humanity survived as long as it did.
I wonder what those mothers would say if they saw women going out and killing their babies. When you're talking about death, people will always become polarize and these events will happen. On the flipside, when these things are illegal, people will die just for the chance to take back mistakes. In this case both sides of the argument are flawed.
There should be some way for women to foster unwanted children on the one hand, and on the other find foster families for those same children on the other. Surely our resources could be better used in finding a solution to that dilemma than going back and forth over this issue ad infinitum, which will never stop the killing on either side.
Thanks, RK, sometimes it's good to get away to get some perspective on things.
Sandra, none of the debate as currently framed makes sense. Part of it is because of how the interested parties debate on their terms, not reasonable ones. Most people assume that the parties involve use reason to draw their conclusions, but they don't. The argument is drawn up in such a way that it elicits emotional responses from people, not rational ones. Thus people are tricked into supporting things like murder, death and other evils that they normally would be mortally opposed to.
Much of the argument as outlined is about control. Who gets to tell whom what to do and how to live. As rational and reasonable people, we need to reject the framework of the current argument and set it up anew. Part of the problem is that few people have any sort of moral compass when it comes to things like this. That's why abortion opponents can say killing abortion doctors is OK and why abortion proponents can say that killing babies is OK. We've forgotten that killing, i.e. murder, is wrong. It doesn't matter who it's done to, it's wrong. Welcome to the age of moral relativism.
Your starting point is not universal - I don't believe that abortion is killing, or murder.
I don't know if this came up yet in this thread but I was watching some interview with another late term provider. I think it was Anderson Cooper who asked him; do you believe that because this guy got shot down for performing late abortions, it will be enough to make you guys stop? After all this is not the first time it has happened and there are only a handful of later term providers in the country.
This came up because the clinic where that guy worked was closed down by his wife.
So the guy answered, no. He said something to the effect that, he believes that it will be a turning point for more doctors to be justified in late term abortions or that he feels that because of it, more doctors will do the procedure.
IMHP- doesn't that sound a little assbackwords? He compared what happened to the doctor in the same way he viewed Martin Luther's assassination.
Does this guy make any sense at all?
I think we agree that the State should not be the one to do the deed when it comes to capital punishment, so who or what should? How do we protect each other from the conscienceless in society, while protecting those who are innocent? I'm thinking about Project Innocence and how many people they're springing out of jail who were wrongfully accused. Surely there is a better way.
Good to have you back around, LE.
That is the issue - life and death in the hands of the lawyers is not acceptable.
The UK gave up on the death penalty after the infamous 'Let him have it' Bentley case. There have been too many miscarriages of justice and, wherever you draw the line, someone will end up on the wrong side.
As for abortion - it is always going to be an emotive issue, and the problem is that people assume that there is a 'correct' answer, when there is none.
Personally, I count myself fortunate to have avoided having to be a party to the difficult decision, either way.
If I had landed from another planet ,this world system would be odd to figure
A Woman has the right to decide what happens to her unborn baby
(state cant intervene,correct me if Im wrong)?
Government can decide whether a man person or not?
You say they are not the same thing , the result would/could be the same.
Odd reasoning to me
As odd as may be to you, it was decided by them long ago. Just same as they decided food wasn't a basic human right.
Either they're sarcastic or they're not, but like many people today, they ask the wrong questions.
You may believe that, but you're still depriving someone the right to live. Some of the best philosophers of all time like Locke came from your country, it's a shame their descendants have forgotten from whence they came.
Of course it's universal. People have a right to life. They also have a right to liberty and property. You don't have the right to take any of that from someone without their consent. You can't very well expect an unborn child to be able to give consent to their destruction do you?
I'm certainly not a Locke scholar but I know enough about his philosophy to suggest, at least, that his view could be entirely different from your interpretation. Locke was fairly adamant about his belief that the body was private property. I don't think it's irrational that he might have supported the legality of abortion. I believe in his journal on medical ethics he also suggested that there were situations in which abortions were permissible, that would lead me to believe that he didn't view it as flat-out immoral.
In any case, I'm not convinced Locke's philosophy supports your conclusion. But I'm open to any of his literature that might point me in a different direction.
I think that's an oversimplification. And ultimately, life and death are in the hands of judges, juries, and evidence. Furthermore, we can't use the mistakes of our past (which are being discovered by current technologies) as a reason to undermine the death penalty. It doesn't make sense when we have the technology to be even more accurate and precise. Not to mention it undermines the whole system. We've made a contract that occasionally innocent people end up in jail or worse because we know that no system is 100% perfect, and we need a system for criminal justice.
A slight oversimplification, but based upon the fallibility of science - it is never 100% accurate. Sadly, a jury of laypeople tends to assume that ' scientific experts' are correct, when that is not always the case. Forensic science is not like CSI - there is always an element of inaccuracy. although I suspect that you know that already.
We had the infamous Roy Meadows Cot Death cases - juries were blinded by his credentials, because they did not understand that his statistics were flawed.
Maybe there is a line where you can say - this person definitely guilty, but somebody will end up on the wrong side. That is not looking into the past, but understanding the potential for error inherent within science.
Of course, there is the whole moral issue, too.
Incorrect. More and more the results of courtrooms are not in the hands of the jury, but at the hands of the judges. In many courts around the country and certainly in Federal court, the lawyers are appointed. Who is consulted? The bar association. Who do the nominate? Lawyers. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. When courts began deciding what evidence can be heard, the law was taken from the hands of the citizens and put into the hands of an oligarchy. We wouldn't stand for such a conflict of interest in other fields, why is law any different?
Sure he was adamant about the body being private property in regards to who owned it, the state or the individual. Locke went with the individual owning their own person. It's the difference between a citizen and a subject. Locke made mention of abortion only as a last resort to protect life. That's as it should be. Absent that caveat, I'm sure that he was as opposed to abortion as he was to murder.
According to the courts maybe, but society allows many things that are morally reprehensible to happen. Morality is not relative. There are natural laws that we can discover. If we structure our lives in such a way that we live in accordance with those laws, life becomes much less of a struggle and much more of an enjoyment.
You think? I don't know about natural laws. I do know the law of the Supreme Court, and LG makes a very valid point.
Hi, ledefensetech-- How've you been..?
And I hate to even mention this, really, for fear of retribution for using logic, oh, my...and my fingers being chopped off by some hubbers lately....
But--claiming something is 'natural' is not a good argument. One problem is that the concept of the natural is vague. For instance, is the human use of fire "natural?" Maybe, maybe not. Is it "natural" for people to wear clothes? Yes and no. The vagueness of the notion of naturalness does not mean that it is useless, since there are many clear cut cases of the natural and the unnatural. However, an appeal to nature which is based on a borderline case will be unsound because it will be unclear whether its premise is true or false.
So, what I might tell you then is did you know that 30-60% of all conceived zygote/fetuses are naturally aborted within the first trimester of pregnancy?
I'm not sure I follow your first sentence. Each accused has the right to either a trial by jury or a trial by judge. If you're just saying that the judges have more and more influence, I'm not totally sure what you're suggesting, or what relevance it has anyway.
Furthermore, I fail to see a conflict on interest involving the Bar. A defense attorney's sole interest is proving the innocence of their client and protecting their constitutional rights. The prosecutors sole interest is putting criminals in jail, although I would say they can be too zealous in their pursuits.
I'm not sure why you have an issue with courts deciding what evidence is acceptable to present versus what evidence isn't.
Interesting. I'll have to do some more Locke reading and get back to that. Either way I agree with you that he was an amazing and influential philosopher.
Sufidreamer, you're leaving the legal system with very few options here, haha. I think it's the citizen's responsibility to think critically in all situations, and especially in the courtroom.
I'll go as far as to say that you can't be a Moral Absolutist and think that abortion is moral, but at the same time the idea of natural law is just a philosophical idea that people can subscribe to or not. It shouldn't be asserted as fact. Morality may be relative.
Sure, I am a believer that trial by jury is the best option in many circumstances. Sadly, the vast majority of jurors and judges cannot understand science and probabilities. When somebody's life is in the balance........
As for the modern trend towards 'Trial by Media' before a case reaches court - often, the minds of the jurors have been influenced, and a fair trial is impossible.
Cinema teaches people that violence is the way to solve problems, people are not taught to communicate with each other or to develop coping skills.
Sorry FD, I tend to use shortcuts when I think and type at the same time. That can make for confusing posts from time to time.
OK. In the US we're guaranteed a trial by jury. A judge is supposed to hear the case. Prosecutors and Defenders have to make their case. One stipulation of our law system is that the jury is the final arbiter of the law. Since about 1890, lawyers have been conspiring to eliminate that little wrinkle in the court system. I don't remember the exact Supreme Court ruling except that is was handed down in the late 1890's and gave judges the ability to give instructions to jurors.
Now originally law in this country was supposed to be interpreted by reasonable people. That's why juries consisted of 12 men, later 12 men and women. In criminal law this was to act as a final check on the acceptability of the law being tried. So even if the legislature, executive and judicial branches got together and started consolidating power, the citizenry would still have an avenue to overturn poor laws.
By giving instructions to the jurors and not allowing them to use their own judgment, the judiciary has overstepped their bounds and given themselves power that they should not have. That last check is now invalid because I judge can tell people by what criterion to judge a law. It's great for lawyers because now all they have to do is sway the jury by twisting the "facts" of the case and not bother with justifying the law at all.
The conflict of interest thing is different, but related to the encroaching power of the judiciary. For the most part, the people who make the laws are lawyers. State legislature, Congress, most are lawyers. Also most judges are lawyers. So we have a group of people who make laws and they also interpret the laws. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Do you really think that lawyers won't interpret the law in such a way as to benefit lawyers. Does what benefits lawyers benefit everyone? Probably not. So many of our Constitutional protections are gone and that's just looking at the judiciary.
Natural law is fact. Natural law states that we can observe the world around us and by observing we can draw certain conclusions about the world and how it works. The physical sciences are all based on that idea. Societies, too, are structured according to rules. By observing people in different societies we can draw conclusions about what social structures work and which ones don't. I happen to believe, much like the Enlightenment philosophers did that humankind's natural state is liberty, not tyranny. We're at our best when given the freedom to chart our own lives and are not beholden to the dictates of another.
I just don't agree with your line of thinking. I don't think lawyers are interested in getting rid of juries at all. On both sides, prosecution and defense, the jury is an asset. It's much easier to use rhetorical tricks to influence 12 random people than one judge educated in the law with experience in litigation.
And even if the framers did intend for the jury to be a final check, that hardly seems prudent. We have 100 people in the senate, and over 400 in the house of reps, lawmaking shouldn't be put into the hands of 1-12 of our peers.
As far as the court ruling in 1890 goes, judges can allow evidence or deny it, and can give orders to jurors only after the fact. It's entirely up to the individual juror as to whether or not they actually take whatever the judge instructs into account. It's barely a limit at all.
Your conflict of interests paragraph is just a lump of assumptions, from which you conclude that lawyers make laws in their own interests. Maybe you're right, but I just don't think the evidence is there.
I misunderstood what you meant by natural law then. Sure there are natural laws that apply to the physical world, but morality might be (as far as I care to speculate) independent of those laws. I get your liberty vs. tyranny bit, but morality extends far beyond just that debate.
I've been good Lita, thanks, and you?
Sure in this day and age few things are sure when it comes to language. Wasn't it Lenin who said "First confuse the language". Honestly I don't really care what other people think and I'm not interested in the word games people play.
Natural law in the sense I'm using it is the same way it was used by the Enlightenment philosophers. What that means is that the world around us is held together by rules and that through the use of reason we can understand those laws. The philosophers go further in making the claim that by living your life according to those laws you can live a generally happy life. I happen to agree with that.
Lita, I'm sure you're correct about fetuses naturally aborting about a third of the time. The difference is that those fetuses probably were not viable outside the body or would have been born stillborn or something. There are 23 gene pairs in an embryo, I'd be astonished if every potential combination were free of damage or other genetic problems.
The difference is we're talking about spontaneous abortion, which a would-be mother has no control over and the deliberate choice to end a life, which a mother has control over. There is a difference. Like it or not, behaviors have consequences. We interfere with those consequences at our peril. People must be responsible when it comes to children or we won't have a future to speak of. I know, I've worked with those kids who were considered cast offs or too much trouble to raise and there must be a better way that will help as many people as possible.
We waste entirely too much time arguing about the wrong things. Meanwhile lives are being lost and shattered, while we argue like little children, not discuss things like adults.
PD, the point I'm trying to make is that juries can decide if a law has force or not. Judges over time have neglected to tell people their rights as jurors. One of the main reasons this was done was because prosecutors were upset that they were not getting enough convictions. Convictions to a prosecutor equal a good chance of becoming a judge. So they changed the rules a bit and now order the jury around and neglect to tell the jury that they can vote contrary to the law, not according to the "facts". In essence they can decide if a law has any force behind it.
You've studied modern jurisprudence, I take it? If not, please ignore the rest of this rant. Current jurisprudence has about as much in common with Enlightenment philosophy as it does with organic gardening, which is to say not much.
Current jurisprudence really has more in common with the nonsense we saw from ecclesiastical courts and spectacles like the auto da fe, than any real concern with the rule of law. Look at how many lawyers are falling over themselves assuring the American people that it's not a violation of the rule of law to take the property of stockholders and give it to the unions. Those stockholders had their property taken from them not by due process, but as spoils in an ideological war.
One of the only concerns of the law, indeed government itself, is the protection of property. When laws and the government fail to protect the property of others, for any reason, then we're all at the mercy of thugs and barbarians. That is straight out of Locke.
No, jurisprudence jurisprudence. Started with teh Ancient Greeks, moved on via Thomas of Aquinus (sp? Looks funny), through the Enlightment to the modern day. It was a year-long course.
We also did quite a lot about different world views of property and freedom, incl. organ donations and tribal land.
And I read for both my degrees in London, so not much American jurisprudence, really.
I think is was spelled Aquinas. The fact that the course covered how different people view property and organ donations and things bothers me a bit. I'm coming from a historical/philosophical background so my take on things is a bit different that you will see in academia.
From a philosophical standpoint, Jefferson probably had the right idea about the limited role of government and laws in relation to the people of a nation. I understand that American philosophy and British philosophy diverged several centuries ago, but they still have much in common seeing as they sprung from the same culture. I would say that the UK has gone the way of Thomas Hobbes, while the US has gone the way of Locke. Neither gentleman had it all right, but they had some good points.
Strange that they didn't cover the Romans. As lawyers and administrators they had no equal in the ancient world. No study of Hammurabi either, I see. Interesting. Also one would think that they could sneak a little Justinian in there as well. After all he reformed the Byzantine legal code, some of which was adopted in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Did they discuss how the Romans used law to dispossess people of their property? Boadicea is an example I can think of off the top of my head. The various tribes the Indians in this country were forced to sign is another. If so, did they discuss how those engaged in the law as a profession have to guard against that? While most Enlightenment philosophers were thinking of kings when they wrote of jurisprudence, there is no reason to believe that they weren't talking about non-monarchy forms of government as well.
No, we studied the texts, not the effects. It was a pure jurisprudence course.
I went to University College, London, and UCL obliges all students doing an LLB (undergraduate degree in law) to take the jurisprudence course.
We also did quite a bit on Bentham, et al.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/jurisprudence … programmes
Out of curiosity, do they then give you a framework to look at the consequences of law and the effects on citizens and society at large? One of the things I've noticed when studying the history of jurisprudence here is that we've wandered rather afar from the effects of laws and more into theory. Historically we've been more concerned with the effects of the laws rather than seeing law as some sort of theoretical exercise.
by Jackie Lynnley 6 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by LailaK 7 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by Paul Swendson 8 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think that almost all Americans would like to reduce the number of abortions. So why...
by Asa Schneidermann 3 years ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I mean evil - practices taking place using our own tax dollars. It is not an...
by Phocas Vincent 4 years ago
Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
by Chris Mills 6 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|