George Tiller shot to death

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Extremism is not the crime he committed: murder was the crime he committed. He is not a terrorist, because he did not attempt to commit an act of violence in order to instill terror into a civillian population. Relative to the American mainstream, he was an extremist, but at the core, he was a murderer. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote>

Actually I think he was. The goal of such acts by those who commit them is to instil enough terror that women will not use such services and that no doctor will have the courage to provide them. And largely it is having that effect.

However, someone else on another forum made a point similar to the following: The women who use such services are by and large not the women who want to abort their babies. They are the ones who wanted to keep them. However in most cases something has gone so horribly wrong that their life is in extreme danger and there is little chance either they or their baby will survive if the pregnancy is not terminated. If it is, there is a good chance the mother will survive.

So the way I see it is people who commit this kind of act are not just killing the doctor. They are condemning hundreds of women to death if they succeed, and many of the babies they think they are saving would die anyway.

And ultimately I think if the radicals were less militant and oppressive over things such as denying adequate, safe, effective, and available contraception and early abortion then there would be far fewer women ever getting to the point of a late abortion.

If people want to stop abortion, they'd be more effective campaigning in favour of making effective contraception readily available, don't go around killing doctors and dragging us back all into the dark ages.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Extremism is not the crime he committed: murder was the crime he committed. He is not a terrorist, because he did not attempt to commit an act of violence in order to instill terror into a civillian population. Relative to the American mainstream, he was an extremist, but at the core, he was a murderer. Nothing more, nothing less.

quote>

Actually I think he was. The goal of such acts by those who commit them is to instil enough terror that women will not use such services and that no doctor will have the courage to provide them. And largely it is having that effect.

However, someone else on another forum made a point similar to the following: The women who use such services are by and large not the women who want to abort their babies. They are the ones who wanted to keep them. However in most cases something has gone so horribly wrong that their life is in extreme danger and there is little chance either they or their baby will survive if the pregnancy is not terminated. If it is, there is a good chance the mother will survive.

So the way I see it is people who commit this kind of act are not just killing the doctor. They are condemning hundreds of women to death if they succeed, and many of the babies they think they are saving would die anyway.

And ultimately I think if the radicals were less militant and oppressive over things such as denying adequate, safe, effective, and available contraception and early abortion then there would be far fewer women ever getting to the point of a late abortion.

If people want to stop abortion, they'd be more effective campaigning in favour of making effective contraception readily available, don't go around killing doctors and dragging us back all into the dark ages.

quote>

That and some genuine  "reproductive" education. There has to be a way to combine the abtsintence views with regular

safe sex practices, just provide the information with out the going to hell aspects of it.

Mabey a just say no campaign.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

There is a long list of OB/GYNs who have stated that abortions to save the life of the mother are either extremely rare, or nonexistent. One recently was the (female) Director of Obstetrics at a hospital in Chicago, who stated such in a letter to the Sun-Times. Another would be Rep. Ron Paul, an obstetrician with decades of experience who has delivered over 8,000 babies and said he has never seen a 'medically necessary' abortion. The concept is a club happily wielded by pro-abortionists, but has a very shaky basis in fact.

Also, as has not been pointed out, an abortion to save the life of the mother was already legal before Roe v. Wade. The slaughter of the unborn was the result of a successful propaganda war by those who wanted abortion on demand, and really had nothing to do with the genuine practice of medicine.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

And I love ur graphs Patricius.quote>

The graphs were made by Duke87, not me.quote>

Acrually, I didn't make them either. I just posted them (odd saying "them" since it's only one image).

But one entry in my huge "collection".

Originally posted by: manticorefan

There is a long list of OB/GYNs who have stated that abortions to save the life of the mother are either extremely rare, or nonexistent.quote>

How about an when there's ectopic pregnancy (i.e., the zygote implants in the fallopian tube before it ever reaches the uterus). This is a very dangerous situation which requires an abortion or surgical removal of the embryo to correct.

By the way, the Catholic church says that an abortion in that case is okay. Make what you will of that.

Also, as has not been pointed out, an abortion to save the life of the mother was already legal before Roe v. Wade. The slaughter of the unborn was the result of a successful propaganda war by those who wanted abortion on demand, and really had nothing to do with the genuine practice of medicine.

quote>

First of all, let's not use loaded terms like "slaughter" to describe abortion. It accomplishes nothing constructive.

Secondly.... there was also the matter of "back alley abortions", where women would get hurt and killed attempting to terminate pregnancies on the black market.

Besides which, Roe v. Wade was no propaganda war... although it was legislation from the bench (different issue).

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87

How about an when there's ectopic pregnancy (i.e., the zygote implants in the fallopian tube before it ever reaches the uterus). This is a very dangerous situation which requires an abortion or surgical removal of the embryo to correct.quote>

In that case, it's considered emergency surgery more than abortion. The abdomen isn't cut open for invasive surgery in a typical abortion.

First of all, let's not use loaded terms like "slaughter" to describe abortion. It accomplishes nothing constructive.

quote>

With 47 million-plus so far, it is an accurate term, regardless of how it may hurt someone's feelings.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Actually I think he was. The goal of such acts by those who commit them is to instil enough terror that women will not use such services and that no doctor will have the courage to provide them. And largely it is having that effect. quote>

Yes, it is having that effect. I cannot deny that. What is debatable is whether this particular act was intended to instill terror. As far as I know, he was motivated by the desire to prevent the abortion of fetuses by any means.

However, someone else on another forum made a point similar to the following: The women who use such services are by and large not the women who want to abort their babies. They are the ones who wanted to keep them. However in most cases something has gone so horribly wrong that their life is in extreme danger and there is little chance either they or their baby will survive if the pregnancy is not terminated. If it is, there is a good chance the mother will survive. quote>

Well, it does seem logical, even if you provided no hard data to support it. If they didn't want the fetus, they would have aborted it earlier.

So the way I see it is people who commit this kind of act are not just killing the doctor. They are condemning hundreds of women to death if they succeedquote>

It depends, but probably some women will die, although it may not be hundreds.

and many of the babies they think they are saving would die anyway. quote>

Which is the utter futility of the radical anti-abortion groups.

And ultimately I think if the radicals were less militant and oppressive over things such as denying adequate, safe, effective, and available contraception and early abortion then there would be far fewer women ever getting to the point of a late abortion. quote>

Probably.

If people want to stop abortion, they'd be more effective campaigning in favour of making effective contraception readily available, don't go around killing doctors and dragging us back all into the dark ages.quote>

I agree.

That and some genuine  "reproductive" education. There has to be a way to combine the abtsintence views with regular

safe sex practices, just provide the information with out the going to hell aspects of it.

Mabey a just say no campaign. quote>

Well, it is supposed to be sex education. If we are to have a form of sex education, it should not be sex indoctrination.

The slaughter of the unborn was the result of a successful propaganda war by those who wanted abortion on demand, and really had nothing to do with the genuine practice of medicine.quote>

There already was a "slaughter of the unborn" before Roe v. Wade: it was called back-alley abortions. Also, it was not a propaganda war by the pro-choice movement that led to the legalization of abortion; it was the court stating their position that it was a right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment (or if you prefer, the Fifth or Ninth Amendments).

Also, the pro-life groups have put out an amount of propaganda equal to or greater than the pro-choice groups.

There is a long list of OB/GYNs who have stated that abortions to save the life of the mother are either extremely rare, or nonexistent. One recently was the (female) Director of Obstetrics at a hospital in Chicago, who stated such in a letter to the Sun-Times. Another would be Rep. Ron Paul, an obstetrician with decades of experience who has delivered over 8,000 babies and said he has never seen a 'medically necessary' abortion. The concept is a club happily wielded by pro-abortionists, but has a very shaky basis in fact.quote>

Firstly, even if those situations are rare, it means that they do exist. It is like saying that since myasthenia gravis is an extremely rare disease, and you haven't seen it, then it does not exist. It is based in deeply flawed logic.

Secondly, even if abortions necessary to save the host's life are nonexistent, that does not mean that a person does not have ownership of one's own body, and has the right to control what enters it, what inhabits it, and (more difficult practically) what exits it.

And I love ur graphs Patricius.quote>

The graphs were made by Duke87, not me.quote>

Acrually, I didn't make them either. I just posted them (odd saying "them" since it's only one image).

But one entry in my huge "collection".quote>

Well, I wasn't correct, either. Your collection does have some interesting things in it, and can sometimes fool us....

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

If people want to stop abortion, they'd be more effective campaigning in favour of making effective contraception readily available, don't go around killing doctors and dragging us back all into the dark ages.quote>

I agree.

That and some genuine  "reproductive" education. There has to be a way to combine the abtsintence views with regular

safe sex practices, just provide the information with out the going to hell aspects of it.

Mabey a just say no campaign. quote>

Well, it is supposed to be sex education. If we are to have a form of sex education, it should not be sex indoctrination.quote>

I suppose that term was missleading.

What we need is sex education that gives genuine information not missinformation about it. too bad that wont happen.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Are you saying that the USA does not have a legal time limit beyond which abortions would be illegal.quote>

To my knowledge, no.

quote>

That's amazing! In Britain (and to my knowledge, much of Europe) there is a time limit in which abortions may be carried out, after which abortions are illegal. Notwithstanding there are countries in which abortions are illegal, period.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[yamaneko 2]

The Roe v. Wade test is one of the viability of the fetus. When decided, viability came at 24-26 weeks. The record is now under 22 weeks. The British standard is 24 weeks. American laws are more liberal on abortion, though our practices are far more conservative. For example, Mississippi has one clinic that performs abortions. In some states, insurance policies are forbidden to pay for abortions unless the mother's life or health are in danger.

[Meg 368]

I never understood the reasoning behind

-  Refusing to teach kids sexual education.  ("Just say no" doesn't count.)

-  Refusing to support any form of contraception

-  Refusing to support a woman's decision to have an abortion

and then

-  Deciding that the woman is scum because she needs to be on welfare because she wasn't ready to have the kid in the first place.

Where is the logic here?

I am all in favor of personal responsibility.  I think there is too little of it these days and, ultimately, we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions and actions.

But, as someone (Duke?) said earlier, letting a teenager reach puberty without detailed education about what is going on is similar to handing people a loaded gun without teaching them anything about firearm safety.   and then acting surprised and condemning them when something goes wrong.

Let's get real, people.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Care to elaborate?  How was it "legislation from the bench"?quote>

Find me something in the constitution that says a woman has a right to have an abortion.

Also, explain to me how having a right to privacy even implies having the right to have an abortion.

Whether people will admit it or not, justices on the supreme court do have political views and those views will influence their decisions. Why do you think everyone was so worried that if George Bush put too many too conservative judges on the bench that it could lead to the court overturning Roe v. Wade because it moved to the right? It wasn't becaue they were crazy or paranoid. If the court shifts too far politically in one direction, it's a valid concern that its decisions will start to lean too far in that direction (right or left).

At the time of Roe v. Wade, the court was leaning left. And it was a 5-4 decision. Controversial. Had the court been leaning right instead, it's not absurt to think that they might have ruled the other way.

Point being, the proper thing would be to just admit that there's no constitutional basis for abortion and leave the matter up to the states as it should have been. But of course politics, power, and the general acceptance of putting things in federal jurisdiction that don't belong there precluded that.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I never understood the reasoning behind

-  Refusing to teach kids sexual education.  ("Just say no" doesn't count.)

-  Refusing to support any form of contraception

-  Refusing to support a woman's decision to have an abortionquote>

Religion (Christianity specifically) would be the primary foundation of all three of those points.

and then

-  Deciding that the woman is scum because she needs to be on welfare because she wasn't ready to have the kid in the first place.

Where is the logic here?

I am all in favor of personal responsibility.  I think there is too little of it these days and, ultimately, we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions and actions.quote>

Well, that's exactly the logic. Personal responsibility. You screw up, you deal with the mess, not me. It's a great viewpoint but the problem is that like all things it can be taken to an extreme or, as is the case here, used when other policies are working against it.

But, as someone (Duke?) said earlier, letting a teenager reach puberty without detailed education about what is going on is similar to handing people a loaded gun without teaching them anything about firearm safety.   and then acting surprised and condemning them when something goes wrong. quote>

I may have said something like that at some point. It sounds like something I would say.

Really, it just goes to show you how religious thinking is problematic because it is quite resilient against change, even as the world around it changes. There was a time when you could tell kids to keep it in their pants until they were married and it would work. That time is no more. But there are still people who believe that premarital sex is sinful (which they're entitled to), and who feel the need to teach kids that (which they're not, unless we're talking about their kids specifically) because it's the right thing to do, and it should still work as it once did. Yeah, well, guess what: it doesn't. It does bupkis to stop teens and young adults from having sex and it's counterproductive on other related matters. It's also completely out of touch with reality, as policies backed by religion have an uncanny tendency to be. It would seem to be primarily because of the fixation on what, according to one's holy book, should be - rather than what is. So one forms opinions based on utopian ideals rather than on real-world circumstances. The world isn't perfect and, like it or not, teaching kids how to sin safely works a hell of a lot better (there's only a pun there if you want there to be one) than telling them not to sin and expecting them to obey - because they do not believe the same way and will act on their own beliefs.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Find me something in the constitution that says a woman has a right to have an abortion.

Also, explain to me how having a right to privacy even implies having the right to have an abortion. quote>

Find me something in the constitution that says we have a right to privacy.  (but that's another topic.)

There was a time when you could tell kids to keep it in their pants until they were married and it would work. That time is no more.  quote>

There was a time when it would work more than it does right now but it never totally worked.

Genealogy is one of my hobbies (anyone interested in having their family tree traced?) and, while digging through various documents, I found the marriage certificate for my great-grandparents and the birth certificate for their first child.   The kid was, as they say, "early".   My mom thought this was hilarious since she remembers her grandmother as being a very staunch, very stern, very Catholic woman.  We are talking about events that happened in 1879.

At any rate, you are correct:  that time is no more.  assuming it ever was in the first place.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Care to elaborate?  How was it "legislation from the bench"?  I am so tired of this phrase that it makes me want to commit post-birth abortion when I hear it... 

...I also tire of this garbage argument about the "slaughter of the unborn". 

quote>

Some cheese to go with that whine?

[Meg 368]

hmmm . . . let's see how that is discussing the issues, not each other.

Oh yeah, it isn't.

Let's follow the rules, guys.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Duke87

Find me something in the constitution that says a woman has a right to have an abortion.

Also, explain to me how having a right to privacy even implies having the right to have an abortion. quote>

Find me something in the constitution that says we have a right to privacy.  (but that's another topic.)

There was a time when you could tell kids to keep it in their pants until they were married and it would work. That time is no more.  quote>

There was a time when it would work more than it does right now but it never totally worked.

Genealogy is one of my hobbies (anyone interested in having their family tree traced?) and, while digging through various documents, I found the marriage certificate for my great-grandparents and the birth certificate for their first child.   The kid was, as they say, "early".   My mom thought this was hilarious since she remembers her grandmother as being a very staunch, very stern, very Catholic woman.  We are talking about events that happened in 1879.

At any rate, you are correct:  that time is no more.  assuming it ever was in the first place.quote>

I think we all have "back in my day things were better syndrome". There were probably just as many "Unexpected" happenings as there are now ( %  wise adjusting for poulation increasing ) They just kept it in the family. You know like spousal abuse was kept very much private untill recently. 

And the Circus Begins

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525038,00.html?test=latestnews

Roeder's public defender filed a motion for bond Wednesday in Sedgwick County District Court. Attorney Steve Osburn cites a Kansas law saying bond should be granted for defendants charged with non-capital crimes.quote>

Wonder if the  judge remided his Lawyer that Murder is a capitol crime?

 

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

...

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

I never understood the reasoning behind

-  Refusing to teach kids sexual education.  ("Just say no" doesn't count.)

-  Refusing to support any form of contraception

-  Refusing to support a woman's decision to have an abortionquote>

...

and then

-  Deciding that the woman is scum because she needs to be on welfare because she wasn't ready to have the kid in the first place.

Where is the logic here?

I am all in favor of personal responsibility.  I think there is too little of it these days and, ultimately, we all have to live with the consequences of our decisions and actions.quote>

Well, that's exactly the logic. Personal responsibility. You screw up, you deal with the mess, not me. It's a great viewpoint but the problem is that like all things it can be taken to an extreme or, as is the case here, used when other policies are working against it.

...

quote>

But how can someone take responsibility for their actions when they don't have sufficient knowledge of the consequences of their actions or the choices available to them? I think that was the point being made. If people are denied education in their choices and how the whole thing works, then how can they be expected to choose the right path to a reasonable outcome? Under conditions outlined in the points above they haven't got a chance. And then everyone condemns them whichever way they go.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

There is a long list of OB/GYNs who have stated that abortions to save the life of the mother are either extremely rare, or nonexistent. One recently was the (female) Director of Obstetrics at a hospital in Chicago, who stated such in a letter to the Sun-Times. Another would be Rep. Ron Paul, an obstetrician with decades of experience who has delivered over 8,000 babies and said he has never seen a 'medically necessary' abortion.

quote>

As the quote goes, "the plural of anecdote is not data". One person writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper is not in any way persuasive, no matter who they are. And doctors usually refer very difficult cases to others who specialise in them, so it may well be true that he never saw one, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, especially when others who do specialise in them write them up in the medical literature.

Oh, and if its anecdotes you want, then there are plenty of people's stories you can find, people who wanted their babies but couldn't have them and had to make a difficult choice.

[Meg 368]

Orginally posted by:  sam

But how can someone take responsibility for their actions when they don't have sufficient knowledge of the consequences of their actions or the choices available to them? I think that was the point being made. If people are denied education in their choices and how the whole thing works, then how can they be expected to choose the right path to a reasonable outcome? Under conditions outlined in the points above they haven't got a chance. And then everyone condemns them whichever way they go.quote>

Thank you, sam.  That was the point I was trying to make.   You phrased it better than I did.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I suppose that term was missleading.

What we need is sex education that gives genuine information not missinformation about it. too bad that wont happen.quote>

I agree, and it should be that way for all "education'.

Care to elaborate?  How was it "legislation from the bench"?  I am so tired of this phrase that it makes me want to commit post-birth abortion when I hear it.  People seem to completely forget the purpose of the Judiciary.  They are not making law, they are interpreting existing law.  While everyone has their own interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is clear that the decisions made are based on what is being discussed (by individuals who are far more knowledgable than we can pretend to be).  We may not agree with it (look to the CA Supreme Court decision on overturning Prop , but the decision makes sense.  Women have a right to privacy and control over their own bodies (which includes pregnancy).quote>

Well, I believe that the basis in the Fourteenth Amendment is more shaky than the Ninth Amendment, and it can make a better case for legalization of abortion, which was what some district courts thought. However, whatever part of the Constitution is invoked, I believe that the court's decision in Roe v. Wade was the essentially correct one (in stark contrast to a lot of their statements).

I also tire of this garbage argument about the "slaughter of the unborn".  Give it a rest, already.  Someone can believe one concept, but that does not mean they need to force their concept on others.  Don't like abortion?  Fine, don't get one.  Support abortion?  Fine, make an educated decision as to whether you really want to go though it.  I do not pretend to know what is best for an individual, so I choose not to impose my beliefs on someone I will not influence.quote>

It frustrates me some as well. It is not as if anyone is trying to force them to get an abortion. If they have a child, they can carry it to term and put it¹ up for adoption, as they say everyone else should. If they wish to abort the fetus or embryo, they can do so. That is the beauty of the pro-choice position.

But, as someone (Duke?) said earlier, letting a teenager reach puberty without detailed education about what is going on is similar to handing people a loaded gun without teaching them anything about firearm safety.   and then acting surprised and condemning them when something goes wrong.

Let's get real, people.quote>

Well, yes. People cannot be expected to make informed choices without information.

Whether people will admit it or not, justices on the supreme court do have political views and those views will influence their decisions. Why do you think everyone was so worried that if George Bush put too many too conservative judges on the bench that it could lead to the court overturning Roe v. Wade because it moved to the right? It wasn't becaue they were crazy or paranoid. If the court shifts too far politically in one direction, it's a valid concern that its decisions will start to lean too far in that direction (right or left). quote>

Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States, to not use any euphemisms, gives their opinion on the Constitutionality of certain acts, and those opinions carry the force of law.

Find me something in the constitution that says a woman has a right to have an abortion.

Also, explain to me how having a right to privacy even implies having the right to have an abortion.quote>

Think more Ninth Amendment than Fourteenth...

¹The use of the term 'it' by myself is not intended to be dehumanizing. It is simply another gender-nonspecific term, such as a singular 'they'.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Nerd_Guy 4]

Hello

I rarely, if ever, post in this forum, but I read every thread that is posted. I would like to say first that I do not go to church and mostly do not like organised religion, but I do have spiritual beliefs. I will keep them to myself, however, because I know they would be thrown back in my face. I do not agree with abortion in any way shape or form. It is not neccesary, no matter what the arguments are for it. On the topic of the rather ironic murder of the man I consider a murderer, I believe it was justifiable.  That belief is based only on a logical point of view. The abortions carried out by this doctor are what both the extremists and those sitting on the fence would consider murder. In states that support capital punishment, if the doctor had killed any other human being than he would have been killed himself. Obviously this man did not value human life, so why should any value be placed in his? That statement is the most logical I can find in this situation and I have thought about it since I first heard. I know I will most likely be flamed and harrassed for it, and I think anyone who does that should know that my not responding to such things is also what I consider logical.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Nerd_Guy

Obviously this man did not value human life, so why should any value be placed in his? That statement is the most logical I can find in this situation and I have thought about it since I first heard. quote>

He did not valule human life according to your beliefs. According to his beliefs, he did nothing wrong.

Now, you belive that he deserved what he got, others here do not. however, that is beside the point. he didn't break the your laws, but the man who killed him did.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Your callousness towards the unborn is duly noted. Your over-generalization of the pro-life community is also noted.quote>

How about your callousness towards an amoeba, a blood cell, a nematode, or a bacterium? An embryo/fetus is a non-sentient lifeform, the same as the ones previously mentioned, and does demonstrate parasitical characteristics, according even to a dictionary definition:

Also, I did not generalize the pro-life "community" as hypocrite murderers. I stated that many, if not most, pro-lifers are hypocrites because they value protecting non-sentient parasites over humans from the state (execution), animals from butchers, or even bacteria from hand sanitizer.quote>

the issue with abortion is that it has the same issues with cannibalism/murder, you are eating/killing human flesh

For the record, Tiller wasn't a garden-variety abortionist, he was a practitioner of partial birth abortion, where a child is partially delivered to expose the head, and the head is crushed or punctured and the brain sucked out. This is done up to the day of delivery (albeit in rare cases). The "non-sentient parasite" will scream and struggle, as "it" is entirely capable of feeling pain. It is infanticide, and everyone knows it.quote>

you do realise that in many countries there are legal limits to the time at which an abortion can be carried out (24-26 weeks here i think)

First of all, I do not understand why he is being called an abortionist. Logically, an abortionist would be a believer in abortionism. Since there is no definition of what abortionism is, someone cannot be called an abortionist. He was a doctor that performed abortions of all varities.quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossaquote>

Here's the thing though.

Amendment number 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.quote>

The relevant part of amendment number 14:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.quote>

Given that there is controversy over whether abortion is actually a right, it seems more appropriate to invoke number 10 here. Let it be decided by the states. And, anyone from a state where it's not allowed can go to a state where it is if they really want one anyway.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Hello

I rarely, if ever, post in this forum, but I read every thread that is posted. I would like to say first that I do not go to church and mostly do not like organised religion, but I do have spiritual beliefs. I will keep them to myself, however, because I know they would be thrown back in my face. I do not agree with abortion in any way shape or form. It is not neccesary, no matter what the arguments are for it. On the topic of the rather ironic murder of the man I consider a murderer, I believe it was justifiable.  That belief is based only on a logical point of view. The abortions carried out by this doctor are what both the extremists and those sitting on the fence would consider murder. In states that support capital punishment, if the doctor had killed any other human being than he would have been killed himself. Obviously this man did not value human life, so why should any value be placed in his? That statement is the most logical I can find in this situation and I have thought about it since I first heard. I know I will most likely be flamed and harrassed for it, and I think anyone who does that should know that my not responding to such things is also what I consider logical.quote>

Ah, but that is making the assumption that a fetus is a sapient human life-form, which at best is debatable. Assuming that is true, then many would believe it was justifiable, but I don't. Even if he was a murderer, I don't believe he should have been murdered himself, as then the 'avenger' would have committed the same crime that he claims to abhor, and it certainly was not self-defensive.

the issue with abortion is that it has the same issues with cannibalism/murder, you are eating/killing human fleshquote>

Firstly, I do not consider cannibalism to be intrinsically unethical. Now, killing someone for food is unethical, because killing is, but eating the flesh of someone that is already dead is not. I do believe that cannabilism is disgusting, but then there are many other foods that I (and many others) consider disgusting.

Secondly, killing skin cells (flesh) is not what I would describe as murder, but I suppose I'm being too literal here. Assuming that flesh means a human life-form, then yes, killing it would be unethical, but a fetus is not a human life-form, as it does not meet the characteristics of the human species.

again, not that many people have a problem with eating meat (or kiling germs) but not many people don't have a problem with cannibalismquote>

Really, what does cannibalism have to do with this debate?

Perhaps you have a problem with the 14^th, given your comment, but it is quite clear in more than one instance that a person has control of their corpus and the government cannot intrude without just cause.  Religious objections aside (note the 2^nd), there is no jusitifiable reason for the goverment to have any say in what a person does with their own body.

This is also something that can be extrapolated to topics discussed in other threads (cannabis, for example).quote>

Thanks for invoking the Fifth amendment as well. You are right, in my view, to cite the Fifth and Ninth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment states (and I paraphrase) that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be exploited to deny other rights. The Fifth Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The state criminalizing abortion would in my opinion amount to a government siezure of the host of the fetus. There is also the Ninth Amendment to consider.

So, my opinion of Roe v. Wade is basically this: right idea, wrong amendment.

The relevant part of amendment number 14:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.quote>

quote>

The courts' opinion, and one that I agree with, is that due process of law includes federal law, which includes the Constitution of the United States, which includes Amendments 5 and 9.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Secondly, killing skin cells (flesh) is not what I would describe as murder, but I suppose I'm being too literal here. Assuming that flesh means a human life-form, then yes, killing it would be unethical, but a fetus is not a human life-form, as it does not meet the characteristics of the human species.quote>

What species or lifeform would it be, then? Are we back to the antiquated idea that a fetus passes through multiple species before becoming human?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Do none of the groups on either side make the point of  at what point in the development  a baby can have a resonable chance of surviveing outside the mother?

 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Do none of the groups on either side make the point of  at what point in the development  a baby can have a resonable chance of surviveing outside the mother?

 quote>

Define "reasonable".     Does "reasonable" include intensive medical care?

The care and survival of premature babies has changed dramatically over the past few decades.

In 1963, President Kennedy and his wife had a premature baby.  This kid had the best medical care available at the time but he died two days later.  These days his case would be considered routine.

My nephew was born 9 weeks early.  It took over $90,000 of medical care to get him to his original due date.  That may not have been reasonable but it worked.   He's doing great.  I attended his high school graduation tonight.

 

The more premature a baby is, the less likely he is to survive in good health.   There can be many complications.  Various lung problems and nervous system problems are common.  They often "forget" to breath because their nervous system isn't mature enough.  They aren't supposed to be breathing at that point so their lungs aren't ready for it anyway.

There is a long list of other problems here.  and those are just the short term complications.   

The long term complications include cerebral palsy, vision & hearing impairment, and cognitive impairment.  [link]

So what is "reasonable"?   Depends on whether you are talking about winding up with a healthy baby or not a healthy one and whether or not you are using intense medical intervention along the way.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Do none of the groups on either side make the point of  at what point in the development  a baby can have a resonable chance of surviveing outside the mother?

 quote>

Define "reasonable".     Does "reasonable" include intensive medical care?

The care and survival of premature babies has changed dramatically over the past few decades.

In 1963, President Kennedy and his wife had a premature baby.  This kid had the best medical care available at the time but he died two days later.  These days his case would be considered routine.

My nephew was born 9 weeks early.  It took over $90,000 of medical care to get him to his original due date.  That may not have been reasonable but it worked.   He's doing great.  I attended his high school graduation tonight.

 

The more premature a baby is, the less likely he is to survive in good health.   There can be many complications.  Various lung problems and nervous system problems are common.  They often "forget" to breath because their nervous system isn't mature enough.  They aren't supposed to be breathing at that point so their lungs aren't ready for it anyway.

There is a long list of other problems here.  and those are just the short term complications.   

The long term complications include cerebral palsy, vision & hearing impairment, and cognitive impairment.  [link]

So what is "reasonable"?   Depends on whether you are talking about winding up with a healthy baby or not a healthy one and whether or not you are using intense medical intervention along the way.quote>

I guess you have to include intensive medical care since it exists for every one to use. We cant go back to the 40s and 50 level medical care if we dont have to.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I guess you have to include intensive medical care since it exists for every one to use. quote>

It does?   Everyone?

We cant go back to the 40s and 50 level medical care if we dont have to.  quote>

 

There are many places in the world that haven't gotten that far.

There are many people who can not afford the care my nephew got.   My sister happened to have excellent health insurance and happened to be in a city where excellent neo-natal care is available.

That is not true for everyone.  There are many areas, just in the US, where it is hours to the nearest neonatal intensive care unit.   I can tell you, my sister would not have made it that far.