^^ I think their argument is that their action was in the defense of life. For example, shooting to death a gunman on a rampage.

That said, if that is the case then he should be glad to accept whatever punishment society gives him, as he will believe it was the only way to stop the gunman.

6/1/2009 2:56:53 PM

DHS should definitely reevaluate the risk of crazy right-wing extremists

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/george-tiller-murder-prom_n_209701.html

6/1/2009 2:58:13 PM

^^ The gunman in question no doubt believes that he was doing the "right" thing.

^ Here we go. Too late--Napolitano already apologized for it.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2009 2:59:46 PM

Actually it's not too late, and the troops part is the only thing that needed the apology.

Eric Holder is dispatching Marshals to protect other doctors because of the insanity that is the right-wing nutjob like yourself.

6/1/2009 3:16:21 PM

Quote :

"did you even read the rest of his post?"

yes, and i still fail to see how there is a good ethical case for sucking the brains out of something that, if delivered, could survive outside of the womb.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ,,]

6/1/2009 3:30:13 PM

^^ Except that I'm pro-choice. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your stereotypes and caricatures.

6/1/2009 4:02:00 PM

you are a pro-choice right-wing nutjob.

6/1/2009 4:04:17 PM

^ Incorrect.

6/1/2009 4:10:10 PM

Quote :

"Things like this help keep abortion safe and legal."

/thread.

Way to make a pro-choice martyr, gunman. Not only did you end a life, you didn't save any fetuses and in the long run there will probably be more abortions. <golfclap>

It's fucking nuts that anyone would consider this to be justified or say "good riddance". Shouldn't we be gunning down the !mothers that went to his clinic?

I mean hell, I suddenly feel that everyone wearing brown shirts is an agent of the Devil. Time to get my gun!

6/1/2009 4:59:18 PM

Quote :

"Focus on the Family founder and chairman emeritus James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement Sunday on the slaying of late-term abortionist George Tiller: "We are shocked by the murder of George Tiller, and we categorically condemn the act of vigilantism and violence that took his life. America has from its foundation respected the rule of law, by which every citizen is guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those constitutional rights are forfeited only when crimes have been committed, and the perpetrator is charged and found guilty by a jury of his or her peers in a court of law. "Tiller recently faced serious charges related to the killing of babies in violation of the law, by the most grotesque procedures administered without anesthetics or compassion. We profoundly regretted the outcome of his legal case, believing the doctor had the blood of countless babies on his hands. Nevertheless, he was acquitted by the court and declared 'not guilty' in the eyes of the law. That is our system, and we honor it. "Our condolences are extended to the Tiller family. The person or persons responsible for his death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.""

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, probably one of the most vocal anti-abortion voices on the Religious Right, has spoken out against Mr. Tiller's murder. Dobson is probably as conservative as you're going to get before going off the deep end. I think for most anti-abortion activists and organization, you'll get the same message: "Tiller conducting late term abortions is immoral and should be illegal, but violent vigilantism is not the way to resolve this issue."

6/1/2009 5:26:50 PM

Quote :

"Riiiight. That's a tall tale. The (most) rabid pro-life campaigners have shown time and time again that they're willing to use terror to achieve results that can not be achieved through peaceful actions. This isn't the first time someone tried to shoot this doctor, and people get the message - there are people out there who want to kill abortion doctors. You see, with that kind of strategy, a small number of crazies can keep many doctors from preforming a procedure by coercing them with fear. Now only the boldest of the bold will do PBA, not because of legal campaigning, but because of terror."

You're totally missing the point of what I was saying. It doesn't matter that someone had shot him before, and it doesn't matter if some abortionists close up shop as a result. That doesn't show that they were doing it on a politically strategic level in order to instill fear or coerce by terror. That only a few doctors will perform PBA is more likely due to the fact that it is completely fucked up.

Not that I think it was done for political gain--I think it was done with the same mindset as someone gunning down a nut on a shooting spree--but if you wanted to do it for political gain on a strategic level, it wouldn't be because you were trying to coerce by terror. The potential benefit would be because, through potential appeals after the trial, you would force the courts to consider at whether or not Tiller was taking human lives.

6/1/2009 5:49:04 PM

His clinic is know for doing the procedure to women who have babies with disabilities like downs syndrome. Yes, he has been criticized for doing it to healthy babies as well, but let's concentrate on the former for a second.

I would claim that general acceptance of the pro-life argument in the public arena is dependent on the availability of families willing to adopt. There are families willing to adopt and thus your assessment of "something that, if delivered, could survive outside of the womb" is valid in most cases. In fact, most of them could not only survive, but lead a happy and prosperous life as an adopted child - you and I have probably known such people.

If she got as far as delivery, it seems crazy that a woman would want to kill the child instead of putting it up for adoption considering that the adoption option IS available. But to what extent? Is there a good home guaranteed for ALL children? And who makes that evaluation? If someone goes for a PBA, they've decided that there isn't much hope. It was Dr. Teller's mantra to leave that decision in the hands of the mother.

It's perfectly fine to say it's not a "good ethical case", I only maintain that it is a valid ethical case, implying that shooting someone over it is intolerable. Dr. Teller and his patients worked within a moral framework they believed in. That moral framework differs from your own if you are pro-life. Therefore, it could be justified to pursue all legal actions to stop the practice (however ugly), which is what many groups have already done. As a society we have a well established heritage of dueling on these issues, the pro-choice crowd will dissent and claim that provocative pictures of dead babies in a shock advertising campaign makes us stronger through tolerance.

This is about abandonment of the principles of understanding. You have to admit that if people are killing each other while both sides think they are well-meaning and doing what's right, then that constitutes a failure of society on the most basic level. The only other thing I would implore consensus on is that this is not due to a lack of reaching out and understanding on Dr. Teller's part. He was a very educated and compassionate individual. You can say the law is at fault by permitting murder, but I can not agree that Dr. Teller is the crux of the breakdown of communication. Surely if it was so heinous of a crime the courts would have put a stop to it. They didn't.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2009 5:52:28 PM

Quote :

"I would claim that general acceptance of the pro-life argument in the public arena is dependent on the availability of families willing to adopt."

I would claim that it is 100% irrelevent, and that the only factor that should be considered is at what point you are dealing with a human life. My view is that this point is not necessarily at conception, but it sure as shit is before the end of the 2nd trimester.

6/1/2009 6:00:22 PM

Quote :

"Face it, there's even a good moral case for Dr. Tiller's practice. He ran one of THREE clinics that did PBA in the nation, and he largely did so in order to prevent people from doing illegal homemade abortions. If you're desperate enough to get to his clinic (make it past the pro-life vigil), then you're probably pretty darn committed to the decision to abort the child and it's disputable as to whether events would or could play out in a manner not endangering the mother's life in the absence of the clinic. Like I said: home made abortions. Not a happy thing."

Okay, I suspect you're being a bit contrarian here, but your logic doesn't exactly stand up to scrutiny.

For one, the lack of availability of late-term abortion providers does not in itself equate to a lack of access to abortion providers overall.

Second, the question naturally arises to the necessity of late-term abortions in contrast to those at earlier stages of pregnancy, particularly given the fact that the ethical line of "personhood" has become greatly more blurred than say, within the first trimester or so. (That is, unless you're also admitting infanticide under the same terms, as per Peter Singer's ethical reasoning.)

There's a legitimate question to be asked - under what circumstances is an abortion necessary (elective or not) that cannot be resolved within the first six months (or so - consider the time arbitrary) of pregnancy? And particularly as one goes later on, how does one make a bright-line distinction between late-term abortion and infanticide, particularly as one grows nearer to the "viability" threshold?

Quote :

"And he was shot ushering for a Lutheran church. This guy was a productive member of society who saved as many lives as he took, and prevented droves of unwanted and disabled children from living a life of tragedy in foster homes."

Again, equivocating all abortion to late-term abortion. I don't think that's a reasonable equivocation in this case, particularly given the fact that Dr. Tiller was a particular target of ire due to the fact that he adamantly provided late-term abortions, whereas most abortion providers refused to do so. Which means that your case needs to be predicated upon the necessity and benefit of late-term abortions, in comparison to the availability of abortion overall, to be valid.

Quote :

"I would entertain the prospect of legislation that bans partial birth abortions. My own moral compass would be "allow it, only in the extreme of the extreme cases". But getting squeamish? Hardly. There is a well founded ethical case FOR partial birth abortions, and Dr. Tiller believed in that. Dr. Tiller was a hero who stood up in the face of unthinkable terror for what he believed in."

Exactly what is the well-founded ethical case? It doesn't even seem like you believe this, given your own admitted predilections. Either way, this "well-founded ethical case" is certainly non-obvious.

Quote :

"The man was a Saint. Those condemning him are whiny brats who saw an educated man who thought out the abortion issue and arrived at a different conclusion with good cause. If you can't see the good that Dr. Teller did (whether or not you agree with the rationale), then you're an ignoramus."

Now you're really stepping into contrarian-land...

Continuing from your follow-up, posted before I finished replying:

Quote :

"If she got as far as delivery, it seems crazy that a woman would want to kill the child instead of putting it up for adoption considering that the adoption option IS available. But to what extent? Is there a good home guaranteed for ALL children? And who makes that evaluation? If someone goes for a PBA, they've decided that there isn't much hope. It was Dr. Teller's mantra to leave that decision in the hands of the mother."

How far does that extend, however? Should we also admit infanticide for the same circumstances? If a mother determines her newborn infant is unable to live a fulfilling life for whatever reason (disability, financial inability, etc.), does she too have the right to kill the child? In other words, how do we make an arbitrary distinction of "morally OK" and "morally not OK" for killing something which in either case can survive on its own outside the mother? The distinction is entirely arbitrary.

Quote :

"It's perfectly fine to say it's not a "good ethical case", I only maintain that it is a valid ethical case, implying that shooting someone over it is intolerable. Dr. Teller and his patients worked within a moral framework they believed in. That moral framework differs from your own if you are pro-life. Therefore, it could be justified to pursue all legal actions to stop the practice (however ugly), which is what many groups have already done."

Again however, that assumption rests upon the non-entity nature of the third party: it essentially is an exercise in question-begging. Assume the fetus is a non-person and it becomes a transaction between two consenting parties. Assume it is and it becomes murder. It's no different than the rest of the abortion debate: the only difference now is that such an assumption becomes much harder to justify in light of the fact that the entity can live on its own outside the womb.

Quote :

"You can say the law is at fault by permitting murder, but I can not agree that Dr. Teller is the crux of the breakdown of communication. Surely if it was so heinous of a crime the courts would have put a stop to it. They didn't."

Simply because something is not a crime doesn't mean it's not morally dubious, however. The law permits all kinds of actions which are morally questionable, particularly in cases where there is a significant disagreement.

Note that this still remains a matter for the law to resolve, rather than vigilantes. But I think it's a pretty severe stretch to act as if the guy was a saint.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM. Reason : follow-up]

6/1/2009 6:01:08 PM

DrSteveChaos:

Are you implying that the fact that he operated within the law is good enough reason to not assassinate him? I would have to disagree with that and give a head nod to what GrumpyGOP was saying. The fact that an egregious mass murder was following the law doesn't absolve that person enough. By that kind of logic, the shooter could be justified in his actions.

You've failed to give a criteria that makes Dr. Teller's actions acceptable enough to allow to continue. If I accept that vigilantism is acceptable in some circumstances, I see no reason that it shouldn't apply here by your logic.

My logic is that the rationality, civility, legality, and well defended self perceived morality of Dr. Teller's practice should set it apart from any old "legal murderer" in the minds of a would-be shooter. The culprit went off the deep end by rejecting compassion and any attempt for understanding of the other side of the abortion debate.

Quote :

"You're totally missing the point of what I was saying. It doesn't matter that someone had shot him before, and it doesn't matter if some abortionists close up shop as a result. That doesn't show that they were doing it on a politically strategic level in order to instill fear or coerce by terror. That only a few doctors will perform PBA is more likely due to the fact that it is completely fucked up."

I could see the killer as seeing this as an action to save more babies from being directly killed by Dr. Teller, sure. But he also indirectly 'saves' more babies by instilling fear into doctors nationwide whether he wanted to or not. Like it or not, there exist some doctors out there who would preform PBA if the fear factor was not there. SOME.

However, I'm glad to see that many (extreme) pro-life organizations strongly condemn the murder itself, and that does indicate that people are not heralding this as good due to the fact that it scares other doctors away. So this lacks an institutionalized form of terrorism where a sect actively seeks to achieve goals by means of fear, true. It still works like terrorism, and it still is terrorism. If you need a religious cleric to express satisfaction with the fact that doctors won't do it because they fear for their life, I'm sure there's at least one of them out there. Any pro-life advocate who sees it fit to achieve their goal by any means possible falls into the terrorist supporter category.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

6/1/2009 7:02:06 PM

since when is one man killing one other man terrorism? that word is getting thrown around this thread way too loosely, and incorrectly

6/1/2009 7:20:41 PM

Quote :

"Are you implying that the fact that he operated within the law is good enough reason to not assassinate him? I would have to disagree with that and give a head nod to what GrumpyGOP was saying. The fact that an egregious mass murder was following the law doesn't absolve that person enough. By that kind of logic, the shooter could be justified in his actions."

Yes it's a good enough reason not to assassinate him. Otherwise, why have the law at all?

You don't get to simply rectify differences with the outcomes of the courts that you don't like with violence. As long as it can be credibly stated that the legal system functions (if not perfectly), it is unjustifiable for people to simply upend that to enforce their own moral principles, particularly upon those they feel the law has failed to punish.

In other words, in a just and open society, even a murderer has a right to due process. Which, in this case, even if you believe he was a mass murderer, the courts disagreed. Unless one is to claim a complete breakdown of civil society, there is no way they can justify such an action.

Quote :

"You've failed to give a criteria that makes Dr. Teller's actions acceptable enough to allow to continue. If I accept that vigilantism is acceptable in some circumstances, I see no reason that it shouldn't apply here by your logic."

My argument is that vigilantism is almost never acceptable, save for a complete breakdown of the ability of the government to enforce the laws (and subsequently protect the rights of citizens). (Or, as an addendum, in the immediate circumstances where the law is incapable of acting quickly enough - such as self-defense, etc. In other words, taking down a crazed gunman scenario.) Due process of law is fundamental, while vigilantism by its nature stands directly in contrast to this.

There is no way that one can make the credible claim that the law has ceased to function simply because it delivered a verdict that opponents didn't agree with.

Quote :

"My logic is that the rationality, civility, legality, and well defended self perceived morality of Dr. Teller's practice should set it apart from any old "legal murderer" in the minds of a would-be shooter. The culprit went off the deep end by rejecting compassion and any attempt for understanding of the other side of the abortion debate."

George Wallace believed in the morality of "separate now, separate forever." State law was on his side, too. It didn't make him any less of an asshole.

Look, again - even the worst of the worst is entitled to due process of law. Likewise, simply believing you're right - even being on the right side of the law - doesn't make you any less of an asshole. Neither person deserves to get gunned down by someone who believes themselves to be above the law.

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2009 7:20:51 PM

Quote :

"since when is one man killing one other man terrorism? that word is getting thrown around this thread way too loosely, and incorrectly"

It's not one man. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)

6/1/2009 7:36:22 PM

i was not aware of that...sounds like some crazy bastards

6/1/2009 7:40:39 PM

Quote :

"If you're desperate enough to get to his clinic (make it past the pro-life vigil), then you're probably pretty darn committed to the decision to abort the child and it's disputable as to whether events would or could play out in a manner not endangering the mother's life in the absence of the clinic. Like I said: home made abortions. Not a happy thing."

I guess that means we should run murder-for-hire centers, too, right? I mean, if you are desperate enough to seek one out, then you are clearly committed enough to go murder someone yourself, right?

This guy was scum. He sucked babies' brains out with a syringe while they were kicking and screaming. Then he cut their fucking limbs off one by one. I don't think that he should have been killed in the way he was killed, nor do I support vigilante justice, but I also can't deny that he got what he deserved.

6/1/2009 11:39:57 PM

christianist terrorism for the loss!

6/2/2009 12:09:19 AM

As I understand it,

Quote :

"Kansas law prohibits aborting viable fetuses, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.""

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Late_term_abortion)

I love the discussion here that doesn't involve the actual law. So typically TWW.

Clearly the law there doesn't allow just any partial-birth abortion. It allows them in cases where the continued pregnancy leads to "substantial and irreversible" damage to the mother. Is that standard always morally impermissible? It's unequivocal that the mother's life should always be put in jeopardy per the above definition, in all circumstances? Doesn't seem so black and white to me. I don't know that I would always be willing to sacrifice (potentially) my spouse's life for the sake of an unborn child. Maybe you would.

OK, so let's consider a practical argument: that the guy was 'skirting the law' and 'got away with murder' for years. OK, fine. I can buy that. Then maybe the vigilantes should hunt down and shoot the jury members who acquitted him when he was brought before trial, or perhaps various state officials who failed to bring him in to justice after so many years. After all, they would have been seriously negligent accomplices to murder.

I don't see where the pro-vigilante crowd draws the line on intimidation and violence. You can always find people to blame for these situations, even after the main actor is drawn and quartered in the public square. At what point is justice "served?" I don't see it.

We have rule of law for a reason, which is not that the law is inherently just -- far from it -- but that there's a notion of due process whereby society agrees on the means and basis for punishing individuals. Without the rule of law, there are infinite gray areas and therefore infinite violence and unrest.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM. Reason : foo]

6/2/2009 12:47:49 AM

Quote :

"Clearly the law there doesn't allow just any partial-birth abortion."

This may be true in theory, but as it has been applied, just about anything from depression to a hangnail has been used as justification for murdering a baby for "protecting the health of the mother." At that point, it seems that it pretty much does allow any partial-birth-brain-sucking-through-a-syringe-murder

Quote :

"We have rule of law for a reason, which is not that the law is inherently just -- far from it -- but that there's a notion of due process whereby society agrees on the means and basis for punishing individuals."

Where's the due process for the baby who is about to have his brains sucked out of his skull?

6/2/2009 1:12:02 AM

^

OK, so I still want to know -- who do we shoot? The doctor is gone. What about the jury that acquitted him when he was indicted? Why don't we shoot them, too? And how about the legislators who failed to toughen the law? I say we shoot them also. Since due process is out the window, after all.

Clearly "two wrongs make a right" is the best way for our society to function. Or maybe twenty wrongs make a right. After all, this is mass murder we're talking about.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 1:52 AM. Reason : foo]

6/2/2009 1:52:03 AM

Quote :

"Where's the due process for the baby who is about to have his brains sucked out of his skull?"

In the toilet, with the rest of his underdeveloped carcass. The answer to your question is that a fetus has no legal claim to due process, according to the law of the land.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 5:14 AM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 5:12:39 AM

Quote :

"I'm not with you here. Yes, he was a doctor who operated within the law. But as we all know, the law can be despicable. Operating outside of the law to overcome unjust laws can be good and right, under certain circumstances. I, for one, would not call whoever shot Osama bin Laden a "cold blooded murderer," regardless of the circumstances. And that's not to compare the two people, but the point is that extralegal execution needn't, as an absolute necessity, be "cold blooded murder." If a guard shot Ted Kaczynski in the face today, I bet a lot fewer people would be throwing around terms like that. And that's because most people, I think are in agreement that the manner of killing matters at least somewhat less than whether the killing was necessary/deserved."

You're arguing from a false premise. While it's true that not all murders are committed in cold blood, it is almost certainly true that Dr. Tiller's murder was. Whether or not someone is, in your estimation, an evil person, does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the killing was premeditated (cold-blooded) and unlawul (murder).

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 5:44 AM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 5:43:06 AM

i'm not advocating that anyone be shot, smoker. Nor am I crying that this waste of life was shot.

6/2/2009 6:55:31 AM

ahahahah, terpball calling someone out for being a far leaning nutjub. pot calling the kettle black??

6/2/2009 6:58:48 AM

Quote :

"waste of life...mass murderer..Hitler...good riddance...etc"

You know, I'd agree with this sentiment if the guy stalked from house to house, subduing pregnant women and snatched their babies from their wombs. But he didn't. He's a doctor providing a service that is obviously in demand.

You fuckheads should be ashamed of yourselves for reveling in the fact that he was murdered by another crazy fuckhead. Women will still want to abort their fetuses and one less doctor willing to get his hands dirty will not change this fact. Women have been aborting their fetuses since before Christ.

6/2/2009 8:56:26 AM

Quote :

"disabilities like downs syndrome"

This bothers me. For the record, a lot of people with Down's syndrome lead happy lives and there have even been children with this disorder to graduate high school.. But, the real reason why this statement bothers me is that there are tests to check for Down's syndrome. Furthermore, abortion for these types of cases are typically legal well into the pregnancy when you are able to know for sure your child has that disability.

For example, in the state of North Carolina, it is legal to terminate the pregnancy if you find out your children has Down's (or similar genetic disorders, such as CF) until about the 20th week. That's roughly halfway through your pregnancy.

I'm not trying to get into it with you, but I just wanted to point out that this man was not a Saint for performing abortions for women whose children had disabilities such as Down's so late in their pregnancy. Trust me, there are plenty of people out there who would adopt a child with Down's and there are organizations advocating for the proper treatment of children with Down's and what the disorder actually entails.

6/2/2009 9:08:12 AM

Fuck me, would you prefer they just take the clothes hanger to themselves? Why is everyone blaming the doctor here?

6/2/2009 9:15:43 AM

I never said I supported this man's (the shooter) decision -- I think it's awful and completely out of line... However, it bothers me that people feel that the PBA was justified for disabilities such as Down's when there is such a huge support base for it.

I'm not even getting into yall's argument -- just throwing it out that that a child/person with Down's isn't totally incompetent that it would warrant such late-term abortions.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : I actually think it's ruthless the man shot him in church, of all places.. ]

6/2/2009 9:20:38 AM

^ word

people with down syndrome tend to be much better humans than 'normal' people.

6/2/2009 9:22:50 AM

Quote :

"Fuck me, would you prefer they just take the clothes hanger to themselves? Why is everyone blaming the doctor here?"

This is a good, sound logic that applies to everybody: "They're going to do it anyway, so might as well help them." People are going to try to kill each other anyway. The government had better teach them marksmanship or else they might miss and just end up crippling their target for life, or worse, hurting themselves.

Quote :

"He's a doctor providing a service that is obviously in demand. "

Hitmen are in demand too, though perhaps not quite so much. "Pops is old and crippled and senile and really tying up my inheritance; my quality of life would improve dramatically if someone killed him. Arguably, so would his." Demand is not a justification for his actions. Arms dealers, child pimps and pornographers, and AQ Khan all provide services that are in demand.

Quote :

"Women will still want to abort their fetuses and one less doctor willing to get his hands dirty will not change this fact."

Well, as I understand it, very, very few doctors in the country will perform abortions of the type that Tiller did. So presumably it'd only take a few more shots and at least that unpleasant aspect of the issue would be eradicated for the time being.

Quote :

"Clearly the law there doesn't allow just any partial-birth abortion. It allows them in cases where the continued pregnancy leads to "substantial and irreversible" damage to the mother. Is that standard always morally impermissible?"

As I understand it, part of the problem with Tiller is that he supposedly got his "independent certification" of the threat on the mother's life from an employee rather than another doctor.

6/2/2009 10:40:07 AM

Quote :

"This is a good, sound logic that applies to everybody: "They're going to do it anyway, so might as well help them." People are going to try to kill each other anyway. The government had better teach them marksmanship or else they might miss and just end up crippling their target for life, or worse, hurting themselves. "

And speaking on the other side of the hyperbole, lets not teach ANY doctor ANY of these techniques; even if it means the loss of lives/torture of mothers and fetuses everywhere!

6/2/2009 11:00:39 AM

^^^a lot of the stories i've read aren't people deciding whether to let their child live with downs syndrome. it's more like "should i go through with this pregnancy if i know the child is going to born to only live for a couple weeks with no brain function?"

and this is another poitn (directed towards andrew sullivan):

Quote :

"Andrew is wildly against single-payer. It’s socialist. Is he regularly donating to a charity that helps pay the millions of dollars of medical bills that multiple futile heart surgeries or multiple spinal surgeries these babies must endure before they die? Even the rosy scenario he posted yesterday states that only 50% might live in some diminished capacity after multiple surgeries. Or are these poor women supposed to not only give birth to a child that will probably never live a healthy day in its short life, in a risky childbirth that may kill the woman, but they also win hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills for futile procedures? Sorry about your luck, lady, but we have people’s consciences to think about here. Does Andrew think the only people going through this are upper East Side liberals with platinum health insurance and a six figure income and a disdain for human life? Is anyone in the pro-life community funding this for people? Or are they just too busy trading bomb-making tips with Operation Rescue? What this country really needs right now is a serious case of mind your own damned business. We’ve turned into a nation of busybodies and scolds, and people just need to back off. And that goes for the people opposed to and trying to make illegal Andrew’s marriage, for people like Andrew who sound like they want the weight of the law to come down on people making tragic medical decisions that lead to late-term abortions, for the nutjobs who thought they knew better than Michael Schiavo how to handle his horrible situation with his wife, to the lunatics screaming “murder” when we do stem cell research, and so on."

rest of the post here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22073 (it's all quite good)

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

6/2/2009 11:12:12 AM

Jesus is surely proud of this situation.

6/2/2009 11:32:55 AM

Did any of you demagogues rush into TSB to post this?

Gunman Kills Soldier Outside Recruiting Station

Quote :

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A 23-year-old man upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire from his truck at two soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station here on Monday morning, killing one private and wounding another, the police said. The gunman, identified by the police as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad of Little Rock, fled the scene and was arrested minutes later a short distance from the recruiting station, in a bustling suburban shopping center. The police confiscated a Russian-made SKS semiautomatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun from his black pickup truck."

Quote :

"In a lengthy interview with the police, Mr. Muhammad said he was angry about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chief Thomas said. Previously known as Carlos Bledsoe, Mr. Muhammad told investigators that he had converted to Islam as a teenager, Chief Thomas said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02recruit.html

6/2/2009 11:36:34 AM

i'd say it's a pretty decent parallel. dumbass thinks he's doing god's will by murdering someone.

6/2/2009 11:51:22 AM

^ QED. Yet, none of the usual TSB lefties swooped in here all outraged and shit. Why? Because they only use the club of demagoguery to bash conservatives and Christians.

CHRISTIANS THINK THERE'S AN INVISIBLE SKY DADDY! LOL! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?!!1*

And it never ceases to amaze me how many on the left continually bemoan the beliefs of Christians. Yet, these same individuals need devil figures more than any right-wing religious zealot I've seen or heard of.


















* Except Obama--he's cool.

6/2/2009 12:06:12 PM

Nah this is plain ol' murder. Terrorism is crashing planes and such.

6/2/2009 12:25:41 PM

^ Um. . .was that addressed to me? If so, I didn't use the word "terrorism" anywhere.

6/2/2009 12:32:55 PM

^^To be fair, this Tiller thing has been all over the news lately, and I'd not seen the bit about the Muslim guy until you posted it. So maybe liberals are at fault, but it's liberals in the media rather than on the wolfweb.

Quote :

"And speaking on the other side of the hyperbole, lets not teach ANY doctor ANY of these techniques; even if it means the loss of lives/torture of mothers and fetuses everywhere"

There are those who would be all for that, though I'm not one of them. At any rate, my point was specifically directed against the "they're just going to do it anyway" logic, which is pretty terrible. People always have and always will commit pretty much all crimes. In thousands of years of civilization, at least as long as women have been committing abortions, we've also had a consistent string of murders, rapes, wars, and every other horrible thing of which people are capable.

"They're just going to do it anyway" is not a line that makes an action OK. An action should be legal when it does not harm anybody who does not consent to be harmed, not when it is simply inevitable. I trust everyone will, for the time being, show some restraint and not say, "Abortion doesn't harm anyone, the mothers consent and the fetuses aren't people!" Because that opens up a whole separate can of worms -- a can that is really the essential part of this whole debate, but which we really can't do much with.

Quote :

"i'd say it's a pretty decent parallel. dumbass thinks he's doing god's will by murdering someone."

I disagree in both cases. Or rather, I believe that both murderers believe as much, but that it wasn't the impetus for their action. (Necessarily -- can't say for sure about Tiller's murderer, because I haven't heard anything out of him yet)

The guy who converted to Islam killed because he thought it would help his fellow Muslims; ie, people in the same group as him. Don't get me wrong, you're still right about the dumbass part, but it's likely more a basic human desire to defend one's own group from others. The only reason you mention "God's will" is the fact that he defines his group membership along the lines of religion, but that no more necessitates that his motivation be "Divine will" than it would for a black South African taking a shot at an apartheid official.

Likewise for the Tiller murderer. If I see a crazed gunman shooting up a preschool and I take him out, I'd think I'd done God's will -- but I wouldn't have done it for that reason, I'd have done it to save the preschoolers.

I worry that occasionally it is too easy for people of all political and religious stripes to boil down other people's motivations to God, when in reality its usually more concrete issues like group solidarity, a desire for respect from one's peers, or just plain old mental illness.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 12:37:01 PM

i would bet lots of money, that if asked, they'd both say they were doing god's will. i am not blaming their respective religions for their violence. only their own (misguided) motivations.

6/2/2009 12:43:23 PM

Quote :

"There are those who would be all for that, though I'm not one of them. At any rate, my point was specifically directed against the "they're just going to do it anyway" logic, which is pretty terrible. People always have and always will commit pretty much all crimes."

Abortion isn't a crime

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 1:04:09 PM

^

Quote :

""They're just going to do it anyway" is not a line that makes an action OK. An action should be legal when it does not harm anybody who does not consent to be harmed, not when it is simply inevitable"

Legal =/= right. Of course, up to a point, even unjust law must be recognized and followed -- but there is a point past which beyond that's no longer the case. At least, according to the Declaration of Independence there is.

Tiller was not convicted of a crime. I understand that. But I wasn't really talking about Hiller, was I? I was arguing against the logic of "'They're going to do it anyway"=right=let's make it legal."

6/2/2009 1:27:09 PM

Fair enough

Either way, it's legal... so there really doesn't need to be any sort of "they're going to do it anyway" argument. That isn't the justification the supreme court used when they came to their decision anyway...

6/2/2009 1:38:21 PM

Quote :

"In 1994 my wife and I found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was difficult and unusually uncomfortable but her doctor repeatedly told her things were fine. Sometime early in the 8th month my wife, an RN who at the time was working in an infertility clinic asked the Dr. she was working for what he thought of her discomfort. He examined her and said that he couldn’t be certain but thought that she might be having twins. We were thrilled and couldn’t wait to get a new sonogram that hopefully would confirm his thoughts. Two days later our joy was turned to unspeakable sadness when the new sonogram showed conjoined twins. Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants. We were advised that our options were to deliver into the world a child who’s life would be filled with horrible pain and suffering or fly out to Wichita Kansas and to terminate the pregnancy under the direction of Dr. George Tiller. We made an informed decision to go to Kansas. One can only imagine the pain borne by a woman who happily carries a child for 8 months only to find out near the end of term that the children were not to be and that she had to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy and go against everything she had been taught to believe was right. This was what my wife had to do. Dr. Tiller is a true American hero. The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff. Dr. Tiller understood that this decision was the most difficult thing that a woman could ever decide and he took the time to educate us and guide us along with the other two couples who at the time were being forced to make the same decision after discovering that they too were carrying children impacted by horrible fetal anomalies. I could describe in great detail the procedures and the pain and suffering that everyone is subjected to in these situations. However, that is not the point of the post. We can all imagine that this is not something that we would wish on anyone. The point is that the pain and suffering were only mitigated by the compassion and competence of Dr. George Tiller and his staff. We are all diminished today for a host of reasons but most of all because a man of great compassion and courage has been lost to the world."

that dr. tiller. he's practically hitler, eh?

6/2/2009 1:40:16 PM

Quote :

"This is a good, sound logic that applies to everybody: "They're going to do it anyway, so might as well help them." People are going to try to kill each other anyway. The government had better teach them marksmanship or else they might miss and just end up crippling their target for life, or worse, hurting themselves."

Because medical procedures = shooting people. This is why this debate is retarded. The "pro-life" side always devolves into appeals to emotion. Let's call unborn fetuses infants. Let's call abortion murder.

Quote :

"Tiller was not convicted of a crime. I understand that. But I wasn't really talking about Hiller, was I? I was arguing against the logic of "'They're going to do it anyway"=right=let's make it legal.""

It's already legal. We're not talking about the legality of abortion. We're talking about you fuckheads lauding the fact that a doctor was murdered by another crazy fuckhead. You compared the services he provided to the services provided by hitmen, child pornographers, etc.

The issue is that you think that the service he provided was wrong to the point of infanticide and deserving of murder.

Quote :

"As I understand it, part of the problem with Tiller is that he supposedly got his "independent certification" of the threat on the mother's life from an employee rather than another doctor."

Sure. Forget the fact that he was acquitted on all charges. Tiller was supposedly the anti-christ. good riddance.

6/2/2009 2:08:41 PM

set 'em up

6/2/2009 2:12:59 PM