FYI.

Quote :

"The trial is not the end of Dr. Tiller's legal problems. The state Board of Healing Arts is investigating a complaint that mirrors the accusations made in the trial."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28abortion.html

6/2/2009 4:18:41 PM

Quote :

"there really doesn't need to be any sort of "they're going to do it anyway" argument."

Well, I get that, but it wasn't you or the Supreme Court that made the argument in this thread.

Quote :

"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. "

Whoa now. Calling unborn fetuses infants isn't an appeal to emotion, it's what pro-lifers actually believe, with very little exception. There's a reason they shoot abortion doctors and not people who sell condoms.

And it really doesn't matter what brings about the killing of an innocent person. If an innocent person is killed then it's murder. Mengele didn't shoot anybody, but he performed all sorts of horrific medical procedures resulting in death.

Now, of course, you think that fetuses aren't people and so abortion isn't murder and so all these comparisons are bunk. Unfortunately, there really isn't any terribly reasonable way to determine when a person exists. An fetus 24 hours before birth is essentially the same as a fetus 24 hours after, minus the placenta and plus a belly button.

Quote :

"We're talking about you fuckheads lauding the fact that a doctor was murdered by another crazy fuckhead."

I seem to recall saying, quite clearly, that I thought that the person who murdered Dr. Tiller should be executed. But don't let the reality of the situation stop you from saying all sorts of bullshit.

Quote :

"You compared the services he provided to the services provided by hitmen, child pornographers, etc. "

Not really. I pointed out that demand for a service is not justification for the legality or rightness of said service.

Quote :

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

I was really just asking for clarification. I thought that phrases like "as I understand it" and "supposedly" indicated that I wasn't saying "OMF HE BROKE THE LAW LYNCH THE BASTARD!!!"

6/2/2009 5:28:19 PM

a couple of points:

I was never hoping someone would kill this guy

I am not glad that he was murdered, but I think the world is better off without him

I think the shooter should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and I'm sure he fully expects to be

6/2/2009 7:43:54 PM

Quote :

"The "pro-life" side always devolves into appeals to emotion."

Do you really want to complain about conservatives appealing to emotion?

Think of the CHILDREN!
What about the OLD PEOPLE?
What about the 42 million without healthcare?
WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS!!!!

If anything, conservatives are usually branded as heartless.

Quote :

"You compared the services he provided to the services provided by hitmen"

Well, he is, you know, sucking the brains out of babies and cutting off their limbs and such. Seems like a nice comparison when you think about it...

6/2/2009 7:53:11 PM

Quote :

"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."

6/2/2009 7:55:30 PM

When trap and I agree, then we KNOW shit is gettin real

6/2/2009 8:02:07 PM

Havent really read the thread. Someone tell me why the doctor was worse than all of the women who decided to go to him. He was simply an agent that these women used to kill their fetus. To me, he was just the easy target. The women made the decision and went through with the act. But there seems to be no thought of their portion of the blame.

6/2/2009 8:24:48 PM

i love how everyone thinks these patients and doctors are monsters. do you think people would get an abortion that late just for the shits of it?

6/2/2009 8:27:45 PM

do you think that none of those women would get an abortion that late just for the shits of it?

6/2/2009 8:34:15 PM

Quote :

"Do you really want to complain about conservatives appealing to emotion? Think of the CHILDREN! What about the OLD PEOPLE? What about the 42 million without healthcare? WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS!!!! If anything, conservatives are usually branded as heartless."

Emotional appeals are not limited to compassion. They also include appeals to fear, hatred, and pride, which conservatives love to use.

6/2/2009 8:38:43 PM

Quote :

"do you think that none of those women would get an abortion that late just for the shits of it?"

I get a-bombs for funsies ALL THE TIME.

6/2/2009 10:37:49 PM

^^^i really doubt it.

why would anyone put themselves through that? or pay for it for that matter?

6/2/2009 10:46:53 PM

people do plenty of stupid things all the time

6/2/2009 11:14:08 PM

so we should outlaw guns because of a few bad apples?

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason : and i still think that this hypothetical is highly unlikely]

6/2/2009 11:16:35 PM

Quote :

"Havent really read the thread. Someone tell me why the doctor was worse than all of the women who decided to go to him. He was simply an agent that these women used to kill their fetus. To me, he was just the easy target. The women made the decision and went through with the act. But there seems to be no thought of their portion of the blame."

Rest assured, pro-lifers blame the mothers sufficiently too. I agree that this man was moreso a tool for the mothers to abort (or 'kill') their late term fetuses than a killer himself, but their stance still maintains relatively good internal consistency on the matter.

a.) Killing him does validly prevent the future death of babies whose mother would otherwise get PBA done at his clinic. Minus, of course, the moms who do it on their own or go somewhere else.
b.) Killing a woman as she goes to get a late term abortion done... completely defeats the purpose
c.) Killing a woman after she gets a late term abortion done doesn't accomplish anything in terms of saving babies

Plus, women getting abortions done HAVE BEEN harassed by pro-lifers. Many of them could validly claim that they were doing whatever seemed to most effective to save more babies within the actions that they deemed morally permissible. They do have consistency. I disagree with them, but if you just tweaked a single value-based judgment, then I would agree with an entire swath of actions that they take. If you tweaked yet another value-based judgment I have, then I would even concur with the actions of the shooter. I mean to say that the difference in the two stances is a fundamental one, not a question of means or methods. It's still entirely possible that a Democrat would agree with the statement "we should work to reduce the number of abortions done". The fundamental difference is one regarding the matter of life and choice, not of practicality.

As a side note, both (b) and (c) above are automatically terrorism. Why? Because no babies are being saved by any means other than intimidation by fear. (a) on the other hand, yes, directly "saves" (I use this term facetiously) the lives of babies, in addition to saving some more through intimidation by fear. So many conservatives have brought out the deniability of the terrorism claim. However, that still doesn't absolve this of being terrorism. I think you could say it achieves terrorism regardless of whether or not that was the intent.

Needless to say... I think that was the intent anyway.

------------------------------
Education corner

Q: It has been brought up that a child in the third trimester has the ability to survive on its own. Would it be possible to preform the PBA procedure minus the brain sucking, thus allowing the child to be put up for adoption (though premature)? Yes, that would impact several pro-choice arguments... contingent on the willingness of society to do this.

6/2/2009 11:52:55 PM

Quote :

"Do you really want to complain about conservatives appealing to emotion?"

I carefully chose to label them "pro-life" instead of "conservative" or "evangelical right". But hey, you opened the floodgate. Time to group all you conservatives in with the crazy evangelicals and gunmen.

I would think that conservatives would want to distance themselves from people like this. I guess you're all assholes that can't wait to get your gun off.

Quote :

"but I think the world is better off without him"

You were given an actual situation at the bottom of page 2 by sarijoul. Not some hypothetical potential mother aborting her fetus the day before birth. How would the outcome have changed if Dr. Tiller wasn't around? For the better?

Or how about the women that go because their life is threatened by the birth? The women that go on to have other children?

No, you latch on to some vision of women arbitrarily aborting their fetuses and think that Tiller was conspiring with these jezebels to eradicate the unborn.

If one more woman self-aborts their fetus than before because Tiller is gone, then I'd say the world is much worse off without him. If one more woman is hurt by the birth they could have prevented, then the world is worse off without him.

I guess that's where the "pro-lifers" and the "pro-choicers" diverge. One side cares more about the potential life and the other side cares more about the life that's already there.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 9:12 AM. Reason : .]

6/3/2009 9:12:14 AM

Quote :

"You were given an actual situation at the bottom of page 2 by sarijoul"

Would you be all for aborting killing the babies if they are born and then the mother decides after a few seconds that she doesn't want children with horrible deformities? What if that same mother gave birth to the conjoined twins and then suddenly decided that she didn't want to subject the babies to a life of surgeries and organ transplants? Could he kill them? Could the doctor kill them? Should they be allowed to by the law?

There is no difference between a just-born baby and the same baby a few days or a couple of weeks before it is born.

What about all the existing mentally/physically retarded people on the planet, the ones who are not living with families, but in state special homes for such people? Should they all be killed? Killing them would save mega-billions of dollars that would otherwise be spent on their care... and care to what end? Oh, and since you people are so compassionate, concerned about deformed babies and all, the other side effect would be that killing all such people on the planet would put them out of their misery!!!

Let's do it.

6/3/2009 9:45:59 AM

^yup

Lets change the law so that doctors can kill just-born babies if there is something wrong. If the parents decide they can not handle a retarded/downs child.

I say we change the law and allow it, since you know, this doctor was already operating within existing laws.

Lets even go further than that. All the folks that are retarded/have downs/severely deformed that have lived their lives thus far - lets go ahead and take them out as well. Hell, we probably dont even want them in our gene pool. I mean, there should have been a Dr. Tiller when they were born to keep them from having to suffer so long, so lets just end their suffering.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason : asdfa]

6/3/2009 9:58:55 AM

forget laws for now.

so you are for legalizing killing just-born babies? ok.

6/3/2009 10:03:48 AM

Quote :

"There is no difference between a just-born baby and the same baby a few days or a couple of weeks before it is born."

How do you know this? How do you know that the mother or the baby won't die in childbirth or as a result of childbirth? You're arguing for a potential life, not the life that already exists. In the example provided, the "children" were not "mentally/phyiscally retarded" one had no chance to live, and the other would live a short, painful life.

So what should have happened? Give birth, kill one baby to save the other who then dies after a brief life of pain? It's definitely not an easy decision, but I think it's a decision a woman should be allowed to make, rather than forcing her to go the way of the evangelicals.

I just don't get it. The law is in place to ensure that these abortions are not done lightly and in Kansas the woman has to decide and it has to be approved by two doctors that the woman will be harmed by the birth. It's not like these doctors are going around sucking babies out of women on the street and sacrificing their still alive carcasses to satan.

OEP..I think he was being sarcastic.

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : edit]

6/3/2009 10:12:24 AM

^^dude, that was totally sarcasm. I hope you really didnt think I was serious.

6/3/2009 10:18:17 AM

Quote :

"Would you be all for aborting killing the babies if they are born and then the mother decides after a few seconds that she doesn't want children with horrible deformities? What if that same mother gave birth to the conjoined twins and then suddenly decided that she didn't want to subject the babies to a life of surgeries and organ transplants? Could he kill them? Could the doctor kill them? Should they be allowed to by the law?"

I'm alright with that.

Quote :

" What about all the existing mentally/physically retarded people on the planet, the ones who are not living with families, but in state special homes for such people? Should they all be killed? Killing them would save mega-billions of dollars that would otherwise be spent on their care... and care to what end? Oh, and since you people are so compassionate, concerned about deformed babies and all, the other side effect would be that killing all such people on the planet would put them out of their misery!!! Let's do it."

No, that's too much.

6/3/2009 11:34:19 AM

Euthanasia, by the way, is making a comeback.

6/3/2009 4:57:57 PM

^^How do you reconcile those positions? How long does a person have to be out of the birth canal before it's no longer OK to kill them?

6/3/2009 10:34:55 PM

^because you can only make good dead baby chili within 48 hours of their birth.

6/3/2009 11:15:34 PM

what is sad is that I was being extremely sarcastic

there are people out there that truly believe its ok to euthanize - probably the same folks that support universal health care, you know, since the elderly won't be able to get the care they need, might as well euthanize them also

[Edited on June 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/3/2009 11:23:38 PM

Quote :

""I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. He would not elaborate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting_15

Better get out the ol' waterboard!

6/7/2009 6:02:08 PM

^^ well, with any luck, doctor-assisted suicide will become legal in more states, and that won't be much of an issue. There are lots of old people who would like an easy and efficient way to die, but don't have the menas or resources to do it themselves.

6/7/2009 6:20:35 PM

I think universal healthcare is a disaster if it were to happen, but I support euthanasia. You would put down an animal that was suffering, if a human is severly suffering from a disease there is no chance of recovery and they want it to stop, I think they should have thier wishes granted.

6/7/2009 6:28:59 PM

I would support certain varieties of euthanasia. The way we check to make sure they validly want to die out of their own will... will be a sticky point.

6/7/2009 8:18:19 PM

havent been reading the thread of i apologize of anyone has put forth an argument similar to this one, anyway:

Quote :

"We might start by putting the ball in the pro-life court. If abortion is actually murder, then legalized abortion is indeed in the same ballpark as the Holocaust. Maybe it’s The Holocaust with less torture and suffering, but the deliberate murder and body count are right there. What analogous situation has there ever been, or might one imagine in which 1) A holocaust is underway and 2) it is not morally permissible to use violence against the executioners to stop or slow the holocaust?"

Quote :

"If you do not subscribe to some equally dubious ideology, there is no way you can claim that Tiller is both a calculating mass murderer of children, and an innocent who deserves protection. He is no different than the principles in The Holocaust, the Columbine twins, Ted Bundy, or any other willful mass murderer. And, of course, we would gladly turn out the lights of any of those people once they started killing if it became clear there was no other way to stop them. The only difference one can identify in Tiller is that he terminated fetuses. We all know damn well that fetuses are not people and killing them is not murder and that is the only explanation for why Roeder was wrong to kill Tiller."

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/6874/celebrating-scott-roeder-baby-killer-killer/

6/7/2009 10:30:12 PM

bump by request

1/29/2010 7:25:53 PM

I hadn't even noticed this thread prior to now, but just reading the title I pretty much knew the OP was going to say something like "good riddance."

1/29/2010 7:30:01 PM

http://www.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2Fstory.php%3FstoryId%3D123126980" target="_blank">http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&usg=AFQjCNHdmZUWy9FvqZw_nbHp0Dboi9oEzQ&cid=8797491283799&ei=rYZjS8ivEs33lAf5xsHBAw&rt=MORE_COVERAGE&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhttp://www.npr.org%2Ftemplates%2Fstory%2Fstory.php%3FstoryId%3D123126980

Scott Roeder found guilty. As he should have been. Kudos for killing that bastard, though.

1/29/2010 8:09:56 PM

yeah, Kudos to Scott Roeder for doing his part to help ensure abortion remains safe and legal and a federally protected right for at least another decade.

what you backwoods born-again biblethumping retards fail to realize is this sort of shit motivates fence-sitters to get up and vote the NARAL ticket. more than anything else.

sometimes i worry about you people becoming too numerous and taking over the country, but then i remember that you're really mostly a bunch of dumbfucks, so that kind of cancels your numbers out.

1/30/2010 2:05:50 AM

look, you have no problem w/ someone taking a garden hose and sucking the brains out of unborn children. And it's your right to be that stupid. Other people aren't OK with that. I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

1/30/2010 3:15:54 AM

Quote :

"Scott Roeder found guilty. As he should have been. Kudos for killing that bastard, though."

1/30/2010 6:17:15 AM

Yes, kudos for murdering a man because you disagreed with his perfectly legal 9-5 job.

1/30/2010 9:40:05 AM

Quote :

"look, you have no problem w/ someone brutally murdering someone who legally takes a garden hose and sucks the brains out of unborn children. And it's your right to be that stupid. Other people aren't OK with that. I think we can agree to disagree on this one."

[Edited on January 30, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2010 2:24:50 PM

^^ No, kudos because he didn't like babies to be murdered and neither do I.

If it is OK with you, that's your business, problem

1/30/2010 3:03:11 PM

^ Ooh, I'm sorry, but he actually said "Kudos for killing that bastard, though."

1/30/2010 3:16:08 PM

I am enjoying the thought-provoking discussion spawned by this thread-bump.

1/30/2010 5:06:26 PM

no, I do have a problem with him shooting the guy. That's why I am glad he was convicted. But, I'm glad that that murdering abortionist is dead, don't get me wrong

1/30/2010 9:47:06 PM