Pro-aborts exploit Tiller murder

As expected, KS late-term abortionist George Tiller's alleged shooter, Scott Roeder, is a fringe character with a criminal history dating back to at least 1996 for parole violation after being convicted of carrying bomb components in his car.

Every movement has its fringe element, and of course these people do not represent the movement, as intelligent people know. No one views homosexuals as a group of serial killers just because John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer were, for example.

But pro-aborts are in the unique position of condoning and profiting from the murder of innocent children. So it makes complete sense that they would attempt to accuse their adversaries as what they themselves are guilty of: violence. And so they have, for years.

Already we see pro-aborts attempting to exploit Tiller's unfortunate murder to their advantage. Read this, just up on Feministing:

tiller feministing 2.jpg

This is all an attempt to put pro-lifers on the defensive and somehow shine as advocates of nonviolence.

How ridiculous. Don't fall for it. Continue to simply state pro-lifers condemn all murder, including George Tiller's, as well as the thousands of children he murdered.


Comments:

Just like the Black Panthers don't represent all blacks, or La Raza doesn't represent all hispanics, or Bill Ayers doesn't represent all white people!

Posted by: carder at May 31, 2009 10:14 PM


"Continue to simply state pro-lifers condone all murder, including George Tiller's as well as the thousands of children he murdered."

Freudian slip, eh, Jill?

Posted by: Erin at May 31, 2009 10:21 PM


Good Lord!

I hope you meant "condemn" and not "condone" in your last sentence!

Posted by: JC Kapla at May 31, 2009 10:21 PM


"Already we see pro-aborts attempting to exploit Tiller's unfortunate murder to their advantage."

Jill:

Are you trying to imply that Reality, Bystander and Devo are actaully trying to do this?

No, please say no.

You must ban them now before they spread their cooties.

Posted by: HisMan at May 31, 2009 10:24 PM


No Christian of any denomination that is true to their Faith would consider or condone such an atrocious act. No one should lay hands on another for ANY REASON other than self defense and THEN only what is REQUIRED to fend off the attacker!!! BOTH SIDES need to see this in the light of it going TOO FAR! The Christians will pay for this dearly, I fear. The Liberals will think they have a victory in what will ensue, but in actuality, it will be taking ALL our rights away in a broad sense. More than we can actually conceive right now! We pray for all involved, however distant and our crys are "LET THIS ALL END HERE AND NOW. NO MORE VIOLENCE"

Posted by: Mary at May 31, 2009 10:24 PM


Erin, thanks, fixed.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 31, 2009 10:24 PM


Leave it to old "straw man" Obama to have a knee jerk reaction and blame good, pro-life Americans for this crime.

President Barack Obama said he was "shocked and outraged" by the murder. "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," he said.

Barack, the act of abortion on an innocent baby girl or boy IS a heinous act of violence! And that is how you have chosen to "solve" the "difficult" issue of abortion. You voted 3 times to withhold medical care from innocent children who are born alive after an attempted abortion.

Your promotion of the culture of death has lead to this senseless crime. People don't have any respect for life at any level of development or age, thanks to you.

But of all the unmitigated, "audacious" GALL to start blaming the peaceful, legal pro-life community when the story specifically said "There was no immediate word of the motive of Tiller's assailant."

Obama, we know you are a leftist and an abortion supporter, but at least READ the story and try to hold back on your knee jerk liberal reactions!

Posted by: leave it to Obama at May 31, 2009 10:46 PM


To President Barack Obama:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of 40 million innocent children, including some who were born alive, breathing and feeling pain, that you voted 3 times to let die.

However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence against the innocent children.

Posted by: Letter to President Obama at May 31, 2009 10:50 PM


LITO 10:46PM

Is Obama equally "shocked and outraged" that there is evidence his friends Ayers and Dohrn may have been responsible for the death of a San Francisco police officer?

Posted by: Mary at May 31, 2009 10:54 PM


No LITO, Obama is not equally "shocked and outraged" the Ayers bombings and killings, because in his mind they were only doing what was was right by blaming America and violently protesting against the good of America.

In the case of someone killing a fellow abortionist, though, then, yes, of course Obama is shocked and outraged, just like the rest of us.

Unlike Obama, we are consistent in our shock and outrage against any killer or bomber, no matter what their motive is.

Posted by: LITO confused at May 31, 2009 11:06 PM


of course they're exploiting this. They're ready to tar and feather innocent peaceful protesters who pray and would never KILL anyone. Of course they consider protesting the violent death of an innocent unborn child to be blocking "women's health rights" when they forget that at least 50% of the children slaughtered during abortion are FUTURE WOMEN.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 31, 2009 11:10 PM


Of course the liberal pro-aborts are trying to exploit the death of Tiller. They exploit the deaths of thousands of innocent children every day, why should this be any different for them?

Posted by: liberals exploting death at May 31, 2009 11:15 PM


liberals exploiting death, please choose ONE moniker by which you prefer to be known on this site. Posting under more than one moniker at a time is not allowed here. Your comments will have to be deleted otherwise. Thank you.

Posted by: Kel at May 31, 2009 11:19 PM


A late term abortionist for a hero. Good luck with the recruitiung. They might as well put on swastikas while they hold rallies for him. I hope they bring this sick man's life to the forefront and shine a light on his late term atrocities in as much detail as possible.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 31, 2009 11:53 PM


This is not the only blog or newspaper or anything that is using the man's death to further a political agenda, and that is sickening. Perhaps I sound monstrous, but I ache for him. He did horrible things, devastating things, but I cannot help wishing that he had not suffered. I don't know if that makes me good or bad to thing of someone who did terrible things in this manner, but we are all God's children, including Tiller. And I am not ashamed to feel for him, nor do I think that anyone reading this website feels ashamed to be saddened for his family.

It is unfortunate that his death will be turned into politics for a propaganda-driven group when this should serve as a reminder for why diplomacy and pacifism are key to human progress.

Posted by: Vannah at May 31, 2009 11:53 PM


Vannah,
Your heart is in the right place. Though I would kill a man like Tiller if he mutilated my wife or daughter and killed one of my offsping; I look at that part of me as a weakness in my Christian faith which teaches that even though others tread upon us in this world we are supposed to put our faith in the resurrection with Jesus Christ and not strike back at them. Though I see it as a weakness in my faith, I think Jesus sees that my purpose would be to stop a greater evil from being perpetrated and I would be doing it cause I love even as Jesus teaches me to lay down my life for the ones I love. I don't think I'll ever be strong enough in my faith to completely forsake this world, and at least for right now it's just not in me to turn the other cheek were somebody like Tiller to commit such evil upon my wife or daughter; and I am not ashamed of it either.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 1, 2009 12:10 AM


"but we are all God's children....."

Posted by: Vannah at May 31, 2009 11:53 PM
----------------------------

Vannah:

Sorry to burst your theological bubble, but in actuality, this is not biblically correct.

God calls anyone that does not believe in His Son as having Satan as his father.

Here ya go:

"John 8:43-45

43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

45"But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me."

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 12:13 AM


Absolutely terrible what leftist blogs are saying, although not unpredictable. Blame it on conservatives.

I wonder how the TV "news" media will report this.

The alleged killer had NO ties to pro life groups and all these groups condemned the killing anyway.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/05/31/liberal-blogs-quickly-link-doctor-s-murder-limbaugh-hannity-beck

Posted by: Joanne at June 1, 2009 12:16 AM


truthseeker: My sentiments exactly. Thanks for having the guts to say it.

Always say something good about the dead.

He's dead. Good.

How many more of you have the guts to agree with me?

Posted by: Mike at June 1, 2009 12:16 AM


Joanne 12:16am

No surprise there.

Posted by: Mary at June 1, 2009 12:20 AM


We build monuments to the heroes of justice, like Martin Luther King, we elect a President who is given a medal at a institution which represents the very church that cries out against abortion, and we acknowledge their ideas of justice and applaud their rhetoric, yet we murder innocent children by abortion who have no opportunity for life and justice.

Well here's God's answer to this United States of America. Yes this very generation is now experiencing God's judgment. Our failing economy is just the beginning.

"Matthew 23:29-36

29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation."

Father, daddy, please spare us from our hypocrisy, restore us O Lord to sanity.

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 12:27 AM


"Of course they consider protesting the violent death of an innocent unborn child to be blocking "women's health rights" when they forget that at least 50% of the children slaughtered during abortion are FUTURE WOMEN."

It's not discrimination against women if women are indiscriminately affected...

Posted by: ZuRG at June 1, 2009 12:28 AM


"truthseeker: My sentiments exactly. Thanks for having the guts to say it.

Always say something good about the dead.

He's dead. Good.

How many more of you have the guts to agree with me?

Posted by: Mike at June 1, 2009 12:16 AM"
---------------------------------

What you said is very dangerous spiritually, no guts required:

Proverbs 24:16-18 (New International Version)

16 for though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again,
but the wicked are brought down by calamity.

17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,

18 or the LORD will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from him.

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 12:35 AM


No surprise there.
Posted by: Mary at June 1, 2009 12:20 AM

Also no surprise that radical pro abort groups want to have a day to "honor" him. He's being made into a martyr which is not surprising.

I also think there could be a backlash against Christianity since some bloggers are calling the alleged killer a "Christian."

Posted by: Joanne at June 1, 2009 12:40 AM


HisMan,
I'm really enjoying reading the scriptures you are posting today. Thanks

Posted by: truthseeker at June 1, 2009 12:42 AM


Truthseeker,

I've said before I have no idea how abortionists sleep at night. Now we hear Tiller and his wife were members of that church, she sang in the choir and he was an usher.

Going to church does not make one a Christian. Having a personal relationship with Jesus and accepting him as your savior does.

Christians are not perfect either, but I have a hard time imagining Tiller attending church every week and yet feeling justified for what he did.

There are very few doctors in the world who are willing to do late term abortions. What does that say? I have to think the main reason is because they believe it's killing. Maybe some decline because they fear for their safety, as Tiller is not the first abortionist to be killed.... but I think for most its because they know its wrong.

Women came from other countries to Kansas to have abortions.

I will never understand how Tiller could live with himself.

There is plenty of evidence many of the babies aborted had nothing wrong with them. Even if they did.... as a Christian I believe we have no right to end their lives. We have no right to play God.

I will never ever understand this..... attending a church and performing abortions and thinking there is nothing wrong with it. In fact I think Tiller felt he was doing a great service for "womens' health care."

Posted by: Joanne at June 1, 2009 1:17 AM


The pretense that he was "doing a service for women" is baloney. The man was making MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars killing babies. His attendance at a church was just part of his overall act to dupe people into thinking he was such a philanthropist.

Fat lot of good his millions are doing him now.

Abortion IS ALL ABOUT MONEY...and he made plenty of it. SIX GRAND for a late term abortion for which he "worked" all of ten minutes. It's no wonder he paid everyone off to make sure his practice stayed open.

Concern for women and their health is the LAST thing he was worried about.

Posted by: Mike at June 1, 2009 1:40 AM


Bob, don't you know that by saying such things, you're only going to incite hatred towards Jill and other pro-life bloggers? You're also aware that IP addresses can be traced, right? Its pretty easy.


Posted by: pro-life atheist at June 1, 2009 2:18 AM


Mary stated..."...No one should lay hands on another for ANY REASON other than self defense and THEN only what is REQUIRED to fend off the attacker!!!"

Lame! When you consider this all from the baby's perspective.

The living baby in the womb awakes to the sensation of cold steel probing them, then rip/tear one arm and one leg is gone. Does the baby have the right of self defense to use its one remaining arm and leg to defend itself?

Would a kick be too harsh for the baby to fend off the attacker? Oh, that's right the baby has been kicking its now homicidal mom for months. Talk about accomplices.

Posted by: TheOnlyThing2Fear at June 1, 2009 2:20 AM


Moderators? Please remove the profanity (I'm sure you've been busy with lots of that today). My kids read this!

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 1, 2009 2:20 AM


I would caution those pro-lifers who picket or sidewalk counsel at abortion clinics to be extremely careful or to even stay home for the next several days because of the potential backlash from the more extreme pro-choice activists, just concerned about your safety.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 1, 2009 2:56 AM


Indeed, Rachael. Even if they're meant only for intimidation, some of the threats being made online are very disturbing.

Posted by: Fed Up at June 1, 2009 3:36 AM


Bob's profanity was removed and IP address will be blocked.

Posted by: LauraLoo at June 1, 2009 4:55 AM


Hi Elisabeth, you're right. Many unacceptable comments have been taken care of by Jill's excellent moderating team.

Posted by: LauraLoo at June 1, 2009 4:59 AM


Here's the URL (it didn't take above) for the photos of the "services" Tiller's abortion mill provided like post abortion baptisms, etc., for a fee:

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2009/5/31/mass-abortionist-georgetiller-murdered-in-church.html

Posted by: Amy Proctor at June 1, 2009 4:59 AM


might want to remove "bob's" comment at 1:55am

Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 5:56 AM


Thanks, Angel, it was an oversight. I also deleted comments from anyone who posted as Anonymous.

Posted by: LauraLoo at June 1, 2009 6:16 AM


Elisabeth, I like your blog!

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 6:19 AM


*oops* meant site.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 6:20 AM


Tiller's slaying comes as President Obama, who supports abortion rights, has called for the opposing sides to find common ground. "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning," Obama said in a statement. "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."


Obama is correct in his statement.

BUT, he and many other Americans continue to bury their heads in the sand over the fact that abortion itself is also a "heinous act of violence".

50 Million Americans have died through abortion.

We are finding more and more that there is little "choice" involved in abortion. We have women who are forced into clinics by parents, boyfriends, and husbands.
We have women who are slipped pills in their food to make them abort.
We have PP clinics covering up statutory rape in order to abort the child conceived.
We have PP clinics who send young girls back into situations where they are sexually abused because PP refuses to report the perps.
We have underage children kidnapped by their parents and driven across the country to clinics to be aborted. On and on it goes.

Abortion is such an heinous injustice. And what's worse is that it is an injustice enshrined in our laws, not by the will of the people but by a handful of judges. Sadly, this injustice, which Tiller fully and knowingly participated in, also consumed him.

What was done to Tiller was terribly wrong. To support his murder is not prolife, no matter how many children he killed through abortion.


Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 6:28 AM


RE: This add. Yeah, it doesn't bother me. I'd expect this reaction from the PC side. I'm going to my third abortion clinic today from 11am-1pm. I called people in my PL group to see if they had heard about Tiller. I was the last to find out when I came to Jill's site yesterday. People are indeed concerned that it will give peaceful protestors a bad rap, but we will press on. I've got to say that the police here are good. The abortionist calls the cops on us at least once a week. The cops come out. They see that it's all BS on his part, and they leave. *shrugs* There is no reason to arrest us. We aren't doing anything wrong.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 6:30 AM


Thanks, Angel, it was an oversight. I also deleted comments from anyone who posted as Anonymous.
Posted by: LauraLoo at June 1, 2009 6:16 AM

But who will remove Jasper's Quote of the Day?

Posted by: Hal at June 1, 2009 6:32 AM


Heather, it's not your reputation I worry about, it's your safety, there is a lot of outrage right now and some pretty serious threats being made by activists online. Just be careful out there, ok?

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 1, 2009 6:45 AM


Thank you Rachel C.! I appreciate that! Where have you seen these threats? Do you have a link? I had not heard.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 6:59 AM


This does not help the pro life movement and we must soberly consider this man's eternity. We prayed for his redemption not execution. Yes the pro choicers will make hay out of this. His death should bring no joy to us.

I would like to point out that he was a member of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) which is the liberal synod that supports abortion rights not a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod which condems abortion.

Posted by: Maria at June 1, 2009 7:29 AM


Amy,

I just looked at your link. That little Tess is so precious! That poor mother, fed the lies that a sick baby is worthless. So sad.

Posted by: lovethemboth at June 1, 2009 7:34 AM


Thanks, Heather... just getting it up and running.

Good work, moderators, I'm sure it's going to be a few more rough days before the attention span of the gawkers runs out and we are back to our regulars only... who at least know the rules!

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 1, 2009 7:38 AM


Heather, I'm gathering this from reader responses at pro-choice blogs such as Feministe and pro-choice responses at pro-life blogs such as Big Blue Wave Canada.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 1, 2009 7:40 AM


Elisabeth, God bless you for all that you do. I am an LPN, and I work in LTC. I don't think peds would have been my calling, but my daughter battled leukemia, and you nurses are so very special! just thought I'd say something kind to you today!

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 7:43 AM


I ran across this post from a "Progressive Christian" blog this morning:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/

Posted by: 1st.import at June 1, 2009 7:43 AM


Rachel C. , thank you. I like your site as well!! How do you set one up? I'd like to. Is it easy?

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 7:46 AM


Rachel C. , thanks again. I'm sure that the hornets nests are stirring today. Especially after the murder of an abortionist.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 7:48 AM


A serial killer is a person who murders usually three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than 30 days with a "cooling off" period between each murder, whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification............................................ Dare I go here, but if mods wish to delete, that's okay. George Tiller fits the profile of a serial killer. Take into account other serial killers. John Wayne Gacey, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Eileen Wuornos, David Bercowitz, the Zodiac killer. Would any last one of you ralley around any of these degenerate creeps and call them heros?

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 8:00 AM


A murderer is a murderer is a murderer. Abortionists kill children inside the womb.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 8:02 AM


The wild west.

Wichita is famous community home of BTK killer, This event and the murder of missionary Burnham by Muslims that held the Burnham family as prisoners for a year.

It will be a 10 year setback for pro aborts if pro aborts pro aborts try to depict this as pro life. The man is not alive.

I guess the killer played with bombs like Bill Ayers.

Posted by: xppc at June 1, 2009 8:25 AM


Heather, email me and I'll help you with any setup needs you have. It's not hard, but in the beginning can be a bit to take in. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy as can be, and a lot of fun.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 1, 2009 8:30 AM


Jill sees "exploitation." I see an effort to honor the man and the beliefs for which he lived so courageously and which led most likely to his murder.

Jill sees an effort to put pro-lifers on the defensive. I see an effort to counteract the reasonable fear caused by this terroristic act.

The efforts on this site to portray Dr. Tiller as a mere profit-monger seem dishonest. This is a man who kept providing particular services to women despite having been shot before, threatened, vandalized, and prosecuted. There are easier and safer ways for a doctor to make a profit. There is no doubt that Dr. Tiller honestly belived he was doing good and had the courage of his convictions.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 9:31 AM


The efforts on this site to portray Dr. Tiller as a mere profit-monger seem dishonest. This is a man who kept providing particular services to women despite having been shot before, threatened, vandalized, and prosecuted. There are easier and safer ways for a doctor to make a profit. There is no doubt that Dr. Tiller honestly belived he was doing good and had the courage of his convictions.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 9:31 AM

Cash in advance. He made according to his testimony in the last court case, over 3,000 dollars after expenses per abortion. His hundreds of thousands for illegal political donations were massive. He can run 3 lawyers at high billing rates many hours per week year round and not flinch. I suspect Dan Monnat is crying.

Posted by: xppc at June 1, 2009 10:07 AM


Prochoicer: BALONEY ! Violently killing babies in the womb is not "honorable". Maybe to you it is, but the babies would disagree vehemently.

How do babies "counteract" the reasonable fear of his terroristic killing tools? They can't.

Not only was this man (term used in the loosest sense) a profit monger, he was a power monger. The millions he made by his killing fueled his greed for power as is evidenced by the funds he poured into his political allies endeavors.

IF he were so concerned for women and their health, why did he have such poorly trained and educated staff? Show me another kind of doctor who can make 6 grand for a ten minute "procedure".

He wasn't in it for the money. Yeah, right. Dream on. He tried to defy the odds and he lost.

Posted by: Mike at June 1, 2009 10:18 AM


I'm not sure about his motives for performing late term abortions, but could he have not made more money performing nose jobs and breast implants?

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 10:38 AM


Kate, I think he legitimately saw what he was doing as helping women. He was also making spectacular money.

I don't think the two are necessarally mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 10:43 AM


Elisabeth, thanks. Will do!

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 10:51 AM


Right. I don't begrudge the man the money he made at all. I would hope that, in America, soemone in a skilled profession, risking his life to provide a valuable service to women, WOULD be compensated with a lot of money.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 11:13 AM


Does anyone have stats on the reasons for the abortions he performed. Were they cases where the child had a severe defect or were they done on healthy babies?

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 11:19 AM


I apologize, I will use ONE moniker by which I prefer to be known on this site from now on. I will use the name GodsImage.

Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 9:31 AM said "There is no doubt that Dr. Tiller honestly belived he was doing good and had the courage of his convictions."

I'm not sure he believed he was doing good, but he did know he was making a lot of money doing something that moral doctors refused to do.

As far as having the "courage of his convictions" that was probably true...but then again Hitler also had the courage of his convictions. That does not make either of them right.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 11:30 AM


GodsImage,

As far as having the "courage of his convictions" that was probably true...but then again Hitler also had the courage of his convictions. That does not make either of them right.

I am glad you said this because I was actually planning to make the exact same point. Whether Dr. Tiller was acting on principle is quite a different debate about whether the principles are correct.

But Jill repeatedly tries to make Dr. Tiller out to be a mere profit-monger. But if that were true, he could have reached his goals more easily and safely by practicing plastic surgery or dermatology.

I disagree, but in the end people's motives don't really matter. Even if all the anti-choicers are sincere Christians and all of us who support abortion are in it for the money, it doesn't tell us anything about which side is actually right. That's my point.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 11:41 AM


Prochoicer (whatever that means) stated..."Jill sees "exploitation." I see an effort to honor the man and the beliefs for which he lived so courageously and which led most likely to his murder."

You are blind if this is what you see. Will you also say the same about Hitler? Hitler too was a man considered to have lived courageously for his beliefs. The belief that we evlved from apes and that humans with non-white skin should be exterminated.

Tiller was just a man living out the convictions of his blood lust for exterminating defenseless children in the name of women's helath. Go and see a live PBA and tell me Tiller should be honored. Prochoicer (whatever that means)you don't have the guts, and I predict you will only lash out from your computer as long as someone will respond to your insane comments.

Posted by: TheOnlyThing2Fear at June 1, 2009 11:43 AM


Prochoicer (whatever that means) stated "Jill sees an effort to put pro-lifers on the defensive. I see an effort to counteract the reasonable fear caused by this terroristic act."

Is it too far from your heartless soul that the children Tiller destroyed and threw into the trash cans were also terrorized?

Jill is right here. Pro-Lifers are always on the defensive. We're busy defending the Right To Life.

You can't be pro-choice unless you are realistic about the word choice having been redefined to hide the reality that you are OK with ripping the arms and legs off of a baby sleeping in the womb, or stabbing it's head after the baby is partially out of the womb.

From your comments I can only ascertain that Margaret Sanger may have been right about one thing, the trashheap of human waste, she just labeled the wrong group.

Posted by: TheOnlyThing2Fear at June 1, 2009 11:50 AM


Can somebody explain to me how this act of violence on late term abortionist George Tiller is any different than a late term abortion?

Posted by: TheOnlyThing2Fear at June 1, 2009 12:05 PM


Kate, the redacted records released by Kline showed that he performed late term abortions for reasons other than the health of the mother or fetal deformity. I'll see if I can dig those up for you.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 12:20 PM


TheOnlyThing2Fear asked "Can somebody explain to me how this act of violence on late term abortionist George Tiller is any different than a late term abortion?"

It's only a difference is the age of the victim. Tiller had lived longer than the babies who were aborted in late term abortions.

Both perpetrators were wrong...those who killed the younger babies in the womb and those who killed the older Tiller in the church.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 12:24 PM


Prochoicer (you are for the choice to kill),

So we are agreed: Tiller honestly believed he was doing good by killing innocent children, and had the courage of his convictions just like Hitler did. I agree, Tiller was acting on his warped principles and that s quite a different debate than the one about whether the killing of innocent babies is a correct principle or not. You and Tiller thought it was OK. Those of us who understand that babies are created in God's image and deserve life do not think it's OK to kill.

So we have a disagreement on principle there.

I also agree with Jill that Dr. Tiller was a profit-monger. The fact that he could satisfy his "principle" of killing babies while making huge profits was just an added bonus to him. He would have thought it boring to practice plastic surgery or dermatology, because in that case he could not promote his strong desire to kill babies. He was willing to give up a little safety and an easier life for the satisfaction he gained from aborting babies.

I do agree with you, the motives/money question doesn't tell us anything about which side is actually right. It just explains Tillers behavior. But at the same time it is also true that anyone who believes it is OK to kill innocent human beings, who have a heartbeat and feel pain, is morally and factually wrong.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 12:35 PM


Dr. Tiller performed a legitimate medical procedure. He helped women who asked for his help, such as this woman:

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/late.html

Abortion is not a pretty thing. The circumstances that lead to an abortion are awful for both the woman and the fetus. That is why the loss of one of the few doctors willing to perform this service late in the term, and with so much compassion for the women involved, is a terrible loss for women across the country.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 12:39 PM


God's image, I am not sure the good living Dr. Tiller made explains his behavior. He must have known that he stood a good chance of being killed. And there are plenty of prosperous doctors in other, more mundane fields. (By the way, I don't pretend to know anything about the doctor's financial status. But I will take Jill's word for it that he made a good living.)

But either way, making a lot of money in exchange for the work you do does not invalidate other motivations you may have for doing the work. I believe in the value of the work I do (which is not related to abortion) and, sure, my healthy salary is another motivator. So what? Jill is trying to tar Dr. Tiller and other abortion providers for getting paid. I think that's a cheap shot.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 12:49 PM


Pro-choicer,

Why are so few doctors willing to perform late-term abortions?

Posted by: Janet at June 1, 2009 12:50 PM


To kill a woman's child right before the due date is hardly compassionate, PC. George Tiller did abortions right up until a woman's due date.

Circumstances change. When you have your own child killed by an abortionist, for whatever reason, it can never be undone. 5 years after my abortion I realized I could have had that baby. I was married, with a great job and a steady income. My child would be 18 years old today.

Posted by: Carla at June 1, 2009 12:51 PM


Pro-choicer,

Are they lacking compassion?

Posted by: Janet at June 1, 2009 12:51 PM


"Prochoicer"
Come on...you know as well as I do that any pregnant mother with what the law deems a "legitimate life-threatening reason" for aborting so late in pregnancy should have no problem getting a "legitimate abortion doctor" (if you believe that there is such a thing) to take care of aborting her baby. The only reason pregnant mothers were going to Tiller was because he had a nice little setup where he could skirt the law with a "second opinion" from a compromised partner in crime. The women he "helped" wanted abortions for reasons like "wanted a boy" or "don't want stretch marks" or "lost my job" and couldn't get any other butcher to take care of their problem.

It's sickening to listen to you people try to frame this guy as some kind of saint of women's rights. If he cared so much, he would have done the abortions for free.

Posted by: Michelle at June 1, 2009 12:57 PM


Janet,

I think performing later term abortions is kind of like defending inmates on death rown -- except with greater personal risk. Like the defense of murder defendants, this kind of medical practice is extremely controversial, not likely to make you popular, and is extremely depressing. In addition, the abortion doctor must contend with death threats, vandalism, shooting, and assassination.


Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:01 PM


From PP's (C. Richards) own words:

"Dr. Tiller was the epitome of high-quality medical care underscored by deep compassion for his patients... None of this stopped George Tiller from his commitment to providing women and their families with compassionate care that others were unwilling to offer."


Oh c'mon....gimme a break. The guy killed innocent, unborn babies for a living. How much 'compassion' is that??

Posted by: RSD at June 1, 2009 1:03 PM


I am trying to imagine undergoing the horror of an abortion at 26 weeks because I didn't want stretch marks. The existence of such women seems unlikely, Michelle.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:04 PM


Pro-choicer, unlikely perhaps, but these women do exist. Another woman gave "I want to go to a concert" as a reason for her late term abortion.

As much as you may want to believe that only women with health issues or a poor prenatal diagnosis have late term abortions, it is simply not the case.

The majority of these abortions are performed for psychosocial reasons.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:11 PM


"I am trying to imagine undergoing the horror of an abortion at 26 weeks because I didn't want stretch marks. The existence of such women seems unlikely, Michelle.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:04 PM"
-----------------------

A chink in the armor PC? Why shouldn't any reason for an abortion be acceptable? And if abortion is so nuetral, why isn't preventing stretch marks be a valid reason? I mean, according to you, it's just a blob of insentient tissue, right?

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 1:12 PM


PC,
Oh, they didn't go into it thinking it would be a horror, but they realized it during, immediately after, or it hit them years later. So much for informed consent.
Ever had an abortion, PC?

Posted by: Michelle at June 1, 2009 1:13 PM


"In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems."

["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:14 PM


And according to Tiller's spokesperson "About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it."

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:15 PM


I find it difficult to believe there are women dumb enough to wait until the last trimester to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. I thought Dr.Tiller specialized in abortion after poor amnio results such as Down's.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 1:17 PM


Kate, his own spokesperson said that 3/4 of his patients were simply teenagers who denied their pregnancies. I'm sure there are patients who come to him after poor prenatal diagnosis, but they were not his specialty.

Remember that most hospitals will induce labor after a poor prenatal diagnosis, calling such procedure a "theraputic abortion."

Tiller performed abortions on women who would not be able to obtain a theraputic abortion from their local hospital because there was no medical indication for their abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:20 PM


Hi Hisman,

That is a very good question. I do believe that any reason for getting an abortion is morally acceptable in the early stages of pregnancy.

I DO think there is moral ambiguity about when the line should be drawn and valid reasons for late term abortions. But that issue ismoot since you all want to outlaw abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy. Some of you even want to outlaw the pill.

Also, my moral qualms about later term abortions in certain circumstances do not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that they should be denied to women who choose them. There is such a long history of other people trying to control women's reproductive choices, that I am more comfortable trusting women to make their own decisions about matters affecting their body.

Michelle,

I have never had an abortion. I understand that there are women on this site who have had abortions and regret it. But there are plenty of women who have had abortions and DON'T regret it. So I don't think that really proves anything.

I think most people are pretty hip to the fact that undergoing a late term abortion is not exactly like getting your ears pierced. I would like to meet the woman who decided to abort at 26 weeks because of fear of stretch marks.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:26 PM


Ok, then I agree what he did was unethical. I still support the right to therapeutic abortions, but I believe women with unplanned pregnancies have to be responsible, and terminating right before birth when you've had months is not responsible. I was under the impression he helped women suffering with a poor pre-natal diagnosis.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 1:26 PM


Kate,

Tiller DID perform therapeutic abortions. One thing he is famous for is the measures he took to help women grieving for the fetuses they aborted. He would arrange for baptisms in utero, post-abortion funerals, anything that would assist a grieving woman to cope with losing a WANTED child.

Also, the site I linked above ("Kansas Stories") is written by women whose doctors referred to Dr. Tiller from out of state for medically indicated abortions. So clearly these are not always easily available.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:33 PM


Kate, your perception of Tiller and others like him is exactly what has been said of late term abortionists for the past 30 years. It's how they make what they do sympathetic to the general public who have not looked at their actual numbers.

It's a big lie within the abortion community that late term abortions are only performed for theraputic reasons. I'm glad to see that you were willing to accept the truth in this matter. SO often we see people bury their heads in the sand when the truth about these abortions comes out.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:35 PM


Again, Kate, a pregnant mother with a "fatally deformed" baby can get her child killed anywhere locally, even at most "religious" hospitals, including Catholic ones. No reason to jaunt all the way to visit Tiller in Kansas, really, unless your reasons for wanting your child dead are not the "right" reasons. This guys was essentially a state government protected hitman, hiding behind "women's rights". Sick.

Too bad he's gone though. I know God had a plan for him, and I prayed that he would convert to pro-life a la Dr. Nathanson before he eventually died and faced the Lord on his judgment day. The person who killed Tiller was simply wrong, and will pay a hefty price for his mistake. Unfortunately, the pro-life community will also pay a steep price.

Posted by: Michelle at June 1, 2009 1:39 PM


Prochoicer, no one is saying that Tiller NEVER performed theraputic abortions. But, by his own admission, 3/4th of his clients were simply teenagers who denied thier pregnancies until they became apparant.

The bulk of his clients were not there for theraputic reasons.

As for his baptisms, those were perhaps the most evil part of all. He led vunerable women to kill their children with the assurance that they could do so in a way that was ok with God. He also killed Christin Gilbert, a young lady with Down Syndrome.

For all of this,along with his constant disregard for even the modest laws in place, George Tiller deserved to spend the rest of his life in a jail. He didn't deserve to be gunned down in his church.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 1:41 PM


I am trying to imagine undergoing the horror of an abortion at 26 weeks because I didn't want stretch marks. The existence of such women seems unlikely, Michelle.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:04 PM----------------------------------------------------------- PCer, listen. My girrlfriend had an abortion tears ago. She made some small talk with another young woman who was also having an abortion. The woman told her "I don't want to lose my figure." So, yes. These reasons are indeed given and acceptable. You don't need a good reason to kill. Just a credit card and an excuse. The sad fact is that you can always work out after giving birth out and regain your figure.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 1:43 PM


*sorry about the typos*

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 1:47 PM


Heather, I don't know. "Not wanting to lose your figure" and "not wanting stretch marks" underline why abortion is so important. It is about a woman's sovereignty over her own body, rather than being forced to give up her body for someone else's use. Pregnancy is a big deal! It is not a walk in the park. So I don't think not wanting to undergo the physical strains of pregnancy, even a normal pregnancy, is frivolous. In other words, I don't think we should HAVE to justify our decisions on abortion or childbirth for others' approval of our reasons. (After all, people also have children for frivolous reasons and without fully understanding what they are getting into.)

Yes, I do think that women SHOULD make every effort to figure this stuff out before the pregnancy progresses into the later stages. But I sympathize with the teenager who, through sheer ignorance, was unaware that she was pregnatn until later in the pregnancy or was unable to arrange for medical services in the early stages.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 1:58 PM


Hey Girls,

Sorry to bust all your bubbles, but there's no difference between an embryo and George Tiller or me and George Tiller, or you and an embryo.

What's the commonality? Well, it's not us, it's not even our humanity. It's God...He's the commonality and we are all made in His likeness and image. Take God out of the picture of any situation and well, any evil whatsoever can be justified.

Every single murder, be it the murder of a born person or an unborn person cheats us all of the life that God intended to grace this earth with.

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 2:10 PM


Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 12:49 PM said "making a lot of money in exchange for the work you do does not invalidate other motivations you may have for doing the work."

I agree. Tiller liked the large sums of money he made for killing innocent girls and boys, so he was motivated by money and a desire to kill babies. I don't understand why your intellectual separation of the two motivations makes you feel better about making a lot of money to kill babies.

I think Jill was right to point out the multiple, all bad motivations for destroying human life. I don't see how you think it is a cheap shot to point out the facts.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 2:11 PM


Prochoicer, No.

No, it is not acceptable to kill your child to keep your figure.

No, it is not acceptable to kill your child because you want to engage in magical thinking that you are not pregnant.

No.

When you rip your child, limb by limb from your womb, you are destroying someone else's bodily domain.

Our rights extend only to the point where they do not harm another person. Abortion obviously falls far short of this mark.

There are things in this world that are wrong. Killing your child is wrong. Your right to control your body does not mean you have the right to kill.


Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 2:13 PM


How much extra did Tiller charge for the "baptisms" and funeral services?

Man, this is about as sick, twisted and perverted as I can think.

I guess we'll hear more and more about what Tiller did over his career of terminating 60,000 children.

Somebody with the inside story will certainly write a book.

Yes, our sins do find us out.

Posted by: HisMan at June 1, 2009 2:18 PM


Not every single abortion procedure for every single reason is alike. Comparing induced labor abortions(which doesn't involve ripping anyone limb from limb) done for poor pre-natal diagnosis to a healthy woman aborting a healthy fetus at 36 weeks is like saying throwing Confederate money away is the same thing as throwing suitcases filled will cold hard cash in a fireplace.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 2:18 PM


I agree. Tiller liked the large sums of money he made for killing innocent girls and boys, so he was motivated by money and a desire to kill babies. I don't understand why your intellectual separation of the two motivations makes you feel better about making a lot of money to kill babies.

It doesn't. That's my whole point. The money is irrelevant to whether you or I believe abortion is good or bad. People make a lot of money doing good things. People also make a lot of money doing bad things. The money isn't the issue when assessing the conduct itself. Jill is the one trying to make out that it is.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 2:21 PM


Kate 2:18 pm

Wow.

Just...Wow.

Posted by: Michelle at June 1, 2009 2:22 PM


TheOnlyThing2Fear asked "Can somebody explain to me how this act of violence on late term abortionist George Tiller is any different than a late term abortion?"

Besides the age difference in the victims, there is another difference.

Killing Mr. Tiller or other abortionists is currently against the law, and rightly so. So, law enforcement agents tracked down the perp and will try, convict and punish him, as they should.

If there were a group of people who's goal was to make the killing of abortionists "safe, legal and rare", I would fight against that group. If there were a political party who's platform was that certain humans had the right to kill other humans because they are "inconvenient" or because we "disagreed with them", then I would fight against that political party.

If there were a President who argued with high-sounding political weasel-words that somehow, protecting the lives of abortionists by offering them medical care after a botched assassination attempt might be a slippery slope to taking away other rights, then I would fight against that President and hope that he would fail in pushing that philosophy.

If someone were asked "do you think it was right or wrong to kill Dr. Tiller?", and they answered "that is above my pay grade", I would disavow that person and question their morals.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 2:23 PM


poor prenatal diagnosis is translated as: the child will likely be born with Downs, Trisomy 18, anencephaly or anything else that would make him or her "imperfect". That's NOT an excuse for abortion.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 1, 2009 2:25 PM


As for his baptisms, those were perhaps the most evil part of all. He led vunerable women to kill their children with the assurance that they could do so in a way that was ok with God.

I don't think that Dr. Tiller ever purported to be a clergyman, or that his patients believed him to be one. That is just a ludicrous idea. I don't think any of his patients believed he had some special pipeline to God. I think that he helped facilitate whatever ceremonies or commemorations the women felt were necessary according to their own faiths and religious beliefs. You guys are always talking about how cold and heartless abortion providers are to their women patients; yet, when an abortion provider shows sensitivity to the grief his patient has over her loss, you demonize him for that, too!

I also don't buy for a second, not a second, that Dr. Tiller "led" women to kill their children. These women walked into his clinic on their own two feet asking for his services.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 2:30 PM


Prochoicer said People make a lot of money doing good things. People also make a lot of money doing bad things. The money isn't the issue when assessing the conduct itself. Jill is the one trying to make out that it is.

In this case the large sums of money Tiller made for killing innocent babies is an issue. The false hope that he might have killed the babies anyway, even without the large sums of money, doesn't make me feel any better about the evil he perpetrated.

But Jill is right, we have to look at the totality of the evil...not only did he kill babies, but he also made it into a big profit making scheme for himself.

That is sick.

I think you are grasping at straws to try to impugn Jill for mentioning the money he made, instead of focusing on the real issue at hand, which is that he was paid to kill babies. Your intellectual detachment in the face of 50 million bloody corpses is beyond belief.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 2:31 PM


Prochoicer, are you kidding me? I know FOR A FACT that women were led to abort at Tiller's clinic because he offered baptismal services. They felt that this was an important consideration and that the fact that Tiller offered it showed that they could have the abortion and still hold on to their Christian beliefs.

He knew exactly what he was doing by offering baptismal services. He was assuaging guilt. In the abortion business, guilt leads to lower profits.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 2:36 PM


Calling Downs an "imperfection" is the understatement of the year for this site! My sister is deaf in one ear, and she calls that an imperfection. Comparing women who terminate because of DS to women who want to avoid stretch marks(which do suck) just makes you lose credibility with the mainstream.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 2:37 PM


Kate, we are not going to get back on the eugenics merry go round with you. People with down syndrome are human beings deserving of life. Period. End of story. The fact that YOU believe they should be snuffed out makes YOU lose credibility with the mainstream.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 2:40 PM


90% of women diagnosed with DS pregnancy agree with me. I guess 10% is your idea of mainstream.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 2:43 PM


Prochoicerforkilling said "I do believe that any reason for getting an abortion is morally acceptable in the early stages of pregnancy.

Of course "early stages" is a relative term. You admit that there is "moral ambiguity about when the line should be drawn and valid reasons for late term abortions."

ProChoicer, if you have qualms because abortion is wrong, surely it is wrong because it is the unjust taking of the life of a developing human being. And ProChoicer, if one believes that, then what could possibly justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice?

Of course, ProChoicer, if abortion is not a form of homicide, if the developing embryo or fetus has the moral status of an unwanted growth —- such as a tumor -— there would be no grounds on which to ‘personally oppose’ abortion or "have qualms"

So ProChoicer, the question is this: Is the developing embryo or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted growth? ProChoicer, notice that this is not a religious or even an ethical question. It is a question of human embryology and developmental biology.

So, you admit you have moral qualms about later term abortions yet you say people should still be allowed to kill in spite of the obvious moral problems with killing.

Then you go on to say we should trust certain people to decide if it's OK to kill another person. Would you say the same thing about the killer of Dr. Tiller? Would you say there are cases where we should just trust the decisions of certain people and not intrude on their personal decision to off an abortionist?

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 2:45 PM


Kate, a great many of those 90% are pressured to abort by their doctors. Most people do not support eugenics.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 2:53 PM


HisMan stated..."...Sorry to bust all your bubbles, but there's no difference between an embryo and George Tiller or me and George Tiller, or you and an embryo."

FINALLY! Someone on this blog really gets it. I have asked repeatedly for anyone that frequents Stanek's blog to tell me what part of the egg, sperm, embryo, zygote, fetus, etc. is NOT part of the baby outside of the womb. Psychobabble is the common thread.

This is not hard. People, in their own lust to define right and wrong, and to get noticed for it is what make this hard for them.

My man...HisMan!!!!

Posted by: TheOnlyThing2Fear at June 1, 2009 3:05 PM


Prochoicer, are you kidding me? I know FOR A FACT that women were led to abort at Tiller's clinic because he offered baptismal services. They felt that this was an important consideration and that the fact that Tiller offered it showed that they could have the abortion and still hold on to their Christian beliefs.

He knew exactly what he was doing by offering baptismal services. He was assuaging guilt. In the abortion business, guilt leads to lower profits.

Lauren, so the women were "led" to abort because of the baptismal services offered at Dr. Tiller's clinic. Uh-huh. What were they doing there in the first place, I wonder?

I think maybe these women who are telling you they were "led" to having an abortion should be a little more honest with themselves. They wanted that abortion, and now they feel guilty, so they point the finger at someone else and say, "He made me do it."

Women who find themselves in the terrible situation of unwanted pregnancy have my compassion. Women who abort have my compassion. Women who feel guilty after abortion after my compassion. But my compassion wears thin very quickly when a woman blames her doctor for showing her compassion when providing her services SHE requested.

Would you be happier if Dr. Tiller said, "I won't lift a finger to help you get a baptism that you fervently believe your baby needs?"

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:12 PM


Oops, my prior comment had the italics in the wrong place. The following should be correct:

Prochoicer, are you kidding me? I know FOR A FACT that women were led to abort at Tiller's clinic because he offered baptismal services. They felt that this was an important consideration and that the fact that Tiller offered it showed that they could have the abortion and still hold on to their Christian beliefs.

He knew exactly what he was doing by offering baptismal services. He was assuaging guilt. In the abortion business, guilt leads to lower profits.

Lauren, so the women were "led" to abort because of the baptismal services offered at Dr. Tiller's clinic. Uh-huh. What were they doing there in the first place, I wonder?

I think maybe these women who are telling you they were "led" to having an abortion should be a little more honest with themselves. They wanted that abortion, and now they feel guilty, so they point the finger at someone else and say, "He made me do it."

Women who find themselves in the terrible situation of unwanted pregnancy have my compassion. Women who abort have my compassion. Women who feel guilty after abortion after my compassion. But my compassion wears thin very quickly when a woman blames her doctor for showing her compassion when providing her services SHE requested.

Would you be happier if Dr. Tiller said, "I won't lift a finger to help you get a baptism that you fervently believe your baby needs?"

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:14 PM


Gaah. For some reason, it won't let me put the italics where I want it. I just want to make clear that Lauren said the following, NOT me:

"He knew exactly what he was doing by offering baptismal services. He was assuaging guilt. In the abortion business, guilt leads to lower profits."

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:16 PM


I find it very strange that a man who killed babies for a living would offer baptism services. He was trying to cover his own bloody tracks up......I'm killing your baby because "if I don't, you'll never get your figure back" but to make you feel better about this "Heart wrenching" decision, "Luc" here will baptize your baby after I've done the deed.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 1, 2009 3:18 PM


God's Image,

I also have moral qualms about a man who wouldn't give up a kidney for his child. But I would not oppose any law requiring him to give up his kidney against his will.

Unlike His Man, I also DO see a huge difference between an embryo and Dr. Tiller. I do not place the embryo in the same category as you, me, Dr. Tiller or any sentient person.

I am appalled that if I wake up pregnant tomorrow, you all would find the zygote's life far more valuable than anything I may have planned, any health issues I may have, any desires I may have for the use of my body, etc.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:20 PM


Liz,

I doubt the woman concerned about her "figure" is the same woman who wants her fetus baptized. No one ever seems to want to remember the woman who is aborting because the baby is going to be still born, or born without a brain, or because his birth will threaten her own life.

I can't wrap my head around the notion of demonizing a doctor for providing the option for a religious ritual his patients deem important.

Posted by: Prochoicer@yahoo.com at June 1, 2009 3:26 PM


I may be wrong, but I don't think you can baptize a Christian baby that is deceased. I think a general blessing would be in order.

Posted by: Janet at June 1, 2009 3:26 PM


Janet,

That is correct. You can not baptized a deceased.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 1, 2009 3:28 PM


Prochoicerforkilling, you asked "Would you be happier if Dr. Tiller said, "I won't lift a finger to help you get a baptism that you fervently believe your baby needs?"

Yes, I would be happier. There is a special place in hell for those who try to give the killing an air of "Christianity" as Dr. Tiller did.

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. Mark 9:42


Why couldn't he just be honest and tell women, "look, I don't believe this 'God' mumbo-jumbo, we are just evolved apes and there is nothing after we die, so we might as well kill the kid if that would be more convenient for your life".

Instead he puts the trappings of religion around the abortion, like somehow it is OK to kill as long as you have this or that ceremony around it.

What would you say if one of us praised Scott Roeder for "baptising" Dr. Tiller or praying for him before he shot him? Would that mean we have more compassion for the assassin because at least he did some religious things while he killed a guy?

How about if churches started offering to preside over religious services to any other abortion killers that are out there?

Then after they killed again we could post nice, compassionate thoughts on web sites, praising the churches for at least having the compassion to do something that the killer fervently believed that they wanted.

You think it might influence some who are unsure whether they should kill or not, if the church offered their blessing in a ceremony surrounding the murder?

Same thing holds true for women unsure if they want to kill their babies when they went to Tiller. Offering the baptism was a nice marketing inducement to have their abortion there, like free coffee and donuts in the waiting room of a car repair shop.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 3:30 PM


Hey Bobby,
Thank you.

Posted by: Janet at June 1, 2009 3:35 PM


Prochoicer, yes I would be MUCH happier if Tiller had not provided fraudulant baptisms. Those services pushed women on the line over the edge to abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 3:35 PM


Wait, they are fraudulent baptisms, now?
What does that even mean?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:40 PM


A baptism done on a deceased is invalid. That means all that you're doing is simply pouring water on someone and saying some words and that's it. (Isn't that all baptism is anyway? hahahahahahaha... k, glad we got that "joke" out of the way) There would be no removal of original sin and no sanctifying grace on the deceased because they are already dead and their eternal fate is already decided.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 1, 2009 3:42 PM


ProchoicerForKilling said, "I also have moral qualms about a man who wouldn't give up a kidney for his child. But I would not oppose any law requiring him to give up his kidney against his will."

Given your pro-abortion stance, I think you meant to say you WOULD oppose any law requiring him to give up his kidney against his will.

But that's a false analogy. I would not force a man to give up a kidney either. But if the man said, "I am going to dismember and kill my child because it is too much trouble for me to live with a child who needs dialysis", then I would oppose a law that said that was OK, as long as the man would have to endure some emotional discomfort. Wouldn't you?

Then you go on to say "Unlike His Man, I also DO see a huge difference between an embryo and Dr. Tiller. I do not place the embryo in the same category as you, me, Dr. Tiller or any sentient person."

But I noticed you never answered the question, ProChoicer, the question is this: Is the developing embryo or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted growth? ProChoicer, notice that this is not a religious or even an ethical question. It is a question of human embryology and developmental biology.

Answer the question.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 3:44 PM


BTW, Not implying you would make that joke, PCer, just throwing it out there in general.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 1, 2009 3:44 PM


Why couldn't he just be honest and tell women, "look, I don't believe this 'God' mumbo-jumbo, we are just evolved apes and there is nothing after we die, so we might as well kill the kid if that would be more convenient for your life".

Well, apparently, Dr. Tiller DID believe in this God mumbo-jumbo, as he was attending a Lutheran church service when he was shot. (He may also have believed in evolution. I don't know.)

But I doubt Dr. Tiller's personal belief had much to do with providing the baptisms. I don't think Lutherans even believe in "in utero" baptisms. The point is that he was providing what the WOMEN wanted based on THEIR beliefs. I would guess that he might just as easily bring in a New Age Shaman to say a prayer over crystals if that is what the woman would find comforting.

Yeah, it comes down to whether you think abortion is right or wrong. What I don't get is the notion that providing someone with religious rituals they want is somehow coercive, or bad. I am an atheist myself, but I would bring in Roman Catholic priests, Wiccan priestesses, or whatever if I were in a position to make someone feel better during a trying time in her life.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:50 PM


I think Tiller offered the extra services such as "baptism" etc at his clinic for two reasons only:

1. to legitimize what he was doing - that is to give his business of killing fully formed, viable human babies who definitely suffered tremendously during the abortion, a veneer of respect

2. to induce (no pun intended) vulnerable women to abort at his clinic because they would have the "extra comfort" of knowing they did this and that and the other for their "babies" who they killed. :(

Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 3:53 PM


Prochoicer, I can't tell if you honestly don't understand our objection to Tiller's baptisms, or if you're just being intentionally obtuse.

Either way, I'll try again to explain.

Our objection is that those faux baptisms resulted in women having abortions who would not have had them had the service not been offered.

Having a clergymen on staff made some women feel that they could both have an abortion and be in good standing with their faith.

That is why we have a problem with the practice. It legitmized abortion as a Christian option in the minds of vulnerable women.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 3:57 PM


Bobby Bambino,

Well, yeah. I assumed Tiller was providing in utero baptisms, which I understand are a known Roman Catholic ritual. I still assume this to be the case, but either way surely the woman should know what is called for in her OWN religious tradition. If she says, "Hey, I would feel better if you sprinkled some water on the deceased tissue and said a prayer," well, why not? How is that "fraudulent?"

I sincerely doubt that Dr. Tiller ever held himself out to be a religious authority.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 3:57 PM


I don't think Dr. Tiller attending a Lutheran church service proves that he did believe in God. The fact that he dedicated his life to killing babies created in God's image, and even going as far as to throw in a free religious ceremony if that "closed the deal" for him, would argue otherwise.

Your argument that he would throw in any religious ceremony, or free ice cream or a discount on new tires, "whatever the customer wants", doesn't make the transaction any less evil.

And I noticed you STILL are not answering the question. You say "it comes down to whether you think abortion is right or wrong"

But I didn't ask you if you think abortion is right or wrong.

I asked you this: Is the developing embryo or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted growth?

ProChoicer, notice that this is not a religious or even an ethical question. It is a question of human embryology and developmental biology.

Answer the question.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 3:58 PM


Prochoicer, it's fradulent because it's not a valid baptism. Scripture has laid out what constitutes a valid baptism. What occured at Tiller's clinic did not fit the bill.

Of course, this fact was missed by the women who choose to have the service.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 3:59 PM


Eugenics involves govenment interference. Most of those women just don't want to raise a DS child. No doctor can force a woman to do anything. They are free to do all the research they want and decide as they wish. I doubt they've never met DS person or known those who raise them.

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 4:02 PM


Kate, are you kidding me?

I've received a poor prenatal diagnosis. Doctors don't merely suggest. They pain as bleak a picture as possible and urge. They then make you feel as uncomfortable as possible during subsequent prenatal visits.

Women are NOT given accurate, reliable information after receiving a poor prenatal diagnosis. They're told "let's induce labor, you can always have another baby."

Also, there is no government requirement in eugenics. A corporation (like planned parenthood) can begin a eugenic movement.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:05 PM


"I assumed Tiller was providing in utero baptisms, which I understand are a known Roman Catholic ritual."

No, it actually is not a Catholic ritual or tradition.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 1, 2009 4:05 PM


Lauren,

I guess I am interested in the fact that you can't seem to recognize that religious services may have been provided to women out of compassion for THEIR feelings, as opposed to some more sinister motive.

It almost sounds as though you are saying that ANY effort to be kind to a woman in this situation is coercive. Under your logic, giving her a soft blanket to lie on, or speaking to her kindly, might "lead" her to have an abortiom. It is almost as if you are demanding that Dr. Tiller be cruel to women who are in desperate situations in order not to "lead" them to have abortions.

I also have a problem with the notion of "faux baptisms." The legitimacy of a baptism depends on what religious tradition you are from. A Lutheran might say that an "in utero" Catholic batism is illegitimate. A Catholic might say that only baptisms performed by Roman Catholic priests are legitimate. Some Protestants might say that baptism only counts when chosen by a sentient child or adult. There may even be some church out there that permits baptisms of the recently deceased. So it really is up to the woman to figure out what she wants based on HER religious beliefs. I don't see how Dr. Tiller can be accused of leading her astray.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 4:15 PM


Bobby,

I don't purport to know RC ritual. My mother personally knew women who feared miscarriage and arranged for "in utero" baptism -- so clearly SOMEONE believes in this.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 4:18 PM


Nice try, prochoicer.

Offering comfort services and being a competent doctor is not leading someone astray.

Telling a Christian woman that she is not only sinless in killing her child, but can also perform relgious rites to that child is beyond deceptive.

Insert a 3 year old child for the 8 month old preborn. The issue is obvious.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:20 PM


Sure, I know you were just letting me know what you heard. And there may be some who would like to have their children baptized in utero, but it isn't a tradition of the Church to baptize in utero. If they did, it would be valid and legit, but it just simply isn't the normal way the Church does things. That is all.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 1, 2009 4:21 PM


God's Image,

You asked me something about whether fetuses or embryos are "human beings." You characterized this as simply a biological question. I think that fetuses and embryos are living human entities, yes. They are of the human species, and they are alive. So sure, in that sense, they are human beings.

That does not answer the question of what point we should place the same value on them as on you or me. I DO see a difference between an embryo with no feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history and the woman carrying the embryo.

That also does not answer the question of when the woman's right to defend her own body ends. You wouldn't force a man to give up his kidney to save his son. You also would not allow a man to kill his son because he cannot raise him.

I would submit that the former is a closer analogy to abortion than the latter. You want women to submit their bodies to the use of the embryo lest the embryo die. But you wouldn't ask a man to give up a kidney for his own child that he brought into the world, even if it means his child would die.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 4:24 PM


Having a clergymen on staff made some women feel that they could both have an abortion and be in good standing with their faith.

That is why we have a problem with the practice. It legitmized abortion as a Christian option in the minds of vulnerable women.
Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 3:57 PM

I quite agree.

The RCC does not do such a thing as in utero baptisms. good grief.
If a woman miscarries and the baby is delivered alive provided the aminiotic sac is opened and the water poured on the baby's head.

Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 4:31 PM


You're setting up the situation in a flawed manner, pro-choicer.

The issue is really about neglect. Parents are obligated to provide food, shelter and medical care to their children regardless of the expense of their own rights.

For example, I can't set my son out on the back porch for the day in order to exercise my right to privacy. Certain adult rights are pushed aside in order to provide for a child.

During pregnancy the only way to avoid neglecting the child is for the woman to remain pregnant. Her body serves as a vehicle for nutrients, as well as a home for her child. The child's medical needs are also able to be dealt with only by going through the mother.

In order to not neglect her child, the mother must partially give up certain rights during the pregnancy just as she will give up certain rights during that child's life outside the womb.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:32 PM


Telling a Christian woman that she is not only sinless in killing her child, but can also perform relgious rites to that child is beyond deceptive.

First, I do not believe for a second that Dr. Tiller made any such representation.

Second, there ARE Christian denominations that condone abortion, at least in some circumstances. For example, the Episcopalians and Lutherans condone abortion in some cases. ( http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=351 )

While these situations are tough, these women are not toddlers. I would expect any woman with religious beliefs to be able to figure out her own conscience on abortion and to investigate her faith's teachings on that issue. It isn't the doctor's job to tell her that her religion disapproves of what she is doing.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 4:33 PM


It is neglect if you don't allow your embryo to live in your uterus for nine months.

But it is not neglect if you don't allow your child to have your kidney or bone marrow which he desperately need in order to stay alive.

I think this distinction has a lot to do with the fact that the former is asked only of woman, but the latter is asked of men as well. Suddenly, when a man's body is involved, it becomes obvious that a mandatory invasion and use of someone's body should not be coerced. But it seems to me that if you can argue that by having sex, I consented to an invasion of my body to another human being for nine months (with all the attendant discomfort, pain, and health risks), then surely a man who brought a child into the world should be charged with child neglect if he does not give of his body such that the child may live.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 4:40 PM


ProchoicerForKilling,
You said "You asked me something about whether fetuses or embryos are "human beings."

I didn't ask you "something". I asked you this: Is the developing embryo or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted growth?

Then you admitted that yes, fetuses and embryos are living human entities, of the human species, and they are alive and are human beings.

Then you go on to try to justify killing one group of human being or another, because of the "value" you place on them, based on their "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history and the woman carrying the embryo"

Now we understand why you have "qualms" about killing these human beings, because in your heart you know it is wrong to kill another human.

You say the developing embryo is a “human being”. Then how can you and Democrat politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice as to kill them?

ProChoicer, were you ever an embryo? Were you a fetus? Were you an adolescent?

ProChoicer, if ‘I’ was not an embryo or fetus, neither was ‘I’ once an infant. To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became ‘me’ would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we say ‘I’ began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing?

ProChoicer, if your philosophy is true, that we can decide which humans to kill based on their "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history", then the answer to “where we draw the line” won’t be ‘birth,’ Will it be six months after birth? A year? Two years? Three? After all, when does a child achieve thoughts, beliefs, and desires?

Pro-choice people like ProChoicer on this forum must now confront an uncomfortable fact: The logical implications of your position entail believing that killing three-year-old children is morally acceptable.


Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 4:43 PM


Prochoicer,

Yes there are Christian denominations that are fallen and support mother's killing their own children. That does not mean that the view is congruent with Christian teaching.

Having a clergeyman on staff legitimized the killings in the eyes of scared, probably nominally Christian women. There are no two ways about it. He inserted Christianity into his abortion mix.

I believe he did so in order to secure business. Maybe he was not so nefarious and simply wanted to provide a service. His motives aren't important. What is important is the fact that this practice led women to kill their children. For that he is culpable.

You're right that these women should know better. However, todays society has brainwashed many women into thinking that the children in their womb are simply globs of cells. The concept of baptism is often enough to quiet any lingering voices inside the woman's head telling her that what she's doing is wrong.

When you have society, church leaders, and doctors telling you an action is fine, it's often hard to hear your own conscience.

Of course, the chuch leaders are a whole 'nother topic. Sufice it to say that my feelings on them mirror mine toward Tiller's baptisms.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:44 PM


No, pro-choicer it has NOTHING to do with gender.

Nothing at all.

We are required only to provide ordinary care for our children. We give them nutrients, clothing, a bed to sleep in ect.

If their own body malfunctions, we are obligated to get them medical care. We are not obligated to supply them with extra organs or marrow, even if witholding these things results in their death.

Pregnancy represents ordinary care. We are providing only nutrients and housing. We are not permenantly removing an organ to replace one that has failed in our child.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:52 PM


Pregnancy represents ordinary care. We are providing only nutrients and housing. We are not permenantly removing an organ to replace one that has failed in our child.
Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 4:52 PM

I would also add that the child has a right to be there since the uterus is the only place at this time that it can exist.

Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 4:56 PM


Lauren,

The ordinary care standard seems kind of arbitrary. It does remind me of those occasions when a mother's drudgery is just seen as "ordinary" and in the nature of things, but when dad takes the kids for an afternoon or washes a dish, he is seen as a hero. (In fairness, plenty of men do a lot of drudgery too, but culturally, we tend to take women's work a bit for granted.)

Also, not every pregnancy is ordinary. Dr. Tiller cares for women who might die if they carry the pregnancy to term. You can't tell me that dying in childbirth is "ordinary care."

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 5:06 PM


God's Image,

Yes, I was once a fetus and an embryo -- of course. I was also born before Roe v. Wade and in a place where abortion was not legal. Although I was a wanted child, my mother really didn't have a choice. And that makes me so sad for her. My mother came of age in an era when she basically had few viable options but to get married and have a baby. She was constantly limited and demeaned in a thousand different ways because of her sex, and there really was no question of "choice" in her life, reproductice or otherwise. I mourn the fact that she never had the options I have. What about her life? Does it not matter? To me, it does. Though I like to think she would have had me no matter what, I wish she had lived in an era where her choices were respected.

To me, abortion is a profoundly personal issue. On the one hand, I have never needed one and I doubt I ever will. I have had all the education and access to contraception disappear for a few months from her schooland doctors a girl could hope for. On the other hand, I identify strongly with women in these situations. Years ago my mother saw teenaged girls, her peers, -- taken off to homes and shamed and forced to give birth. She taught me to respect women as much as I respect men. While it took me a while to apply that concept to the issue of abortion, she has convinced me to always support choice for women.

I grieve for Dr. Tiller. I feel that this murder will bring us a step closer to the bad old days of my mother's era, unless the pro-choice community steps up to make sure that doesn't happen.

That having been said, I do not hold his murder against the people on this site. I have to go to a meeting for a couple of hours, but I thank you for this interesting discussion.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 1, 2009 5:07 PM


Prochoicer, stop with the gender war. It has nothing to do with gender.

It is ordinary care because the prenatal period is a ordinary period during a human lifespan. It is not ordinary for someone to experience kidney failure.

Furthermore, no one is against ending a pregnancy if continuing it will lead to the death of the mother. Tiller did not deal with these situations.

His process was to have women dialate slowly in a hotel room over the course of 3 days, have the procedure, and return to the hotel room. We are certainly not talking about emergency situations where everything possible is done to save the lives of both the mother and child, but ultimately the child dies in order to save the mother.

Again, Tiller's practices actually killed at least one woman. Look up Christin Gilbert. She died under Tiller's care.

Posted by: Lauren at June 1, 2009 5:11 PM


The ordinary care standard seems kind of arbitrary.

well if you wanna talk about "arbitrary", don't you think that pro"choicers" have the corner taken on what's arbitrary. After all you guys are the ones that have arbitrarily decided that it is a woman who can arbitrarily decide when a human unborn child becomes a person. Most of you have arbitrarily decided that personhood begins on the other side of the cervix. This arbitrary standard is set despite sound FACTS from science and sound REASONING from philosophy.

Now that's arbitrary.
Good grief woman, can't you see how little sense your side's position makes in all of this?

Posted by: angel at June 1, 2009 5:42 PM


Kate, I cannot believe that you've just agreed that it's okay for a woman to abort so that she won't lose her friggin figure!!!!! That's assinine! I've had 3 kids, and I never lost mine! That has got to be one of the worst excuses I have ever heard. Hadn't she ever heard of a treadmill or a gym???????????????????????????? Better yet. Why did she lay down and make the unwanted baby?

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 8:24 PM


Kate, I cannot believe that you've just agreed that it's okay for a woman to abort so that she won't lose her friggin figure!!!!! That's assinine! I've had 3 kids, and I never lost mine! That has got to be one of the worst excuses I have ever heard. Hadn't she ever heard of a treadmill or a gym???????????????????????????? Better yet. Why did she lay down and make the unwanted baby?
Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 8:24 PM

heather,
When a person embraces the culture of death they lose their capacity to reason!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at June 1, 2009 8:51 PM


Where did I say that a woman should abort so she won't lose her figure? Learn to read!

Posted by: Kate at June 1, 2009 8:59 PM


Sorry, Kate. It was Pro-choicer who said that! My apologies.

Posted by: heather at June 1, 2009 9:27 PM


ProchoicerForKilling,
I am glad you admitted that yes, you were once a fetus and an embryo. But why did you sidestep my valid, logical questions? The first was, since you admit that the baby girls and boys that Tiller killed, that Obama supported the killing of, and that you supported and voted for, are living human beings, how can you and Democrat politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice as to kill these innocent children?

The second question you failed to answer is: since you admitted that you were once an embryo and a fetus, and then an infant, logically you admit that to have destroyed you at any stage, when you were an embryo, fetus or infant, or your age today, would have been to destroy you. So the question you failed to answer was, at what point then do we say ‘you’ began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing?

If we follow your philosophy of allowing some killing based on the persons ability to have "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history", then the answer to “where we draw the line” won’t be ‘birth,’ Will it be six months after birth? A year? Two years? Three? After all, when does a child achieve thoughts, beliefs, and desires?

So in your answer, you did not confront the uncomfortable fact that the logical implications of your position entail believing that killing three-year-old children is morally acceptable.

Then you go on to tell a sob story that murdering innocent children was "illegal" when you were born, and when you ponder that your mother was not able to kill innocent children at will, that "makes me so sad for her."

You are sad because your mom didn't have the "option" to dismember the child growing in her womb that is totally dependent on her for care.

Then you go on to say that your mom was constantly limited and demeaned in a thousand different ways because of her sex, and somehow now, thanks to Obama and his 3 votes, that we have laws that say its OK to withhold medical care from live born babies who are breathing and feel pain, that we can all heave a collective sigh of relief that your mom's oppression has been avenged.

Then you talk about "her life? Does it not matter?" Yes of course it matters, we love them both. But caring about the mother does not extend to not caring about the other human being she wants to kill.

I do not want to live in an era where the "choice" to dispose of innocent life is "respected".

I agree, abortion is a profoundly personal issue, especially to the person you purport to kill. When they see the abortionists knife coming in to kill them, believe me, it is very personal!

Then you go on to say that you "have never needed" to kill anyone and you "doubt you ever will." Well, that's good news. But you do want to leave that option to kill open, just in case, right?

I identify strongly with women in these situations, as well as the innocent children whose lives are at stake.

Years ago your mother saw teenaged girls give birth to some wonderful human beings. Today, thanks to a few liberal judges who made new laws in opposition to the will of the people, those young innocent human beings won't get the chance at life. My mother taught me to respect women as much as I respect men, that is why I fight to protect the young men and women who are at risk to be killed by abortion. While it took me a while to apply that concept to the issue of abortion, my mom has convinced me to always support life for women and men growing in the womb.

I grieve for Dr. Tiller. I feel that this murder will do nothing to stop abortion, but it will keep us in today's "bad old days" of continuing murder of innocent children, unless the pro-life community steps up to make sure that doesn't happen.

That having been said, I do not hold his murder against the people on this site, as the pro-abortion industry and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media are trying to push. I do not think this is an "interesting discussion", you sit around calmly and intellectually discussing how sad you are your mother didn't have the choice to kill, while the stench of the bloody bodies of innocent children stack up around you.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 9:43 PM


Kate, you tell Eileen to speak with your own words("culture of death is so cliche")

Is that the best you can do, really? The stench of the bloody bodies of 50 million innocent babies pile up around you, and the best you can do is to say that the words we use to object to the killing are not artful enough for you?

Would it make you feel better about all the death if we called it a society of killing instead? How about an attitude of destruction?

Posted by: GodsImage at June 1, 2009 9:57 PM


Gods Image,

I am not sure what question you think I "sidestepped." But you did make a weird claim that somehow I would think it was okay to kill a 3-year old. But a 3-year old is not trying to invade or use my body in any way, so the analogy doesn't stand. In the unlikely event that a 3-year old were trying to shoot you with a gun, you might perhaps be justified in killing the child. See how this works?

Heather,

Sigh. Sure, a woman who is worried about her figure can work out etc. after having a baby. But that's not really the point. The point is that you are advocating that she be forced against her will to undergo a massive transformation of her body involving pain, discomfort, and health risks. Sure, she can accommodate her life to that -- as well as the lifelong responsibility for taking care of a child -- but the point is that she should not have to. I think it is demeaning to say that wanting to control your own body is somehow a trivial desire.

I suppose you are fine with the idea of a man being forced to give up his kidney against his will in order to save his child. What if his only reason for declining to give up his kidney is because he doesn't want an ugly scar? Is it then okay for the state to step and force invasive surgery on him anyway?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 7:08 AM


PCer,
Your analogy is also flawed, because there is a chance that someone else can be found who would be a match for that kidney, and the child's life would still be saved.
Alternately, there is currently no way to transplant an embryo/fetus from his or her mother's womb to another woman.
So, PC, if science comes up with a way to transplant a fetus from one woman to another, with essentially no difference at all in the medical procedure with regard to how invasive it is to the original mother's body, would you still insist that the original mother be entitled to her wish of a dead baby, even with this alternative? I suspect that suddenly, bodily domain will cease to be the crux of your argument, and then the actual existence of the child would be "against the mother's wishes".

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 7:26 AM


Essentially, this is what Obama has advocated when he said that giving life-support to a baby who has been born in spite of an abortion attempt would "go against the original intent of the mother" (I'm paraphrasing here)

I find the whole bodily domain argument to be a straw man argument, because we all know that the ultimate goal is a dead baby, not merely to "not be pregnant anymore". This is proven by the BAIPA controversy.

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 7:30 AM


PCer, wait a second! The woman had sex and knew that pregnancy was possible. Maybe she should have used a rubber if she were that "taken" by the heat of the moment. Maybe she should have been thinking about her figure and stretch marks before sex. This is a very bad excuse for an abortion. I know plenty of women with kids who don't even look like they've had any kids. My pal, Samantha gave birth 8 months ago. She's as thin as a rale!

Posted by: heather at June 2, 2009 7:35 AM


If we extend your analogy, not only would a father be free to withhold his kidney from his dying child, but he would also be free to kill the child for being an inconvenience, even though he would be free to give the child up for adoption and have no further obligation to the child. (oh, wait, only mothers have that right...fathers are on the hook for child support no matter what, no choices for them)

That women are allowed this and men are not is actually quite insulting to me as a woman. It's almost like we are coddled because we are inferior, weak beings who can't be expected to live up to our responsibilities. Poor, poor, weak woman. Ugh. Sickening.

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 7:36 AM


ProchoicerForKilling,
You said "I am not sure what question you think I 'sidestepped.'

The questions you sidestepped were my valid, logical questions. I will put them in boldface like this so you can't pretend to miss them again. The first was, since you admit that the baby girls and boys that Tiller killed, that Obama supported the killing of, and that you supported and voted for, are living human beings, how can you and Democrat politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice as to kill these innocent children?

The second question you failed to answer is: since you admitted that you were once an embryo and a fetus, and then an infant, logically you admit that to have destroyed you at any stage, when you were an embryo, fetus or infant, or your age today, would have been to destroy you. So the question you failed to answer was, at what point then do we say ‘you’ began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing?

Then, ProchoicerForKilling, you go on to say "But you did make a weird claim that somehow I would think it was okay to kill a 3-year old."

But what is so "weird" about airtight logic? You can't wriggle out of the fact that your philosophy of killing some humans based on "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history" can't stand up to logical scrutiny. And you can't wriggle out of that fact just by your name calling.

If we follow your philosophy of allowing some killing based on the persons ability to have "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history", then the answer to “where we draw the line” won’t be ‘birth,’ Will it be six months after birth? A year? Two years? Three? After all, when does a child achieve thoughts, beliefs, and desires?

So, ProchoicerForKilling, you must confront the uncomfortable fact that the logical implications of your position entail believing that killing three-year-old children is morally acceptable.


Then you go on to make the non sequitur that "But a 3-year old is not trying to invade or use my body in any way, so the analogy doesn't stand."

Nice try! First you admit that the baby in the womb is a "living human entities", "of the human species", and "they are alive", "they are human beings." Then you argue that you should be allowed to kill the baby because you don't value him or her, due to his or her lack of "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history".

When we point out that killing a baby in the womb because she lacks "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history" means that you would also have to allow killing babies outside the womb, since they also lack those qualities, you tacitly admit that your previously held position of killing based on a lack of those qualities was wrong.

So you switch to accusing the innocent baby of "invading" your body, like some sort of alien. That reminds me of of Obama saying he would not want to "punish" anyone with a baby. What a sick attitude.

The baby is totally dependent on his mother for life. Abortion involves extraordinary violence -- deliberate dismemberment -- often while the child is still alive. Abortions are also not typical murders in that the victim is not an adult, but a helpless child.

This makes abortion worse than ordinary murder. When we read of troops or terrorists slaughtering the weak -- the very old, the very young, the very disabled -- this seems more inhuman than the killing of vigorous adults. There is something in us that responds to weakness with compassion and deference. When a blind man is robbed of a wallet, our humanity is more deeply injured than when a sighted person has his wallet stolen. The thief has committed an act not only wrong but shameful.

The baby is dependent on the parents to take care of him. But pro-aborts reason that because the unborn child is utterly dependent, he may be killed.

But the most horrific facet of child-killing has yet to be mentioned: betrayal. It is worse for a caretaker (a lifeguard, a nurse, a family member) to kill than for a stranger to do so, because the evil of betrayal is added to the evil of murder. And not just any betrayal. Parental duties are perhaps the most fundamental that we can imagine.

Moreover, by officially authorizing abortion throughout pregnancy, and even into birth, current American law willingly tempts and enables mothers and fathers to turn violently against those little lives that utterly depend on them. Our entire legal system, and those who support it, is itself complicit in an act far worse than ordinary murder.

A mere change in location (in this case, a movement from inside to outside the uterus) cannot result in a change in the inherent nature or dignity of that developing being.

We tear out the roots of human trust when we authorize the killing of our own children.

Trying to justify the killing of innocent, dependent children in the womb, or in Barack Obama's case, outside the womb and breathing, by saying that if a child were trying to shoot you with a gun, you might perhaps be justified in killing the child, makes no logical sense. The innocent child in the womb (or outside in Obama's case) is not trying to shoot you, she is dependent on you for her very life. How can you justify killing an innocent, dependent child who has done nothing to you?

Posted by: GodsImage at June 2, 2009 8:36 AM


Calling your logic "air-tight" does not make it so. Accusing me of ignoring your questions does not mean that I have, in fact, ignored your questions. I think I have made my position quite clear. But here we go again:

The first was, since you admit that the baby girls and boys that Tiller killed, that Obama supported the killing of, and that you supported and voted for, are living human beings, how can you and Democrat politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice as to kill these innocent children?

I do not view abortion as an injustice because the WOMAN's life matters. I DO view the torture of a sentient woman with hopes, dreams, memories, and fears as outweighing the killing of a zygote. You don't like it, but that's what I think. And yes, I think that forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will is physical and emotional torture.

I also don't view killing in self-defense as an injustice either. I also believe some wars are justified. So do most Christians. So just saying that I have said it is okay to end human life does not prove that I have conceded the value judgments you want me to accept.

I also do not view a zygote as morally equivalent to a child. Sorry.

So the question you failed to answer was, at what point then do we say ‘you’ began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on killing?

Objection. Asked and answered. But okay, I will answer it again. After birth there is no justification in killing. I made this quite clear. The issue is whether it is okay to force another person to give up the use of his or her body to another. If you need to suck my blood in order to live, that doesn't give you the right to do so. Your child does not have a right to your kidney or your bone marrow in order to live. My three-year old is not taking up residence in my body last time I checked. But if my three year old were shooting a gun at you, you might be justified in shooting back to defend yourself.

P.S. I am amused that you have accused me of name calling. You are the one calling me "Prochoicer for killing." I could just as easily call you "God's Image/Woman Torturer."

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 9:23 AM


The logic is air-tight because it is airtight, not because I say so.

I only accused you of ignoring my questions because you had, in fact, ignored my questions in your responses and tried to sidestep them.


I asked how you can justify laws that allow you to kill these innocent children. Your answer was basically that you don't view killing an innocent child in the womb as injustice, then you said the woman's life matters. Agreed, both lives matter. You are just willing to kill one of them and I don't want to kill either of them.

Then you go on to try to obfuscate by changing the subject to "killing in self-defense" as if somehow the innocent girl in the womb is attacking the mother with a gun, and she needs to "defend herself".

Then you reiterate your unsustainable, illogical view that even though a zygote, an embro, a fetus, a new born, a child and an adult are all equally living human entities, all equally of the human species, and they are all equally alive and all equally human beings, somehow you make the illogical leap that killing one human is not morally equivalent to killing another human at a different stage in their development. This is just head-in-the-sand forced self-deception to mollify your conscience for the killing by giving it a pseudo-intellectual patina of so-called "logic".

When I asked you at what point do we draw the line on killing, after pretending you already answered you went on to state that "After birth there is no justification in killing."

This statement disagrees with President Obama's 3 votes to withhold medical care to new born, breathing, living, outside-the-womb babies. He voted that they should be left to die in a soiled utility room, and his stated justification was that if we let these babies live, that might be a slippery slope to taking away our "rights" to kill those same babies earlier in their growth cycle.

So the question is, do you disagree with Obama on killing after birth, or will you stick to your statement?

Then you repeated your illogical reference to a child shooting a gun, when a baby in the womb can't shoot a gun at you. You ignored the irrefutable logic I laid out that proved that abortion is worse than ordinary murder, and more shameful, because it is a crime against a helpless baby who is dependent on the parents to take care of him. You did not address the most horrific facet of child-killing: betrayal by the very person who is charged with the care of the helpless baby.

P.S. I am not sure why you are "amused" that you engaged in name calling ("wierd").

"Prochoicer for killing" is just completing your chosen name, not name calling. When you say you are a "prochoicer", you don't say what you are allowing the choice for. I am simply completing your name to make it clear to readers. If you don't like what you are doing then stop promoting the killing of helpless, dependent girls and boys and then your name will change.

As far as calling me "God's Image/Woman Torturer", that does not fit. Baby humans are created in God's image, and neither God nor me torture women. Childbirth is a beautiful, God-given gift that brings life and joy to the world and continues the species. So, nice try, but no cigar.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 2, 2009 12:32 PM


God's Image,

When you have "airtight" logic, you don't need to say you have "airtight" logic. Remember, the English teacher's mantra: Show, don't tell.

My favorite part of your comment was when you decreed that "childbirth is a beautiful thing" - regardless of the views of the woman actually experiencing it. This statement illustrates your complete and utter disregard for the personhood of women.

You then asked me whether I agree that life-saving medical care should be withheld from newborn babies. Of course I don't, you nitwit (okay, now I am name-calling -- but come on!), and you well know it. You also know perfectly well that President Obama never endorsed any such a view either. (The President merely refused to submit to anti-choice demands to vote for a redundant law. I don't claim to know all the details but it would absurd to believe that President Barack Obama believes in killing newborns. This is the kind of thing that makes people think you guys are crazy.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 1:27 PM


PCer,

But WHY don't you believe that it's moral to withhold life-saving medical care from newborns who, like fetuses, have no "feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history"?

P.S. GodsImage; (maybe she needs you to ask her only one questions per post, just to help her focus.)

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 1:51 PM


BTW, PCer, Obama's argument supporting his voting against BAIPA made no mention of the law being redundant; he and his cronies like to use that excuse now that his votes have been widely publicized, to try to assuage the righteous outcry by making it a purely legalistic, letter of the law issue that most people don't feel qualified to understand.

But the truth is (you can listen to the audio yourself) that he simply was against it because he believe that it went against the original intent of the woman (mother), which was to end up with a dead baby, NOT to merely protect her bodily domain.

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 2:00 PM


Michelle,
Exactly. So they follow along like lemmings right over the......

Posted by: Janet at June 2, 2009 2:03 PM


ProchoicerForKilling,
I think Michelle is probably right...I am probably overwhelming you with too much logic and you feel your worldview is imploding under its own weight, because it is logically unsustainable, so you are lashing out and getting angry and calling names.

That is understandable but not acceptable.

You are correct though, first I showed you the airtight logic without naming it as such. You squirmed and obfuscated and lied, you called names and tried to change the subject. When I pointed out that fact and referred to my previous airtight logic, then you went ballistic and said I can't refer to my airtight logic because it makes you look bad.

Then you misquoted me and made fun of childbirth as a beautiful thing, when what I actually said was Childbirth is a beautiful, God-given gift that brings life and joy to the world and continues the species.

I know you think dismembering and then killing the baby girls and boys is a beautiful thing in your worldview, but I will stick with the God-given gift of childbirth. Then you show your complete and utter disregard for the personhood of women and men by authorizing the killing of infant women and men in the womb.

Then you really went off the deep end on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act mistake that Obama made. The question in that case was whether life-saving medical care should be withheld from newborn babies. Obama said he agreed that medical care should be withheld. You said to Obama "Of course I don't, you nitwit"

I urge you to write that up in a note and send it to Obama, because it is well established that Obama voted 3 times to withhold medical care. You seem like a fairly intelligent person and you are on this site, so I'm sure you understand the facts that prove Obama voted that way. Yes, we all heard his weasel words and propaganda saying "there was already a law", "it wasn't the same as the federal bill" blah blah blah. But when we post full and complete answers to all that garbage along with the photocopy of the actual bills, then any one of us can compare them and see Obama is lying.

Of course Obama relies on the mainstream media to regurgitate his propaganda, and he relies on the typical American to not go look it up. But you are not dealing with the typical American here like the ones you see at http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com

You are dealing with people who took logic classes and actually do their own source material reading, not to mention their own critical thinking.

You did at least take a good first step by admitting "I don't claim to know all the details." That is a good first step to admit that you don't know. Since you are on here shooting off your mouth promoting the killing of the unborn, you might want to take a few minutes and find out for sure before you speak.

It is absurd to find out that President Barack Obama believes in killing newborns. This is the kind of thing that makes people think he is evil.

http://bornalivetruth.org/index.php is another good site if you are looking to read source documents and learn the truth, since you admitted you don't know it yet. Check out the Obama pull down menu, you will see all the Obama lies exposed with fact-checking.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 2, 2009 2:17 PM


Thank you Michelle. I actually DON'T catch all of Mr. Image's questions in his posts, as they are rather long and rambling.

First, my main basis for supporting abortion is that I think women should have the right to not be pregnant if they don't want to be. It has to do with the woman's right over her own body. You may not agree, but that is the justification. That justification does nto apply to withholding care from a newborn baby.

Similarly, you can't force me to breastfeed my child, but you can prosecute me if I don't ensure that my child is fed. You can't force me to give my kidney to my child but you can prosecute me if I don't take my child to the doctor when he needs medical care. Our laws respect the inviolability of people's bodies. But you want to force women to give their bodies in sevice of others.

Second, the lack of value I place on the zygote is not necessarily true for later term fetuses or newborn babies. Certainly, newborn babies do have thoughts and feelings. And I imagine fetuses do as well. To me the zygote issue is not the main justification for abortion. Abortion is justified by the woman's right to her body. However, the fact that "pro-lifers" would prohibit even abortion of a zygote magnifies the callousness of the pro-life position. The fact that you would force a teenaged girl or a woman undergo pregnancy, childbirth, and lifelong responsibility for another human being based on the meeting of a sperm and an egg which do not yet have any senses or thoughts seems remarkably callous.

As I have said repeatedly, the moral issues change as the embryo develops into a fetus, but I don't think anyone else can make those moral decisions for the woman. Don't forget these late-term abortions involve incredibly heartbreaking situations.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 2:25 PM


Mr. Image,

I will let any interested readers judge our exchange for themselves, though I am sure that those who oppose choice will pronounce you the winner and I will admit that forced pregnancy makes me angry, although I have seen far more evidence of anger in your posts than mine. But I am sure you have learned in your logic classes that the emotional demeanor of the speaker is not evidence either way of whether he or she is right or wrong.

Similarly, Obama's position on some piece of Illinois legislation is not really evidence either way of whether my position on abortion is right or wrong. It is just an argument about Obama, and I have never posted here as an Obama supporter. See how this works?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 2:41 PM


PC,
So the next logical question to you is: when, exactly, do unborn human beings earn the right to live? Day 43? Day 75? Day 200? Five minutes before natural birth? At the very moment of induced birth?

They either ALL have a right to life, or NONE have a right to life. And if no unborn person has a right to life, and you're simply basing that on the random criteria of whether they are sentient, then please, AGAIN, why are newborns NOT on your hit list, too?

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 2:41 PM


Michelle,

I think I have explained repeatedly why my justification for abortion does not apply to newborns. Newborns are not using my body parts to sustain their life against my will. A zygote, embryo, or fetus is.

So the next logical question to you is: when, exactly, do unborn human beings earn the right to live? Day 43? Day 75? Day 200? Five minutes before natural birth? At the very moment of induced birth?

At birth! See above.

If I, an adult woman, needed to live inside your uterus in order to survive, I think you would have the right to kill me to get me out of your uterus.

That having been said, I DO believe that women have a moral obligation to figure out whether they want to continue a pregnancy before it goes too far. I personally would probably not have an abortion after the first trimester. But I am not going to second guess some other woman's situation or reasoning.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 2:48 PM


Michelle,

You mentioned an audio where Obama says something about withholding medical care from newborns in order to honor the mother's intent. I WOULD be curious to hear that if you have a link. (I am not at a computer with audio at the moment, but will be later.) I read Obama's comments at one of the links provided by Mr. Image, and they didn't say anything like that.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 3:04 PM


The link to the audio of Obama's speech on the floor of the Illinois legislature arguing against BAIPA is on the home page of Jill's blog; you know...the blog you're on right now?

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/baipaobamamp3.html

So, again, what is it about the unborn human being that magically changes (for you, personally) between the last day of the first trimester, and the first day of the second trimester, that would suddenly inspire you to give him or her the right to be born?

You are aware the human gestation can vary wildly from one mother to the next...so arbitrarily assigning a particular day into the pregnancy when the unborn suddenly fit some random definition of "worthy" is really just semantics. You're just playing with facts to fit your own sick idea of what you've been told constitutes feminism.

The fact is that women will never achieve equality on the back of their dead babies.

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 3:24 PM


ProChoicerForDeath,

Why do you keep repeating "See how this works?" right after some nonsensical statement of yours that is exactly opposite of "how this works"?

It's not about interested readers judging our exchange or pronouncing one of us the winner. It is about YOU finding the truth and abandoning your failed worldview in favor of it.

You say you see "evidence of anger in your posts" but you offer no examples because there are none. I think you have fallen victim to the Truman syndrome, it just feels like anger to you because "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

You are right, thought, your anger, your emotional demeanor is not evidence either way of whether you are right or wrong. Your anger just proves your frustration with your failed worldview falling apart in front of your eyes. The facts and the logic are what prove you are wrong.

Then you tried to let yourself off the hook again by avoiding the question. Obama is for withholding medical care from live born infants, outside the womb. You called him a nitwit for that but you never answered how your position on abortion (which is that some humans should be able to kill other humans if they don't think they have the appropriate feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history) is any different from Obama's killing of the same babies 5 minutes after they change locations.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 2, 2009 3:35 PM


Michelle,

Thank you for the link to the audio, which I will listen to later. Not sure why I am being mocked for not knowing that the link was on this site.

So, again, what is it about the unborn human being that magically changes (for you, personally) between the last day of the first trimester, and the first day of the second trimester, that would suddenly inspire you to give him or her the right to be born?

The distinction between the first and second trimester isn't necessarily a hard-and-fast rule for me. I may well be comfortable aborting even into the second trimester. My point is that I think sooner is better than later - and I have the education and resources to do it sooner. Not every girl or woman has that luxury, in large part because of the efforts of anti-choicers to impede education and access to abortion. Some girls don't even realize they are pregnant until the third trimester.

But I don't think the issue of when I personally would have an abortion versus when I wouldn't is relevant, because you guys want to outlaw all abortion for all women from the time egg hits sperm onwards. If there were really any possibility of "common ground," the dividing line issue might be relevant, but there is no common ground here.

I think it is interesting that you characterize my conclusions as something I have "been told" about feminism. This is kind of similar to the assumption that women are "led" by their doctors to have abortions.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 4:12 PM


Mr. Image,

I will concede that I have no knowledge of your emotional state (though yes, your calling me "prochoicer for killing" did strike me as evidence of anger). But then you don't have any knowledge of mine either. And, as you have admitted, our respective emotions are pretty much irrelevant.

I do think you are lying though, or else, deliberately obtuse, when you say this:

You called him a nitwit for that but you never answered how your position on abortion (which is that some humans should be able to kill other humans if they don't think they have the appropriate feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history) is any different from Obama's killing of the same babies 5 minutes after they change locations.

I have repeatedly explained the distinction between abortion and killing a child outside the womb. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.

I also did not call the President a nitwit. I called you a nitwit. Since you had already accused me of calling you names, I figured I might as well.

Since I have answered many of your questions (repeatedly), I might as well pose one of my own to you. What is the distinction in your mind between allowing a woman to have an abortion and allowing a man to refuse to give his kidney to save his child?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 4:21 PM


You still haven't answered the question about whether you would be in favor of outlawing abortion if medical technology made it possible to transplant embryos and fetuses from one woman's uterus to another's, or to remove them and allow them to continue gestating in a laboratory.

This addresses the premise of why allowing a father (or mother, for that matter) to refuse a kidney transplant to their own child; it's simply because there are other options and other kidneys that can be used, as well as other medical treatments. As medical technology stands today, the current mother is the only lifeline the unborn child has, so she should be required to continue life-support until such time as the child is viable outside the womb.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that even when it becomes possible to transplant embryos from one uterus to another or gestate them outside the womb in a laboratory, that still won't be good enough for pro-aborts. They (you) just really have a problem admitting that it's the very existence of the child that is the "problem", NOT bodily domain of the mother.

You're fooling yourself, dear.

Posted by: Michelle at June 2, 2009 5:07 PM


ProChoicerForKilling,

Why did you feel you had to restate your mistake, that ”your calling me "prochoicer for killing" did strike me as evidence of anger”, when I explained in my last post that that was just completing your name to describe the obvious?

Then you say you have repeatedly answered this one: you never answered how your position on abortion (which is that some humans should be able to kill other humans if they don't think they have the appropriate feelings, thoughts, hopes, plans, memories, or history) is any different from Obama's killing of the same babies 5 minutes after they change locations.

But if you look back at your posts, you never really answered that…you sort of skirted around it. Please answer it now.

You actually called Obama a nitwit. Here’s why. The topic was whether you agree that life-saving medical care should be withheld from newborn babies. You were so “offended” by this question you said ”Of course I don't [agree that life-saving medical care should be withheld from newborn babies] you nitwit” But Obama voted 3 times for exactly that, that we should withhold life-saving medical care from new born babies. So, in effect, you were saying that “anyone who thinks or even asks if we should withhold medical care from newborns is a nitwit!” Obama not only asked the question, he actually voted 3 times for withholding the care. So you probably have some name even harsher for Obama than just nitwit. You think you called me a nitwit just for raising the question…what is Obama then for actually voting for the thing you find so offensive?

ProChoiceForDeath, you asked What is the distinction in your mind between allowing a woman to have an abortion and allowing a man to refuse to give his kidney to save his child?

So I see you not only forget to answer my questions, you also forget when I have already answered yours. I already told you that's a false analogy. I would not force a man to give up a kidney either. But if the man said, "I am going to dismember and kill my child because it is too much trouble for me to live with a child who needs dialysis", then I would oppose a law that said that was OK. Just telling me that the man might have to endure some emotional or financial discomfort to supply the dialysis would not be enough for me to authorize his dismembering and killing the child. Why do you authorize and promote the killing of innocent children, just because the mother will have to endure some emotional or financial discomfort?

Also, ProChoicerForKilling, you're setting up the situation in a flawed manner.

The issue is really about neglect. Parents are obligated to provide food, shelter and medical care to their children regardless of the expense of their own rights.

For example, I can't set my son out on the back porch for the day in order to exercise my right to privacy. Certain adult rights are pushed aside in order to provide for a child.

During pregnancy the only way to avoid neglecting the child is for the woman to remain pregnant. Her body serves as a vehicle for nutrients, as well as a home for her child. The child's medical needs are also able to be dealt with only by going through the mother.

In order to not neglect her child, the mother must partially give up certain rights during the pregnancy just as she will give up certain rights during that child's life outside the womb.

We are required only to provide ordinary care for our children. We give them nutrients, clothing, a bed to sleep in, etc.

If their own body malfunctions, we are obligated to get them medical care. We are not obligated to supply them with extra organs or marrow, even if withholding these things results in their death.

Pregnancy represents ordinary care. We are providing only nutrients and housing. We are not permanently removing an organ to replace one that has failed in our child. The child has a right to be there since the uterus is the only place at this time that it can exist. It is ordinary care because the prenatal period is a ordinary period during a human lifespan. It is not ordinary for someone to experience kidney failure. Furthermore, no one is against ending a pregnancy if continuing it will lead to the death of the mother. But an abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.

Your analogy is also flawed, because there is a chance that someone else can be found who would be a match for that kidney, and the child's life would still be saved.
Alternately, there is currently no way to transplant an embryo/fetus from his or her mother's womb to another woman.

So, ProChoicerForKilling, if science comes up with a way to transplant a fetus from one woman to another, with essentially no difference at all in the medical procedure with regard to how invasive it is to the original mother's body, would you still insist that the original mother be entitled to her wish of a dead baby, even with this alternative? I suspect that suddenly, bodily domain will cease to be the crux of your argument, and then the actual existence of the child would be "against the mother's wishes".

Essentially, this is what Obama has advocated when he said that giving life-support to a baby who has been born in spite of an abortion attempt would "go against the original intent of the mother" (see http://www.BornAliveTruth.org)

I find the whole bodily domain argument to be a straw man argument, because we all know that the ultimate goal is a dead baby, not merely to "not be pregnant anymore". This is proven by the BAIPA controversy.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 2, 2009 5:37 PM


Michelle,

Oh, the transplant question. Meh. I wouldn't be inclined to support that against a woman's will. It still involves an invasion of a woman's body. She needs to be the one to make the decision.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 5:52 PM


OK. Wow. I just clicked on the link to Obama's statement and read the parts highlighted by Jill.

Of course, NOWHERE does Obama say that he thought it appropriate to withhold medical treatment from a live infant in order to support the mother's original intent.

What he is saying is that the bill makes no sense unless you believe that a doctor would not provide medical care to a live infant.

He then goes on to say that imposing this redundant unnecessary government intervention is likely to chill a woman's right to make the original abortion decision in the first place.

If you guys are saying based on that transcript that Obama supports withholding medical care from live infants, you are either illiterate or you are lying.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 6:00 PM


Mr. Image, we will never agree. I think the notion that forced pregnancy is justified because it is "ordinary care" is wrong. You think it's right.

You disagree with the notion that abortion is justified so that women may have bodily autonomy. I disagree.

I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on anything, but this has been interesting.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 2, 2009 6:08 PM


ProChoicerForDeath,
Go back and read what Obama did. He voted 3 times that it is appropriate to withhold medical treatment from a live infant in order to support the mother's original intent to kill the baby.

You are right, though, Obama did disingenuously say that we should "trust" an abortion doctor, who is paid to kill the baby, to "provide medical care to a live infant". Yes and following that logic, we should really have trusted Scott Roeder to provide medical care to George Tiller, if after the shooting, he was found to be still alive. I mean, why not trust Mr. Roeder just like we trust the abortion doctors?

You correctly captured Obama's stated reason for denying the life-saving medical care to the new born infants... he was afraid to give medical care to breathing babies outside the womb that were supposed to be dead, because that might chill a woman's "right" to kill similar babies who are still, unfortunately for them, inside the womb.

So yeah, I can see Obama's logic, we can't allow any babies to live because that might jeopardize our right to kill others.

So yes, based on that transcript and Obama's 3 votes, he supports withholding medical care from live infants. If you can't see that, you are either illiterate or you are lying.

But you are correct, we will never agree that it is OK to kill innocent, growing babies with a heartbeat, who feel pain. You think that is just fine, you promote the dismemberment and painful death of the innocent.

I disagree, I work to save them and help the mother to save her child, even if she wants to give him or her up for adoption after he or she is capable of living outside the womb.

Then you throw out a casual, thoughtless "this has been interesting" and go about your merry way while the bloody corpses of dead babies pile up around you.

I'll never understand the way you think, ProChoicerForDeath, but what I've realized is there's no talking you out of it. I know there's no shaming you, because you have decided that killing is just fine with you. How you can even sleep at night knowing you promote the brutal death of innocent children is beyond me.

Posted by: GodsImage at June 3, 2009 5:11 PM


No one has the right to end a life, for any reason. We cannot have abortions because it is convenient. We must face our responsibilities as parents and love our children no matter the circumstances. It's that simple.

Posted by: Ares Vista at June 24, 2009 11:08 AM