Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
- State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dr. George Tiller Didn’t Have to Die
Pederson said: "The clinic was closed on Memorial Day weekend. A worker tried to get in on Memorial Day but couldn't. The locks were Super-Glued. I went to the videotape and I saw the same guy on the videotape who had done it in 2000." Pederson called his contact at the FBI, agent Mark Colburn. "He [Colburn] said the videotape wouldn't be clear enough, and since I had touched the locks, I had ruined it with my DNA. So I bought new color video cameras."
On Saturday, May 30, the clinic manager said "Scott" struck again: "My head nurse calls me, 5:40 Saturday morning. She had come to prep for the patients. When she was coming back from the store she noticed the Taurus [Roeder's car]. She made her way to the back door. She saw him. He saw her and bolted. She followed him to his car and started talking to him.
"He tried to stand in front of the license plate, but she got it, 225 BAB. As she ran back to the clinic, he shouted ‘Baby killer!' at her."
Pederson called Colburn, reporting the second vandalism and letting him know he had better video. Pederson said Colburn told him, "The Johnson County prosecutor won't do anything until the grand jury convenes." The next day, Tiller was murdered, allegedly by Roeder.
I called the Kansas City FBI and reached Colburn. He immediately referred me to FBI spokesperson Bridget Patton. I asked her about the incidents at the clinic and why the suspect hadn't been arrested either time. She said: "I am not sure of the timeline, but whenever an act of vandalism occurs at an abortion clinic, we are notified of that vandalism and respond appropriately."
Tiller's medical practice, which included performing late-term abortions, drew rage, protests and attacks during the decades of his career. His clinic was bombed in the mid-1980s. He survived an assassination attempt in 1993, when he suffered gunshot wounds to each of his arms. Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel demonized him as "Tiller the Baby Killer." He was the target of a political prosecution by a former Kansas attorney general, Phill Kline, and was acquitted just months ago on misdemeanor charges that he violated state rules on providing abortions.
Roeder was picked up shortly after the shooting Sunday in his Ford Taurus. On Tuesday, he was charged with first-degree murder.
I asked Pederson if he thought Tiller's murder could have been prevented if the authorities had simply arrested Roeder after he vandalized the Kansas City clinic. Pederson paused. "I don't know," he said.
But Dr. Susan Robinson was adamant. She flies to Wichita every month to perform abortions in Tiller's clinic. She said, "It is generally regarded amongst those who do clinic security, if local authorities are not responsive, if they don't show up or they don't vigilantly enforce the law, that it encourages the anti-abortion people to push it further and further."
She said: "In Wichita, Dr. Tiller was constantly dealing with the same lack of enforcement. Wichita prohibits placing signs on city property. But they allow the anti-abortion protesters to set up dozens of crosses and leave them all day. Dr. Tiller went to the city attorney over the crosses, and complained that people block the clinic driveway. He told me that the city attorney said, ‘I would rather be sued by George Tiller than the anti-abortion folks.' "
The 1994 federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) makes it a crime to block or damage a reproductive health service facility.
Enforcing FACE saves lives. George Tiller will be buried on Saturday.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllI affirm the reality that one cannot say one is "for" women's rights and then work for laws that would bar them from deciding whether or not they'll carry a pregnancy to term.
Though I voted for Obama, I think he's disingenuous & self-deceived at best; working to 'reduce the number of abortions' avoids the fundamental issue which issued in the assassination of Dr. Tiller, and will result in the murder of more clinic workers.
You haven't even addressed your own material lies about the "non-existent" victims of rape, whether in or out of the family, and the "non-existent" conditions that would result in the death of women & the offspring after birth. Helping people in the name of Jesus doesn't extend to lying about people in the name of Jesus -- but during my long years as a Christian & my short period of renunciation, the majority, right & left, are interest in lying to protect Jesus' reputation as a moral authority. Since Jesus claimed that eternal damnation or salvation were to be determined by truly "knowing" him, I say he & the religions that are posited on that claim lack moral authority.
Thank you for showing your true colors.
So "reducing the number of abortions" is your nemesis.
Enough said.
The discussion is over.
You have absolutely no conscience whatsoever.
To have no regard for life whatsoever - what kind of life is that?
You can't even run your own life, how dare you think you can run other people's lives!
winning ticket,
Do you believe we should have CPS and social services?
We won't be getting any the more poor quality off spring society is forced to produce. Let's take care of the existing lives first and worry later about unborn.
Do you believe that anti choice males should be forced to undergo pregnancy, to bear all those fetuses?
It is my impression, from the Democracy Now show, that all that was required for Tiller to perform a late term abortion was $5000.00 and the mother's desire to have an abortion. The Dr. on the show, who also does late term abortions, said as much, paraphrasing "Dr. Tiller believed the woman was able to make the decision." Also, Dr. Tiller resisted any requests to provide any reported reasons for the abortions and this was an ongoing issue that even involved the governor of the state supporting Tiller's intransigence.
Well now, that's pretty extraordinary. Those are the facts.
Saint-Just,
Perhaps you can make a list of proper protests for us to consider as you seem to be the moral authority on such issues.
Additionally, please identify the maximum amount of effort and/or time one can contribute to the appropriate issues, as you seem to be the moral authority on that as well.
Let me see if I understand your rationale:
- The Bible commands Christians to do things unto the least of thee, but, if I help a single mother in the name of Christ, I am disingenuous.
On the contrary, if you help a mother late-term abort her child, you are genuine? Do you not see the absurdity of this claim?
In response to your "collateral damage" reference, I would rather err on the side of not killing babies than pretending like Tiller helped 60,000 rape victims.
But you go ahead and cling to your "incestual rape" justification. That is a common psychological defense. One creates a fictional character to justify his actions.
You go ahead and block the procedure out of your mind. Don't think about the detail.
Don't think about your own hypocrisy.
Honesty, apparently, isn't progressive.
Thanks, and I look forward to the list of appropriate protests and issues that I can consider.
So pre-teens are not raped, and do not conceive children, and are not physically & psychologically threatened by being obliged to give birth? This is a FICTIONAL scenario?
Until my mid-thirties I was ardently anti-abortion -- until I decided to investigate the other side, and find out what women were really going through, or had gone through. You wave away the mothers whose own lives were saved by abortion, and the lives of their children, and their spouses -- these are only FICTIONAL creations.
And likewise, the experience of those of us who had to tear ourselves away from our churches & our schools because we refused to continue to support lies -- we are only hypocrites.
Whenever I ask an 'anti-war pro-life' person what they do about opposing war, I receieve pretty much the same answer. And also, when I question their morality, it's always 'what moral authority do YOU have to JUDGE me'?
"George Tiller did not have to die."
He most certainly did have to die - for the cause of freedom. The right must be free to plunder and rape. And the pseudo-left must be free to share the spoils of plunder while complaining in the media about the destruction. The cycle of plunder/destruction must go on in the name of freedom and sharing.
In contrast to the pseudo-left, the far left, besides being currently far small in pledged support, rejects the spoils of plunder and rejects freedom without responsibility. So for example, the far left will never engage in the abortion gladiator battle, because that plays into the hands of the elites in their quest to divide and rule the people. Instead, the far left looks for and embraces the most enlightened ideas that give elites no quarter in their war on people. These enlightened ideas are not hard to find. Then the far left works to implement them.
The far left works. The pseudo-left complains. Tiller dies so the pseudo-left could continue complaining while sharing in the spoils of plunder.
rtdury,
Life is not a video game. You speak as if you are on some kind of crusade.
I want you to reflect on yourself for a minute:
You are championing late-term abortion, the brutal killing of babies. Now, you try your darndest to justify it, but in the end, you know that honesty does not back you.
When was the last time you helped someone on the street?
When was the last time you sacrificed for another?
When was the last time you gave anonymously?
Nope, that's not your modus operandi. Rather, you choose to "champion" late-term abortion.
Bravo, rtdury. Bravo! I stand and applaud your braveness! Wow!
You are to be commended!
Who will join this brave soul? Who will be the one to stand up for the right to suck out baby brains?
One doesn't need to be religious to recognize your despicable position.
Absolutely no regard for life.
Sick.
It must be an empty feeling when you go to bed at night.
Charles, do you know rtdury personally or are you are writing presumptious accusations while enjoying the safe anonymity of the internet?
the latter.
It would be interesting to know just how many adopted children you pro-lifer's have? None? Figures.
So that is your justification for killing babies brutally?
A moral equivalency argument?
So if I were to say that pro-lifers don't adopt, you would feel better about killing babies that are just about to be born?
And to answer your question, I have several pro-life friends who have adopted! It's wonderful!
Killing babies is a crime.
A fetus is NOT a baby.
Until the birth, it is only a biomass.
The difference between us is that you believe that a fetus is life. I disagree because a fetus cannot survive on it's own.
Pro-lifer's SAY that life begins at conception but if ANY of them have a miscarriage, they don't bury the biomass do they? Hypocrites.
Abortion is to stop unwanted births in a country already plagued by overpopulation.
Unless you are pprepared to step up and adopt no less than 3 unwanted children, you should can it until you have a solution.
TheLorax,
Please clarify on the fetus argument.
Is a fetus that is born 10 weeks early a baby, even though it can't survive on its own (needs venitilation)?
Just trying to figure out if I was duped into marrying a fetus.
Also - that fetus I married had a miscarriage and a D & C. It was devastating.
I apologize that we did not bury the baby, which is apparently the metric for appreciation of life.
PS: so overpopulation is your justification for killing babies. Have you no conscience?
You're good at twisting words to try to justify your argument but I'm not going to take the bait.
I am sorry that you experienced a miscarriage, but YES burial is the metric for the identification of life. Since you did not bury it, you did not believe that it was alive, you had no personal attachment to it, and did not identify it as offspring. You wouldn't have failed to bury a newborn would you? I certainly believe that you would have buried a child that was stillborn.
BIRTH is the key here. Until birth occurs, be it at -10 weeks or +4 weeks, be it single or multiple, it is a biomass.
The Lorax - I'm really not trying to frustrate you, but I am trying to get you to see that your logic is flawed.
And buddy, that is rough to say that we had no personal attachment to the baby that died in my wife's womb. It had a heartbeat, hands, feet...but it was biomass?
Dude, that is rough.
(PS: you changed your argument on life: now, you are saying that a baby is a baby when it is born. Formerly, you said it had to survive on its own.)
Thanks.
camus13
The socalled ProLife group, except for war, have what they want THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.....
Now the next problem MIND YOU OWN BUSINESS, LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE....STOP TELLING EVERYBODY ELSE HOW TO LIVE....YOU HAVE NO RIGHT.....JUST DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION....THERE SOLVES YOU PROBLEM.
I may not support abortion personally but I would never go out of my way whacking others who do nor would I force my wife to produce against her choice. As if the Terri Schiavo tragedy weren't enough to discredit the "pro-lifers", the killing of a doctor makes them worse than scum. If you're a man who does not want his wife or girlfriend to have an abortion, the least you can do is talk to her and understand what she's really going through before forcing her any more trouble. Her life could be at stake or it could be an unexpected pregnancy. If you can talk her out of having that abortion and are ready to help her raise that kid, no problem but forcing women to produce is totally out of the question and is itself mysogenic IMO. Sorry to digress here but I hope this was helpful to counteract those "pro-lifers" who are out of touch here.
Here is the gist of what I've read today:
Pro-lifers hate women.
Pro-lifers want women to be slaves.
Pro-lifers are pro-war.
Pro-lifers don't adopt.
Pro-lifers want to push their agenda on everyone else.
Pro-lifers just want to get people in church.
These are progressive arguments?
Not one person can simply admit or respond to the hypocrisy you display in your outrage for Tiller's death.
60,000 babies were brutally killed. The pro-choicers yawn.
Dr. Tiller is killed. The pro-choicers suddenly appreciate life.
...
This is enlightenment? This is progression?
I have read articles and comments all day, and you Charles are one of the worst. Moral heavy handedness is all you have to get your point across. There is nothing new that anti-choice people can say but the tired 60,000 number and a repeat reference to the physicality of the process. You have irresponsibly lumped everyone together as callous conspirators to murder.
Many people do not have the same metric for life as you do. Get. over. it. I personally disagree with a great deal of opinions and beliefs of a lot of Americans, do I feel the need to enforce my beliefs on them? No. Do I even feel the need to pathetically counter EVERY blog comment all day on a progressive website? No.
You have falsely framed the debate, as all anti-choice people are wont to do. You haven't really listened to anyone's discussion and have pushed for your 'logical' debate on life. And no you're reduced to simplistic sweeping assumptions of everyone here? Pathetic. You need to get a life, and I think that's already been said. It's established you don't agree with the majority of posters, but there are FUNDAMENTAL differences in the reasons for disagreement. I don't even want to debate you, I more want to see that your actions on this thread are pathetic, and that the more you strongarm conversation with your moral superiority, the more you are setting the resolve against ignorant fanatics like yourself.
Self-righteousness is exactly how murders like this happen. I do not agree that these late-term abortions are MURDERING of babies. That is your framing, and I won't take that bait. We disagree, and you'll have to accept that. Pro-choicers accept life, and it's the definition of life that is the disagreement, and your so full of your own certitude, you can't even see that. You've wasted your own and everyone else's time. Congratulations.
Regardless of your ad hominem attacks, you are the one who refuses to simply look at the paradox and provide an answer.
Apparently, you are the moral authority on framing the debate. Then I digress - how can I frame the debate that is more appropriate to your comfort level?
You do not agree that late-term abortions are murder. Fine. Pro-choicers are the kings of marketing. Call it something else. Damn.
Can you at least agree that it is ending a life?
Or are you too busy drinking your latte to be concerned with the facts?
Charles, I for one appreciate your willingness to display your thoughts in obviously hostile territory. Everyone on both sides needs to strive for civility. Excessive rhetoric has mudled some good pro-choice arguments. Although I'm definitely pro-choice, I hate to see self-styled pro-lifers do the same thing.
The theory that has been enshrined in Texas law (I'm from Texas) and has long been the linchpin of the anti-choice movement is that the human being that comes into existence at the moment of conception is morally equivalent to a born human being. This is an insidious and dangerous belief, because it makes abortion morally equal to murder, unless it's done to avert death of another (as when abortion is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother; but then the question arises, how to you determine which life to sacrifice?).
The "life begins at conception" theory cannot be supported by science or common sense; it arises solely from religious belief (apparently not even Bible-based). "Life begins at conception" logically, inevitably, leads to the necessity to protect that life by stopping abortions in any way possible. Since the law in most of the U.S. doesn't (yet?) provide a legal recourse, the only thing left is to disable, by killing or other means, those who would practice abortion. Pro-lifers who say they don't subscribe to unlawful violence are saying they don't believe in the moral and legal duty to protect human life, not just in general, not just long term, but human life facing imminent termination. That's an intellectually and morally bankrupt position. You and I wouldn't hesitate to choose violent means to protect a born child from imminent death at the hands of a murderer. "Life begins at conception" compels you to make that decision here and now with regard to any child that might be aborted. That's the slippery slope that Scott Roeder traversed. To be a peaceful advocate of "life begins at conception," you have to disavow a universally accepted moral (and legal) principle. I don't think a sane person can do that.
Charles, if your position is that you have to kill people to impose your belief that "life begins at conception," law-abiding citizens have a duty to keep tabs on you to stop you from crossing the line Roeder crossed. If that's not your position, you're being at best unpersuasive and inconsistent in claiming you can tolerate thousands of murders just because the law happens to make it illegal to injure or kill abortionists (and/or, women who seek abortions). Either way, your position is highly problematic.
The only constructive thing you can do is try to change the law, or enforce laws like those in Texas. I believe it's my moral duty to prevent you from doing even that.
Please feel free to respond.
Manning,
Such a well-thought out response, but yet you didn't even take the time to really read my previous posts.
Dr. Tiller's murder is not justified. Period. I don't believe murdering people is a way to get somewhere. Not sure how more clear I can be.
(And I am anti-war.)
It is a futile attempt on your part to take the conversation from partial birth brutality to "life begins at conception."
That is not the argument we are having here.
Unfortunately, most posters here refuse to simply look at the details of the procedure.
Thanks for the answer. So you're not opposed to early term abortions? You agree with Roe v. Wade?
Would your answer about Tiller's "murder" change if Roeder had waited in the clinic and assassinated Tiller as he was about to begin a late-term abortion?
You're right that if the issue is just late-term, there's room to argue concerning when and under what circumstances abortion is morally acceptable and should be legal. In fact, I oppose late-term abortions unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother or terminate a pregnancy likely to result in a baby not able to survive for a reasonable amount of time or to experience a meaningful life.
Manning,
You sound like a rational person.
No, Tiller's murder is not justified. It would not be justified in a boat; it would not be justified with a goat. I would not could not justify his murder. Period.
But this is the part of your comments that troubles me:
"I oppose late-term abortions unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother or terminate a pregnancy likely to result in a baby not able to survive for a reasonable amount of time or to experience a meaningful life."
And, Manning, will you be the one to pre-determine a "meaningful life." And what is a "reasonable amount of time."
Peace.
Charles: I pose a hypothetical -- what if you saw the doctor starting to perform a late-term abortion that you would consider murder? Wouldn't your theory of the value of the fetus, and your belief (or at least the almost universal belief) in defending a child by violence when that's necessary to stop the imminent unjustified death of the child, compel you to use force, up to deadly force, to protect the child? That's the untenable position I still think your view puts you in.
I might be repulsed by what the doctor is doing, but until satisfied it was illegal as well as immoral, I wouldn't resort to violence to stop it. Of course, if you don't believe in defense of others (or even self-defense), there's no inconsistency in not resorting to violence. But I think there's a moral duty to stop a murder, by means necessary and appropriate to the situation, if you can.
The determination of reasonable survival time and meaningful life are clearly difficult matters, and not something to be left to the individual. The law should spell this out. Admittedly, won't be easy. Nothing about abortion is easy.
Thanks for your courtesy in responding.
Manning,
You raise very good points.
(On another note, pro-choice advocates often call Republicans "sheep", as many of them are just Fox News boot lickers who do whatever the party tells them. However, it is ironic that so many pro-choicers rely so heavily on the "law" for their moral compass. It's almost disturbing to know that they can't make a moral decision without thumbing through a book.)
Back to your points:
Darn, you, Manning. You have put me in a tough spot. Yes, I feel obligated to help those in trouble or danger (and actually, the "law" has good samaritan statutes that require that in many cases.)
But could I put a gun to Dr. Tiller's head mid-procedure? No.
Manning - one more point. Listen to your own reliance on "the law": The law should spell out a meaningful life? Really? You want judges and politicians to determine what a meaningful life is? That screams of tyrannical rule.
I simply wish that pro-choicers would more appreciate EVERY life, no matter how long he/she lives or could potentially live. You have a duty to protect the unprotected.
Religious or not, your conscience demands it.
Yes, we have our absurdities and our hypocrisies.
When I look back at what I know of my local history over the past century and look at the people who are and were productively working for progressive change and at building a better society I see that the majority of them are Christians of various persuasions. As I see it the abortion issue has been skillfully and successfully used as a wedge issue to the point where people who would be working together feel somewhat compelled to choose sides instead, largely ceasing discussion with the other side while the noisy radicals on each side self-righteously spout the retoric while dehumanizing those who disagree. To my mind the issue is not as black/white as the radicals make it to be. There is much grey. And much other work to be done.
Pro-life = the more babies, the more mercenaries and soldiers for Amerikkka's war business.
CHARLES!! DUDE!
Your a DUDE!!!! You have a weenie! get out there and fertalize more EGGS, so we can have more first world consumers and bloggers like you. This smug argument is a one way street.
This a gynacological issue, between a woman and her docor. this is about WOMANS right to choose what happens inside her body, and if she believes the life growing in her body has a shot at growing up to be a decent television watching blogger like yourself.
after cousin foetus makes it out of the vagina and starts to have opinions then the police need to get involved and folks should get good and asassinated.
Personally if I felt that the child would grow up to be a moralizing blogger dude with big opinions about gynacology i would suck it's baby brains out myself with a straw!!!! YUM!
I sentenced all humanity to death long long ago... bon voyage, ehjoy the new xbox before you check out.
Awesome. "Gynecological issue." Perfect.
I'll bring that to the marketing meeting tonight.
Everyone - please scratch "choice" and "reproductive rights" and "sucking baby brains." We're going with "gynecological issue."
That's got a ring to it.
You've got a gift my friend.
The Dr.'s murder is horrific.
Confusion exists and lack of knowledge in many people about late term abortion. Clearly often right if a fetus is deformed badly and the woman desires it.
However it seems immoral to me to abort the child if it was consensual sex, the fetus-baby can live outside the womb & is 100% Healthy. Oaks grow from seeds.
Note-In Obama's Cairo speech, he took a good bit of time discussing women's truths and needs in th Muslim world which was great. He also took a shot at porn on the net and it's disgustingness. right on again.
Nanoo
Seems to me that when a near full term pregnant woman is murdered that the law charges the crime as two counts of murder. Maybe I'm wrong and have gotten to much fiction from the TV.
Never forget the real backdrop for all of this is: GENDER FUCKING SLAVERY. At root the right to refuse or terminate a pregnancy is the HEART of the Binary that produces Freedom for any woman or man for that matter - Biological and Economic self determination. Females who cannot refuse pregnancy are slaves and the right winger animals know this. Females can't get any abortions in 85% of American counties TODAY. Prices on the pill are being placed out of reach of working class women and the outcome is plain: Put the fucking bitches back in their place as the property of a Male - just like among the Pashtuns. You see you can't have (white) Males Supreme unless the 'females' are subjugated--
After the monsters remove a woman's right to choose, the right to work will be removed, then the right to own property...slaves don't own anything, not even their own bodies...and this country was designed to model the Roman Slave Republic - pater familias...
Lucky,
Thank you for demonstrating McCarthyism.
This is exactly what the neo-Right does to justify wars: "Do you support terrorist nations or do you not support terrorist nations."
So now, if I don't support sucking out baby brains, I want to enslave women?
Wipe the foam from your mouth.
Lucky,
Actually, try this in your next argument:
Take a page from the neo-cons' book - "You don't support war? Oh, so you don't support the troops?"
Try that with your argument:
"Oh, so you don't support partial birth abortion? Well, then, you want to put women in chains and make them slaves?"
Charles...
Why must you dominate this thread...?
You post more on this article than everyone else combined...
You have said your piece, you won't convince anyone here to change their mind about abortion...
Save it for the captive audience at sunday school...
Funny... I don't recall you posting on any other articles at CD...?
Perhaps you are a paid shill for some hate group... Maybe the pentagon...?
Well, congrsdulations... You have effectively hijacked this comment board...
Keeping the conversation revolving around your anti-choice rhetoric...
We know what you are about... So go bugger off and save some other poor soul...
If you cared so much about kids, you would be focusing on the paedophilia in your own church...
Clean your own house before you throw stones at others....
GoldenMean,
You are right, I've said too much.
So I will sign off with this final post addressing your points.
I'm not a paid shill. Just trying to have a conversation. I'm not representing a church or even religion for that matter. I haven't even referenced "God" as any justification for my stance.
(And I agree - the church needs to take the log out of its own eye, too.)
However, my initial point was simply this:
Do you at least understand my confusion as to the sudden appreciation of life on the pro-choice side? There seems to be absolutely no regard for the pain and suffering endured by the "fetuses" who were killed (thousands), but you are outraged about the death of Dr. Tiller.
I say both are tragic. You, however, prefer a selective approach to reasoning.
And I digress - it is time for me to bugger off because no one here can even keep an open mind to a simple discussion.
I ask you to consider the details of the procedure, and you just call me names.
Peace to all, and here's to open dialogue and the pursuit of truth.
Charles, see you elsewhere in CD, I hope. I learn more from Socratic ("open") dialogue than preaching to the choir.
@Charles,
Interesting. If the balance between the pain and suffering of the fetuses in being aborted is to be compared to the pain and suffering of Dr. Tiller and his family and friends as a result of his murder/execution, then how would we proceed? To some extent we have some measure of the pain that Dr. Tiller and his family and friends face and faced because most of us have faced the pain caused by the loss of loved ones or experienced pain in a serious accident and thus know how excruciating these pains can be.
Measuring the pain and suffering of the fetuses is another matter and we are farther from being able to measure it. To illustrate how it may be different please consider for a moment the practise of circumcision. When it is done to a baby the boy cries for a rather short time and recovers quickly. Possibly the accumulated discomfort of the men in the room to witness the circumcision is greater that that endured by the boy. Possibly not. However, when a mature male is circumsized the pain is considerable and and the male is minimally mobile for a few days because by maturity the pain receptors in the penis are fully developed. I do not presume to know the extent of pain and suffering that the fetuses endure during an abortion. Possibly if someone has some information on this they will post, but based on my current ignorance I do not even know when and how a fetus first feels pain, or when it will be able to feel pain with an intensity that we would call excessive.
Further, there are other important issues to be considered than whether pain is involved. Just one example. In modern times some babies endure operations, their pain and suffering during and after the operation being justified by their survival and by hopes for the future quality of their lives. The possible improvement in the quality of their caregiver's lives is also be worth some consideration.
Given all in this world that is tragic and unfair and wrong, and given all that can be done to reduce pain and suffering and to improve the quality of life in the world, what could people have been doing instead of quarrelling over the seemingly intractable and divisive abortion issue. We all share some guilt for the pain and suffering that could have prevented had we worked together on other issues during that time. Had people spent half of the abortion debate time working together on issues where we were on the same side then the pain and suffering prevented and reduced would have been far in excess of that involved in the abortion issue . . . .
And Charles, I echo manning120's hope that we see you elsewhere in CD as I too learn more from Socratic ("open") dialogue than preaching to the choir.
Charles,
I want to express sympathy for you. You referred earlier in this thread to the "devastating" event in your life that your wife had a miscarriage, a D&C, and that in your words "the baby died" in her womb. I feel compelled to say with all due respect, compassion and understanding that it seems to me that this traumatic, personal tragedy must surely partially explain quite frankly your determined, even obsessive, posting in this thread today. I would like to strongly encourage you to seek professional counseling with a therapist/social worker in your area so that you may be able to come better to terms with the trauma that your personal loss understandably has caused you and that obviously haunts you so profoundly to this day. Your postings today point to an ongoing emotional difficulty-- no shame, stigma, or "weakness" in that, just please do consider that your postings today must surely be about more than the public policy issues being discussed. A good therapist CAN help with such important, personal matters. It's admirable to be concerned with the well-being of others, but you yourself seem to be emotionally wounded and crying for help. My humble advice-- Heal thyself, and move on from there.
Want to buy a used kidney?
Whoops... never mind.
Cheney's terrorists on BO's watch then Dick&Rush elected '12, All Catholic Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade Christian Fundamentalism battling Islamoterrorism far away and wrong morals here at home.
Why did this Dr. not have a bodyguard?
He was clearly going to be the target of a hit.
He performed a rare kindness to abort badly hurt late term fetuses, though healthy? If possible to live I think should, God's Love to the man, he did what he thought was right and it must have been hard emotionally, racking, the controversy.
I have been reading all of the posts on this topic. This is my first time posting here, and I think I have persepctive that is a little different from most of what I have read here. I am pro-choice, so I do agree with much that has been said, but I think my position is complicated by my experience with this issue. I have reeling with shock and horror at this act of violence, as I suppose we all have, but it has been very personal to me.
26 years ago, I had an abortion at 23 weeks gestation. My baby had a severe birth defect and my health was also compromised. It was a planned, wanted pregnancy, and I was in love with that baby. I learned at 20 weeks that the baby had a severe anomaly and that there was one experimental treatment available. I elected to have the experimental treatment, which was fetal surgery. The surgery failed, so my only remaining options were to carry the baby to term, knowing that she would never be well and would suffer or to terminate the pregnancy by a procedure called hysterotomy (a pre-term c-section.) My health was such that I could not safely go through labor.
After much reflection, counseling, and prayer, I determined that I would end the pregnancy. It broke my heart, but watching her suffer would have also broken my heart. I saw my baby. She was whole. She was not dismembered. She did not "have her brain sucked." She was a beautiful little child who sadly, did not have a hope for a healthy life. I did bury this child. We gave her a name and a funeral and a grave. She was a person to me.
Having said that, I do not know when life begins, nor, does anyone else, I suspect. This issue is not just about when life begins. It is about taking care of ourselves, our bodies, and our pregnancies in the ways that are right according to our own hearts, minds and beliefs. I know many women who have made the decision to terminate pregnancies, and I don't know any who took that decision lightly.
I respect every woman's right to choose. Whatever her reason, it is her body. I am not an advocate of abortion; rather I am an advocate of choice. Sometimes abortion is the choice that a woman has to make, so it must be safe and legal. For me, abortion was a trauma; it hurt my heart more than anything else in this life ever has, but it was the best decision I could make at the time. I still mourn for that baby.
I also mourn the loss of a courageous man who endured a reign of terror to provide care for women in the most desperate of need. It was a cowardly act to target this man with propaganda, and it was cowardly of the law enforcement officals to ignore the obvious signs that violence was about to escalate.
In one way I was very fortunate. I had my surgery at a university hospital. The ethics board had to convene and vote on whether or not it could be done there, and they voted in favor of it becuase of the severe health issues in my case. How I pity the women who have to go to a clinic where disturbed and confused anti-choice zealots harrass them. How it must hurt to be in that vulnerable state and have people attacking so callously. Let's not let the bullies and the uninformed take away women's rights to safe and confidential health care.