The Unknown Zone - proudly an American forum!

WICHITA, Kansas - Media reports say that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church.

Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades.

He was acquitted in March of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict the state's medical board announced it was investigating allegations against him that are nearly identical to those the jury had rejected.
Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.

Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple declined to speak to reporters afterward.

Tiller, 67, has claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated. An attorney general who opposed abortion rights began the investigation into Tiller's clinic more than four years ago, but both his successor, who filed the criminal charges, and the current attorney general support abortion rights.

Tiller has been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/

:rolleyes:

If you don't like the outcome of the court case, just take the law into your own hands in the name of your god.   :mad:

Quote from: Locutus on May 31, 2009, 01:16:13 PM
:rolleyes:

If you don't like the outcome of the court case, just take the law into your own hands in the name of your god.   :mad:

Isn't that what Jeebus would do?

I'm sorry but that man was a monster.  I don't see how he could have birthed live baby's and killed them which in essence is what he did.  I'm not saying someone should have shot him but I am saying he was totally wrong in what he did.

Quote from: me on May 31, 2009, 03:06:30 PMI'm not saying someone should have shot him but I am saying he was totally wrong in what he did.

The law disagrees.

Quote from: LOsborne on May 31, 2009, 03:35:44 PM
The law disagrees.

Do you think he was right to kill babies in the manner he did?   

Do you know the circumstances behind why those abortions may have been necessary.

Quote from: me on May 31, 2009, 03:06:30 PM
I'm sorry but that man was a monster.  I don't see how he could have birthed live baby's and killed them which in essence is what he did.  I'm not saying someone should have shot him but I am saying he was totally wrong in what he did.

Really?  You think he was a monster?

From the article:

Quote

Tiller began providing abortion services in 1973. He acknowledged abortion was as socially divisive as slavery or prohibition but said the issue was about giving women a choice when dealing with technology that can diagnose severe fetal abnormalities before a baby is born.

"Pre-natal testing without pre-natal choices is medical fraud," Tiller once said.

Quote from: LOsborne on May 31, 2009, 03:04:09 PM
Isn't that what Jeebus would do?

Yep.  And he would do it in a house of worship just as was done this morning.  </sarcasm>

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 31, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Do you know the circumstances behind why those abortions may have been necessary.

3rd trimester, or fully formed baby abortions are not warranted. They can go ahead and have the babies at that point and give them up for adoption. What in the world were they waiting for?????????
I still don't think that killing anyone solves the problem. Not all christians believe in taking the law into their hands.

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 04:55:38 PM
3rd trimester, or fully formed baby abortions are not warranted.

Really?  Why?

Again from the article:

Quote

Tiller began providing abortion services in 1973. He acknowledged abortion was as socially divisive as slavery or prohibition but said the issue was about giving women a choice when dealing with technology that can diagnose severe fetal abnormalities before a baby is born.

"Pre-natal testing without pre-natal choices is medical fraud," Tiller once said.

1. why was these tests not done sooner?
2. if these "tests" make a woman not want her baby there is someone out there who does.
3. It is "murder" not abortion at that stage to me and alot others. (3rd trimester)
4. do you realize that the baby is at least 6 months along at this stage?
The only time there should be abortion at this stage is to save the mothers life. thats my opinion and I am not going out with a gun to uphold it.

mcgonser: What about the life of the mother or severe deformity of the unborn child?

Not all conditions are apparent during the 1st trimester, thus the reason women see a doctor regularly throughout the pregnancy AND the reason prenatal care is of the upmost importance.

Quote from: me on May 31, 2009, 03:58:03 PM
Do you think he was right to kill babies in the manner he did?   

Doesn't matter what I think. This act wasn't about what I think, or what you think. According to the law of the land, the doctor did no wrong. You can work to change the law, if you are so minded, and once you have accomplished this goal (if ever) you can then refer to lawful abortions as homicides. But not now. The only murderer in the story is the gunman in Wichita.

Quote from: LOsborne on May 31, 2009, 05:42:41 PM
Doesn't matter what I think. This act wasn't about what I think, or what you think. According to the law of the land, the doctor did no wrong. You can work to change the law, if you are so minded, and once you have accomplished this goal (if ever) you can then refer to lawful abortions as homicides. But not now. The only murderer in the story is the gunman in Wichita.

I reconize that there is no legal law against abortions in the last trimester. It still doesn't change my mind about it being murder. I call them as I see them.

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
1. why was these tests not done sooner?

Perhaps because tests to determine fetal abnormalities are done as the fetus develops and not according to any timeline that you, or those like you, choose to fit your self serving/religious based agenda.

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
2. if these "tests" make a woman not want her baby there is someone out there who does.

Wow!  You speak with such certainty.  You surely must have some data to back up that claim. After I read your evidence, I'm sure I will find hoards of people lining up to adopt babies/children with birth defects, mental retardations, and physical abnormalities.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.  Just ante on up with your evidence.  :wink:

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
3. It is "murder" not abortion at that stage to me and alot others. (3rd trimester)

As has been pointed out to you previously by LOsborne, the only murderer is the shooter. 

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
4. do you realize that the baby is at least 6 months along at this stage?

Actually, you're wrong. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM

The only time there should be abortion at this stage is to save the mothers life. thats my opinion and I am not going out with a gun to uphold it.

Again, that's your opinion and isn't at all supported by law.  :wink:  Please educate yourself.  You'll be better off for it.   

Oh please, the necessity to kill a child at this stage of development almost NEVER occurs!!! It is EXTREMELY rare. This ass was a monster. Plus, when women undergo such a procedure, did you know they develop cancer at a much higher rate??? This is an extremely dangerous procedure to the woman too.

Quote from: Gardengirl on June 01, 2009, 12:38:39 AM
Oh please, the necessity to kill a child at this stage of development almost NEVER occurs!!! It is EXTREMELY rare. This ass was a monster.

Really?  You guys keep calling him a monster, but none of you have addressed this:

Quote

He acknowledged abortion was as socially divisive as slavery or prohibition but said the issue was about giving women a choice when dealing with technology that can diagnose severe fetal abnormalities before a baby is born.

None of you have offered up any evidence in support of your "monster" theory outside of your collective wild eyed ranting on this thread.  If any of you have some evidence, offer it up.  I'm waiting. 

Quote from: Gardengirl on June 01, 2009, 12:38:39 AM
Plus, when women undergo such a procedure, did you know they develop cancer at a much higher rate??? This is an extremely dangerous procedure to the woman too.

Well that smells like a lil' BS to me, but perhaps you've read that snippet on WND.  :wink:  Debate on this forum must be based on facts, evidence, and logic, and so far you've offered none of the above. 

Why aren't any of you addressing the acceptability of late term abortions in the cases of severe fetal abnormalities?  You're all pounding your fists and huffing and puffing, but none of you have addressed that one simple point.  And if there is a case of fetal abnormalities, what exactly gives you (those opining on this thread who would so willingly subject the rest of us to your moral absolutes) the right to stick your nose into the business of a family who is confronted with that situation?

If you will notice from the pic's that any abnormalities would be discovered long before the 6th month of a pregnancy.  http://www.aboutabortions.com/EmbFetal.htm    and another one which follows it more closely  http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/WeekByWeek/Weekly_Intro.htm

Are you sure?  Are those scientific and/or medically based sources, or are they just mere anti-abortion websites filled with propaganda?  I already know.  Do you?

Quote from: Locutus on June 01, 2009, 01:48:38 AM
Are you sure?  Are those scientific and/or medically based sources, or are they just mere anti-abortion websites filled with propaganda?  I already know.  Do you?

I believe those are scientific sites.  I tried my best to steer clear of the antiabortion sites and I did run across some of them. 

 

Quote from: me on June 01, 2009, 01:59:56 AM
I believe those are scientific sites.  I tried my best to steer clear of the antiabortion sites and I did run across some of them. 

Just because you believe they're scientific sites doesn't mean that they are.  :no:  I did a small bit of research, but I'm falling asleep. 

Ahem!   -----V

Quote from: Locutus on June 01, 2009, 12:55:41 AM
Why aren't any of you addressing the acceptability of late term abortions in the cases of severe fetal abnormalities?  You're all pounding your fists and huffing and puffing, but none of you have addressed that one simple point.  And if there is a case of fetal abnormalities, what exactly gives you (those opining on this thread who would so willingly subject the rest of us to your moral absolutes) the right to stick your nose into the business of a family who is confronted with that situation?

What gives you the right to stick your nose into the business of others?

Oh Henry, I'm waiting.  :wink: :razz: :biggrin:

Quote from: Locutus on June 01, 2009, 12:55:41 AM
Why aren't any of you addressing the acceptability of late term abortions in the cases of severe fetal abnormalities?  You're all pounding your fists and huffing and puffing, but none of you have addressed that one simple point.  And if there is a case of fetal abnormalities, what exactly gives you (those opining on this thread who would so willingly subject the rest of us to your moral absolutes) the right to stick your nose into the business of a family who is confronted with that situation?

It does not take until a woman is 5 or 6 months pregnant to find out if there is a brain, limbs are forming properly, or even downs syndrome for that matter.  The heart beat is also found before that so some of those excuses for those partial birth abortions are very lame. 
The word abortion is not even mentioned in those things I sent it is just showing the timeline of developement and explaining what is going on with the fetus much like you would learn in a classroom. 
To save the mothers life, yes, if the baby is going to be still born or has a serious birth defect, yes, but just because the mother has decided she doesn't want the baby and waited until the 6th month to decide to have an abortion....hell no. 

Quote from: mcgonser on May 31, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
1. why was these tests not done sooner?

Was?  I see you're showing your extensive education...again.   :rolleyes:

2. if these "tests" make a woman not want her baby there is someone out there who does.

Sure, there are lots of people who want to adopt a baby born with Tay-Sachs disease.  What prospective couple wouldn't look forward to caring for a child who, before he/she dies (typically by the age of 4), becomes blind, deaf, unable to swallow, has muscle atrophy and then paralysis, and finally suffers from dementia and seizures and what good mother wouldn't want to give her child the gift of at least those four years of constant pain and agony?

It appears some of you claiming a "scientific" perspective on this subject forgot to obtain a degree in such beforehand. . .  :rolleyes: :biggrin:

There are crippling diseases that are not plainly apparent before birth without extensive testing, including genetic testing. Some of them may not appear until well into the third trimester. . . And even then there is a chance it could slip by.

The man in question broke no laws of humankind in this country. So humankind kills him.  :mad: It never ceases to amaze me how zealots condemn those that they say commit murder according to their beliefs, then turn around a kill another human being that is already a positive contributor to life. So hypocitical!  :icon_evil: And then there are those that support murder by attempting to justify his/her actions post homicide.
(According to the laws of man and this nation).

Perhaps we should enact legislation to deal out a special form of execution for those who perform such an act as that which transpired herein? Like, crucifixion for those that kill human beings adjudicated as innocent. . .

Quote from: Locutus on June 01, 2009, 02:15:04 AM
Oh Henry, I'm waiting.  :wink: :razz: :biggrin:

Hey, I'm JUST now returning from the weekend...just getting caught up....not dodging....

First of all, I find it very sad that THIS man was gunned down.  He was gunned down by a disturbed person.  But this person does NOT represent Jesus nor Christianity!!....IN any WAY, SHAPE or FORM!!

In MY opinion.......NO true Christian will condone what happened...even though I 100% disagree with abortions....It IS a law to allow them...I am ALL in favor of peacefull protests....THIS wacknut, is in the same league as the flake that set the bomb in Oklahoma!!...like the saying goes, "calling yourself a Christian because you go to church, is like calling yourself a car because you are in a garage..."

so, you won't get a rise out of me, to defend this moron, who gunned down this man....and I think, MOST Christians across this NATION, feel like I do on this.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 01, 2009, 08:23:14 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how zealots condemn those that they say commit murder according to their beliefs, then turn around a kill another human being that is already a positive contributor to life.

It's like screwing to promote abstinence!

First of all I have in no way advocated the murder of the doctor. That is not the way to handle these situations.
2nd-If it is medically necessary can they not go to a hospital for this procedure? Not an abortion clinic.
3rd-I will not prove anything to you, you guys don't listen anyway. I stated my oipinion and really don't care if you agree. I don't need your permission.
4th -this is a public forum and everyone has the right to post their opinion. No one side (however wrong) has the only right to post. This is not a good old boys club that I can see.
5th-was or were Ex, as usual you are being an ass about peoples grammar and spelling. Fire away, It means nothing.

Quote from: Gardengirl on June 01, 2009, 12:38:39 AM
... when women undergo such a procedure, did you know they develop cancer at a much higher rate??? This is an extremely dangerous procedure to the woman too.

The truth about induced abortion and breast cancer risk from the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html

And the moral is, don't blow smoke when you can't back it up with a source.

Quote from: mcgonser on June 01, 2009, 09:24:19 AM
2nd-If it is medically necessary can they not go to a hospital for this procedure? Not an abortion clinic.

Gotta address this one, Mac. The reason for the clinic instead of the hospital is INSURANCE (also known as Public Enemy Number one.) Clinics will perform this as an out-patient procedure. Hospitals insist on admitting the patient, with the accompanying room charges and $4.00 acetaminophen tablets. I found this out when my first child died in utero at five months. I had a miscarriage, not an abortion, but the insurance company wasn't interested in such fine distinctions.

Thanks for answering my question LO: I was curious about that, but see now what the difference is.

You're welcome, Mac. I hope you know I would never ridicule your opinion, just because it isn't mine. I always find your thoughts worth reading. (me's too.)

Just because I'm a pagan anarchist instead of a conservative Christian is no reason to be rude. Besides, I like the way you express yourself.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 01, 2009, 08:15:43 PM
You're welcome, Mac. I hope you know I would never ridicule your opinion, just because it isn't mine.

Good; that's my job.   :biggrin:

 :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Quote from: Exterminator on June 02, 2009, 07:59:11 AM
Good; that's my job.   :biggrin:

And you do it very well, Ex. By the way, thanks for adding some variety to the insults. The others seem to be following your lead. Makes for a much more productive morning session on here for me. I steal all the best lines to use at work.

If any of you listen to Coast-to-Coast radio overnight, did you hear the caller that praised the whacknut who did this live on the air???

The host didn't recognize the name and so the delay was of no help. But once he did he made a point of stating that he totally disagreed with the previous caller. . .

I actually do not listen to it live, but listen to a replay in the early morning during my commute.

The following is a letter from a lady who had a late term abortion to then candidate Barack Obama.

---

Dear Sen. Barack Obama,

You recently spoke with Cameron Strang, publisher of Relevant magazine. During that interview, Strang asked if you could clarify your position on "third-trimester and partial-birth abortion," and you replied:

"...I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Your response leads me to believe that you've either never had a one-on-one discussion with a woman who has had a late-term abortion, or that you've been too uncomfortable to ask such a woman difficult questions concerning not only the procedure but what led her to make that choice. Because a president needs to be given as much first-hand knowledge as possible as he develops policy, I'd like to help remedy this deficiency.


Thirteen years ago I had a late term abortion.

That's the concise sentence I use when I don't want to talk about what really happened. It takes all the emotion, all the family turmoil, all the medical terminology and all the grief, and packages it nice and neat. The listener is momentarily left speechless — long enough for me to walk away. Few follow as I retreat because only a select few really want to get beyond the politically charged debate that's fueled by marketing consultant jargon such as "partial-birth abortion."

Since by sheer virtue of space I cannot possibly offer you everything you need to know in this letter, I am making a promise that if you call or if we meet I will not give you any pat responses. I will do my best to open old wounds and allow my personal experience to become your own. In case you elect not to make good on this offer, I will provide what I can here.

Thirteen years ago I was married, living in a midsize southern town and caring for my then-3-year-old daughter. We attended church each Sunday, and I taught Sunday school and sang in the choir. I was thrilled when I learned that I was expecting a second child, and we announced the news to family and friends.

Around 20 weeks into the pregnancy my obstetrician scheduled a routine ultrasound at a nearby rural hospital. The technician was chatty as we walked from the waiting room. After we arrived and cool gel had been placed on my abdomen, she continued to talk as she moved the wand back and forth. A few moments later her movements slowed, she stopped talking and her skin paled. The ultrasound machine, which had originally been placed where I could see the image on the screen, was moved out of my line of sight. Her fingers began quick movements on the keyboard.

At the end of the exam, I was given a warm cloth to clean the gel and was asked to wait in a nearby chair. Soon a different worker came into the room and told me that I'd need to return the following day for a more intensive scan. I agreed and left.

The scene drastically changed the following day when I arrived for the second scan. First, my obstetrician was the one who met me in the waiting room. When we walked into the room with the equipment, I was quickly introduced to two other doctors and a woman who would be performing the scan. I immediately felt like a bug under a microscope. No one paid much attention to me. They all gathered around the ultrasound screen — something I was never allowed to view — and spoke in soft voices while pointing at the pictures.

When they had finished their work, I was told that they needed to review the scan. I was instructed to go get something to eat and then meet my doctor back at his office a short time later. I was nervous and confused, but didn't see the point in arguing. I left and lit a candle in the chapel. Then I walked around the downtown area until time to meet with the doctor.

Nothing seemed uniquely odd when I arrived at the doctor's office. The nurses and receptionist greeted me as they had throughout the pregnancy. I was asked to sit in the waiting room for a short time before I was called back. Instead of being placed in an exam room, however, I was ushered into the doctor's office. He sat behind a large desk and motioned me into a brown leather chair opposite him. He didn't start the conversation by telling me how sorry he was. Instead, he began by telling me the findings of the ultrasound scan from that morning.

He looked me in the eye and said, "Anencephaly." I looked back at him, hearing the word but not understanding its meaning. "That's the worst of the neural tube defects," he said and paused again. I just stared at him and nodded. "Severe spina bifida would be bad enough, but the anencephaly..." He looked at me and then toward a box of tissues.

"Lynda," he said, "do you hear what I'm saying?" I nodded again. "Anencephaly," he repeated as if that one word should give me all the information I needed.

He looked as if he wanted to shake me, to force me to understand the word so that he wouldn't be forced beyond the shield of medical terminology.

"You know, I thought about this yesterday after the first scan," I told him. "I realize that there is probably something wrong with our baby, but whatever it is, I plan to deal with it."

He looked down at his desk blotter and then said in a very soft voice, "There will be no baby, Lynda. This baby is going to die."

I'm not exactly sure what I did immediately after that. The next thing I remember is driving the 30-some miles toward home. I had a packet of information from the doctor's office on the seat beside me. At the top of the packet was the phone number of another doctor who was expecting my call later that day.

I did call that doctor, and, when he gave me the same information as my original doctor, I phoned another doctor. Then I contacted a fourth and finally a fifth. I was ready to drive or fly, beg or steal whatever it took to make this child "OK" again.

On the day that demolition teams leveled the tattered remains of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, I gazed out from the windows of the University of Oklahoma Hospital. I knew the doctors at that facility had a great deal of knowledge when it came to neonatal conditions. I also knew that they were probably my last hope.

The differences in what happened that day and what had taken place in the weeks before were striking. The screen showing the ultrasound images was not only turned to face me, but it was moved very close and provided me the very best view of anyone in the room. After the initial diagnostic scan was complete, all staff left the room except for the one doctor. He sat on a stool and wheeled around so that he could be right at my bedside. He showed me images from the scan we had just taken and held up pictures from "normal" scans. One by one, he went through each of the differences, explaining each in graphic detail. When we had finished with the scans, he sat them on a nearby table and grabbed a stack of books that contained medical pictures — photographs of infants who had similar defects as the child I was carrying. He went through those slowly as well, allowing me time to ask a question or to turn away and cry.

By the time we had gone through it all, I finally understood. The child I carried remained alive only because of his connection to me. For all practical purposes, I was serving as a life support system and, as soon as that system was removed, he would die.

Several days passed while my family debated the decision on whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. In the interim the doctor from the university hospital took my case before a state medical board for permission. Because the term of my pregnancy was well outside the state's legal limits for abortion, a special ruling had to be made. The doctor explained that receiving such approval would not require me to go through with terminating if I decided not to do so, but would save time if I decided that was the route I wished to take.

We did eventually make the decision to terminate the pregnancy instead of carrying to term. It wasn't a decision we made lightly. It wasn't a decision that brought us relief or joy. We just knew that for us — for our family — it was the best of several horrific options.

When I phoned the doctor the next day to let him know our decision, he had news of his own to share. The state had denied our waiver, mandating that we would have to carry until either the child died or my body began labor on its own. The doctor provided our family with the name of a doctor in a nearby state that did not have the same legal requirements. Had the state board permitted the waiver, our insurance would have been obligated to pay for the procedure. Instead, it took us several more days to raise enough money to pay the out-of-pocket medical expenses and the travel expenses.

The procedure took two very long and agonizing days. This was not because I was in a state of physical pain, but because of the emotional toll. Whether a loved one's departure is expected or not, it is never easy to say goodbye.

I've learned a great deal in the 13 years that have followed. I've met other women who were also forced to say goodbye to children because of anencephaly, a neural tube defect that results in the absence of brain and skull. Some of those women, like me, chose to terminate their pregnancies. Others opted to carry to term. We all grieve our losses.

For a long time I felt guilty, that maybe I took the "easy way" out of a difficult situation. After all, I did not have to stand in line at the grocery store while strangers made small talk about my pregnancy. I didn't have to answer difficult questions from my three-year-old daughter. I didn't have to lie awake for nights on end dreading the time when my body would ultimately betray me and begin labor.

When I finally broke down to a friend who had carried her anencephalic child to term about my personal guilt, she cried and told me that she had always thought she had taken the "easy way" out. Because of her strong desire for her older children to have a solid support system, she felt as if she could not terminate the pregnancy — that family and friends would not accept the decision and that, therefore, they would not make themselves available to shoulder the family's grief afterward.

The two of us have come to understand that there is no "easy way" out of the situation we were handed. We both did what we thought was best for our families at that moment in time.

I've been asked on several occasions to share my experience with late term abortion. To date I've spoken with people who run the gamut of views in the reproductive health debate.

When I end my story, it is always with the question that I would like for you to answer now:

"If your loved one was placed on life support and attending physicians said there was no chance of life continuing without the machines, who do you want to make the decision as to when and if life support is removed?"

http://iowaindependent.com/2565/open-letter-to-obama-a-personal-perspective-on-late-term-abortion

Now I ask again.  What gives ANYONE the right based on religious or moral beliefs, to stick their noses into the business of families like those of Ms. Waddington who find themselves in need of late term abortions? 

I posit nobody has that right.  Not the church, and not the government.  Nobody.

Quote from: Locutus on June 02, 2009, 03:59:52 PM
Now I ask again.  What gives ANYONE the right based on religious or moral beliefs, to stick their noses into the business of families like those of Ms. Waddington who find themselves in need of late term abortions? 

I posit nobody has that right.  Not the church, and not the government.  Nobody.

My own personal opinion is.......Doctors make mistakes....I'm not saying THIS was a mistake, but there are plenty of stories out there where Doctors declare a terminal illness, and for whatever reason, they turned out to be wrong...to not give the baby every chance at life is a travesty....God forbid anyone who HAS to go through what this lady did....I have much sympathy for her, and I know it was a tough choice for her.........to compare this to a loved one who has ALREADY lived, is not a fair one in my opinion.

Unless the mothers life is endangered (which is very rare )...I believe we got to protect and give the unborn a chance at life........and I do have much compassion for situations like this one, but for those who 'chose' to abort as means of birth control...should be breaking a law...and especially those in clinics who treat this like pulling a wisdom tooth.

I know in MOST cases, it is an extremely tough choice........I know if my 15 year old daughter was to become pregnant, it would be a devastating event...........but, to simply destroy, a life, for selfish reasons, is unthinkable, IN MY OPINION.

I have got to take some time off from these forums. I cried all day when late term abortions were described in detail for the poor little lost souls.
Then I am and will continue to cry over this tragic story too. It is a classic case for the right to abortion.
So you see I can see both sides of the issue and weep for both sides.
I never said that late term abortions should not ever be done. There is always a reason for some and this is one. I am against late term abortions for the abuse of it. For birth control or for selfish reasons.
I agree with Hawk that without the absolute proof this mother had as to severe birth defects,but only on the reason of possible or could be problems a late term abortion should be rethought. Because of a fair chance of being wrong in this diagnosis, the child should be given the option to live.
That is all that I have to say about this tragic and soul wretching topic. Case closed

Quote from: mcgonser on June 02, 2009, 04:52:56 PM
I have got to take some time off from these forums. I cried all day when late term abortions were described in detail for the poor little lost souls.

Here's another very interesting question along these lines, since I'm not so sure you're as done as you say you are.  :biggrin:

Why do you refer to them as "poor little lost souls" in your post?  If your religion, which causes you to rail upon this practice in the first place is to be believed, why indeed are they "lost" souls?  You can't have it both ways.  If your religion is to be believed, then they aren't lost.  If they indeed aren't lost, then you shouldn't be so worried about them, especially to the extent your fellow believers will go to in order to stick their noses into other people's business.  :wink:

Quote from: Locutus on June 02, 2009, 11:45:31 PM
Why do you refer to them as "poor little lost souls" in your post?  If your religion, which causes you to rail upon this practice in the first place is to be believed, why indeed are they "lost" souls?  You can't have it both ways.  If your religion is to be believed, then they aren't lost.  If they indeed aren't lost, then you shouldn't be so worried about them, especially to the extent your fellow believers will go to in order to stick their noses into other people's business.  :wink:

Good question, Locutus. I have often wondered this myself. With no black marks against them, wouldn't these "souls" go back to the waiting room, as it were? Kind of like the whole thing was a rain-out, and now things can be rescheduled when conditions are better? I realize that sounds facetious, but really, what do the devout pro-lifers think is going to happen to these unformed kids that is so much worse than being condemned to a short life of suffering?

Their selfishness and need to be right about everything will not allow them to even consider such a thing. . .

I still maintain that there is no "human" life until the first breath is taken; at that point the physical and spiritual beings are united as one. Until the first breath they are separate and life does not exist.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 03, 2009, 08:08:20 AM
Good question, Locutus. I have often wondered this myself. With no black marks against them, wouldn't these "souls" go back to the waiting room, as it were? Kind of like the whole thing was a rain-out, and now things can be rescheduled when conditions are better? I realize that sounds facetious, but really, what do the devout pro-lifers think is going to happen to these unformed kids that is so much worse than being condemned to a short life of suffering?

Thank you!  I shall await a sensible answer along with you.  ;D

Grab a snack and something to drink...I've been waiting a couple years now :biggrin:

Oh and PH, I like how you summed it up. It's more than likely about ego and/or control and not about the unborn.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 03, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
Oh and PH, I like how you summed it up. It's more than likely about ego and/or control and not about the unborn.

TYVM!  :smile:

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 03, 2009, 03:19:52 PM
Grab a snack and something to drink...I've been waiting a couple years now :biggrin:

:yes: ;D

1. 'Abortion', like 'gay' marriage and other issues of the sort, has it's basis in control and not rights.  One group wants to control the the actions of another group even though there is no foundation in rights or law to do so.

2. The unborn are neither 'persons' to whom rights can be conferred nor possess rights the law protects.  Whereas, the mother is, and has.  Therefore, her rights and protections cannot be superseded by the unborn, regardless of progression in the womb.  It's a hard, and seemingly cold, reality (Have a means to confer the unborn rights without acquiring and stripping said rights from the mother?  I'm all ears, let's hear it.) 

A compromise has been made, though not grounded in rights etc., based on viability and the health and welfare of the mother.  Unfortunately, those who are interested in meddling in others affairs aren't satisfied with that usurpation of the mother's rights and want to strip her of all rights in the matter.

The compromise is a bad enough blow to personal rights, but going further is extremely dangerous business.

An interesting thread to peruse... Kind of like reading a bad fairy tale.

Someone thinks there is no life until the first breath is taken, and the physical and spiritual come together. Well, ain't that just a lovely thought?

That pretty much describes the logic, or lack thereof, behind partial birth abortion. Apparently if the full-grown head is still inside the birth canal, the baby can be killed and it's legal... If the head has already plopped out on the delivery table, then apparently it's a crime to kill that same baby.

We, as a society, need to decide whether it's okay to put newborn babies down if they are defective. With our pets, we think that's the kindest thing to do, right? That sounded wicked, didn't it? And it is. But that's really what you are doing in a 3rd trimester abortion.

Instead you work fairy tales into the mix, making silly little rules about how life doesn't begin until the head has exited the birth canal... and thus the mother is put through hell with torturous procedures, somewhere along the way managing to put the child down before the head emerges... Maybe it will be butchered into pieces.

Why not just do a c-section or allow a normal birth, and IF the baby is horribly defective and will suffer, then it probably is not going to be viable without extra life support assistance... and that can just be withheld, and a nurse or the mother can hold and comfort the baby until he passes?

Or is that too gruesome for you, to hold a baby you don't think should remain alive? You'd prefer the fairy tale technicality that it's not really a life yet until it takes its first breath outside the womb, and would prefer an abortion doctor to do the dirty work for you?

Well said FT:  :biggrin:

And another thing... I'm sicka hearing about how it's for the health of the mother. Baloney... Doctors have delivered babies early when the mother is having a health crisis or has been diagnosed with cancer. Sometimes the mother insists on carrying the baby until it is far enough along to have a chance in a premie unit.

I think the "health of the mother" is just an excuse to get rid of a defective baby. And if you think that's okay to get rid of a defective baby, then just be HONEST about it.

They said that he had done over 60,000 3rd trimester abortions. Doesn't that seem alot for that area? I wonder what the precentage of births that represents. I believe that there is life upon conception period. Sometimes tests can be wrong about birth defects. Personally I think they document that to excuse some of the abortions. JMO. The numbers are just way too high.

Gee!  Dare I say it???  I think I will.

In the cases of severe birth defects where the child isn't going to live a long life, or will endure pain and suffering in what short life it lives, then yes, I think it's ok for a mother to choose to abort the child rather than putting it through that misery. 

There I said it.  ;D

Quote from: Locutus on June 02, 2009, 11:45:31 PM
Here's another very interesting question along these lines, since I'm not so sure you're as done as you say you are.  :biggrin:

Why do you refer to them as "poor little lost souls" in your post?  If your religion, which causes you to rail upon this practice in the first place is to be believed, why indeed are they "lost" souls?  You can't have it both ways.  If your religion is to be believed, then they aren't lost.  If they indeed aren't lost, then you shouldn't be so worried about them, especially to the extent your fellow believers will go to in order to stick their noses into other people's business.  :wink:

Ahem!   I'm still waiting. 

McGonser you asked if the no. of third term abortions seemed high for this area. On the surface it does, but since Tiller's clinic was one of the few in the United States doing late term abortions, a lot of those were out of state patients. Now that is not weighing in on the right or wrong of it, just a statement of where those many patients came from.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 05, 2009, 10:57:30 PM
Why not just do a c-section or allow a normal birth, and IF the baby is horribly defective and will suffer, then it probably is not going to be viable without extra life support assistance... and that can just be withheld, and a nurse or the mother can hold and comfort the baby until he passes?

Because insurance companies will not certify an in-house stay for what they have decreed is an out-patient procedure.

And while I realize you do not consider the "health of the mother" to carry weight in the decision, others do. Consider this:

U.S. women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show. Though the risk of death is very small, experts believe increasing maternal obesity and a jump in Caesarean sections are partly to blame.

Some researchers point to the rising C-section rate, now 29 percent of all births — far higher than what public health experts say is appropriate. Like other surgeries, Caesareans come with risks related to anesthesia, infections and blood clots.

"There's an inherent risk to C-sections," said Dr. Elliott Main, who co-chairs a panel reviewing obstetrics care in California. "As you do thousands and thousands of them, there's going to be a price."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/

Quote from: Locutus on June 06, 2009, 12:33:42 AM
Gee!  Dare I say it???  I think I will.

In the cases of severe birth defects where the child isn't going to live a long life, or will endure pain and suffering in what short life it lives, then yes, I think it's ok for a mother to choose to abort the child rather than putting it through that misery. 

There I said it.  ;D

I agree, Locutus. Unfortunately, an awful lot of women who should abort (IMO), don't.  My last kid was a three-pound preemie, delivered at seven months by an emergency section. She spent the first six weeks of her life in the high-risk neo-natal unit. Among her roommates were a bunch of drug-addicted, brain-damaged, deformed babies who had been abandoned by their mothers. A nurse told me none of those kids would live to see their third birthday, but that they would be wards of the state until they died.

That's why I am not a big supporter of abortion. I am a supporter of mandatory birth control for everyone. If we would take all the money spent on the abortion debate, and spend it developing a reversible form of contraception that could be administered to all babies at birth, the problem would largely go away. I want to see a day where no child is born unless both parents make a conscious decision to conceive.

The issue here is 3rd trimester abortions... not the high death rate of mothers for wanted pregnancies, or... the high infant mortality rate in this country. Those are separate issues which I would be happy to discuss in another thread... other than to say in countries where midwives do most of the deliveries, and there are not a gillion drugs and special pieces of equipment hooked up to mother and baby, both fair better statistically.

So yes, c-sections are dangerous. But a mother carrying a defective child is a special circumstance... AND, you cannot convince me that c-sections are more dangerous than the grueling meds and appliances used to force women to abort. This can take days... days that a woman may be hanging out in a motel, hoping she can get back to the clinic in time.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 06, 2009, 08:07:05 AM
Because insurance companies will not certify an in-house stay for what they have decreed is an out-patient procedure.

And while I realize you do not consider the "health of the mother" to carry weight in the decision, others do. Consider this:

U.S. women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show. Though the risk of death is very small, experts believe increasing maternal obesity and a jump in Caesarean sections are partly to blame.

Some researchers point to the rising C-section rate, now 29 percent of all births — far higher than what public health experts say is appropriate. Like other surgeries, Caesareans come with risks related to anesthesia, infections and blood clots.

"There's an inherent risk to C-sections," said Dr. Elliott Main, who co-chairs a panel reviewing obstetrics care in California. "As you do thousands and thousands of them, there's going to be a price."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/

Lo: I never, ever, ever said that the health or safety of the mother should not be a factor. The true endangerment of a woman who is pregnant is important. I have always disagreed with the catholic church on their stance on saving the baby no matter what happens to the mom. My opinion was that the mother could have another child, usuallly had more children at home depending on her. Of course no one ever called me up and asked for my opinion but I still think this way. So please get that straight, I cannot be any plainer.

Quote from: Locutus on June 03, 2009, 01:15:15 PM
Thank you!  I shall await a sensible answer along with you.  ;D

Sorry, I just saw this thread. I am refering to the poor lost souls that will never be born alive and grow up in this world. No way do I believe that they go to hell or anything like that. What happens to them when they go to heaven I don't know. Believe it or not I have opinions and beliefs that are my own and not always with the church doctorine. But when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions I just know in my own heart and mind that it is cruel and wrong. I feel the need to speak out for the babies because they have no voice of their own in this matter. I spoke out about this the same when I was not a christian. But I want to
re-assure you that I don't always agree with what my church preaches 100%, but I do agree with they on the whole. I do have a mind of my own and so do alot of christians I know. It is just as racist or prejedice to try and put christians all in the same box as it is with race or sex.

Quote from: LOsborne on May 31, 2009, 05:42:41 PM
Doesn't matter what I think. This act wasn't about what I think, or what you think. According to the law of the land, the doctor did no wrong. You can work to change the law, if you are so minded, and once you have accomplished this goal (if ever) you can then refer to lawful abortions as homicides. But not now. The only murderer in the story is the gunman in Wichita.

This really is the bottom-line. :yes:

Quote from: mcgonser on June 06, 2009, 10:46:02 AM
Lo: I never, ever, ever said that the health or safety of the mother should not be a factor.

I never said you did. That response was to free-thinker, who wrote "Why not just do a c-section or allow a normal birth..." and who also plainly said, "I'm sicka hearing about how it's for the health of the mother. Baloney... " Is that straight enough?

Quote from: Freethinker on June 06, 2009, 10:11:29 AM
.... you cannot convince me that c-sections are more dangerous than the grueling meds and appliances used to force women to abort. This can take days... days that a woman may be hanging out in a motel, hoping she can get back to the clinic in time.

Source?

Quote from: Freethinker on June 06, 2009, 10:11:29 AM
...other than to say in countries where midwives do most of the deliveries, and there are not a gillion drugs and special pieces of equipment hooked up to mother and baby, both fair better statistically.

While we're at it, let's have the source for this statement, too.

I've got my own story.   In the choice of a late term abortion, or not, we all have choices. I could have chosen that route with my last pregnancy.  At her premature birth I was dying.  I would have left behind 4 children living at home, 2 children grown and 4 grandchildren.    It's a hard decision to stick to your guns on your personal belief knowing if you do, you might just die for doing so.   Fortunately, I'm still here for my girls, and so is their baby sister, 7 years later. 

Losbourne -- about your requests for sources to me:

1) You will find I do not play these types of games. I read a lot, I give my opinion based on what I read or what I have witnessed or experienced. This is an opinion board.

2) I have found over the years that supplying the DEMANDERS for SOURCES with links never satisfies them anyway.

3) For every pro link, you can find a adverse link... so just because someone posts a link to information, does not make it valid.

4) When the laminarie sticks are used to dilate the cervix, it can take 2 to 3 days. One can only imagine the discomfort... THEN, when the cervix is dilated, they supposedly REposition the fetus for a breech birth, so the feet come out first, and leaves the head inside the birth canal... bla, bla, bla...

5) The statistics regarding other countries in the world who use mostly midwives versus the US who uses something like only 8%, came from a lengthy documentary on HBO recently, with interviews of older medical doctors who themselves were discussing the situation with our current obstetrics situation in the US.....

6) You are certainly welcome to Google these facts and figures all you want. I'm just here for the discussion.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 07, 2009, 12:03:25 PM
Losbourne -- about your requests for sources to me:

1) You will find I do not play these types of games. I read a lot, I give my opinion based on what I read or what I have witnessed or experienced.

And I have found that those who refuse to provide the references for the statements they present as facts have no references, and are relying on memory, which may be faulty -- as your memory of the spelling of my log-in name was faulty. OOPS!!! Or worse, you were just to lazy to double-check your typing.

Quote2) I have found over the years that supplying the DEMANDERS for SOURCES with links never satisfies them anyway.

So then you have provided sources in the past. Satisfying all other posters isn't the goal here. The goal is to provide independent verification that the facts you presented are actually available as you present them.

Quote3) For every pro link, you can find a adverse link... so just because someone posts a link to information, does not make it valid.

I'm not asking validation of the information. I'm asking for reassurance that you aren't just pulling facts out of your butt. I'm afraid that is the only conclusion I can draw, given your refusal provide any documentation for your points 4) and 5) which you present as facts, while virtuously proclaiming "this is an opinion board."

You may present any opinion you please, labeling it as such. When you present a statement as fact, I (and anyone else who is considering giving weight to your argument) will ask where you found these facts, so that we may find them too. I do this because I make personal decisions based only on facts, and therefore would like to verify those you present before taking their evidence into consideration.

Your refusal to provide so much as the name of an organization which will back-up your "facts" leaves me no choice except to conclude you have no idea where you heard these statements or statistics. You aren't sure you have the numbers right, you can't be positive it wasn't a sit-com you were watching, or whether, perhaps, Jesus himself whispered the important data into your shell-pink ear.

However, henceforward I will know to discount anything you might type as pure blue-skying. You aren't here for the discussion. You are here to grace us with the "truth" as you see it, and no dissenting or contradicting statements of fact will be allowed to bring your "infallible" point of view into question.


Edited to clean up the quote commands

Well, L, how do you know the authors of those articles you want, don't pull the facts and figures out of their butts? LOL.

You are always welcome to do the research yourself, and verify or refute any opinion I've stated. I am NOT your cyber nanny, though.

Have a good one.

Quote from: mcgonser on June 06, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
Sorry, I just saw this thread. I am refering to the poor lost souls that will never be born alive and grow up in this world.

Then why exactly are they lost?   Rest assured, I know to whom you are referring, I'm just wondering why you refer to them as lost.  If you're a Christian, which I assume you are based on your posts, they why exactly are you so worried about them?

Quote from: mcgonser on June 06, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
No way do I believe that they go to hell or anything like that. What happens to them when they go to heaven I don't know.

Then I repeat my question.  By your own words you state that these supposed "lost souls" go to heaven.  If they go to heaven, why are they lost?   Why are you and those like you so concerned about it?  If they're in the heaven you all collectively profess exists without the trials and tribulations that humanity demands, why aren't they better off for skipping it all?   Remember, they're a soul and all that.  :wink:

Quote from: mcgonser on June 06, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
Believe it or not I have opinions and beliefs that are my own and not always with the church doctorine. But when it comes to 3rd trimester abortions I just know in my own heart and mind that it is cruel and wrong. I feel the need to speak out for the babies because they have no voice of their own in this matter. I spoke out about this the same when I was not a christian. But I want to
re-assure you that I don't always agree with what my church preaches 100%, but I do agree with they on the whole. I do have a mind of my own and so do alot of christians I know. It is just as racist or prejedice to try and put christians all in the same box as it is with race or sex.

Again, you profess to be a Christian.  That's fine by me regardless of what denominational or non-denomination church or belief system you ascribe to.  The bottom line is this. 

1.  You are a Christian.

2.  Your posts infer that you believe in an afterlife in either heaven or hell and you've overtly said that you don't think the "lost souls" we're discussing end up in hell.

3.  By that inference, it may also be inferred that your opinion as to what happens to these souls is up to the god to which you ascribe.

4.  If the ultimate decision as to where these souls end up is in the hands of the god to which you ascribe, then why not let god tend to it?   If you're so sure that they don't end up in hell, then why use this issue, and your support of it, as an excuse to stick your collective noses into other people's business?

Please, help me understand your position, or lack thereof.

Lo: I will try and answer your questions to the best of my abilities. I call them lost souls because they were created and have a soul that had a future on earth. Someone made the decision to end that life and play God instead. Yes they are in a better place and with better people. But we here on earth missed whatever their lives would of added to ours here. I guess I find it offensive for someone to play God and determine life and death for babies. I also find it very offensive that they had to have their lives ended in such a way. To me it is cruel and very wrong. I think this in a large part because life is so precious to me and should be lived to the fullest. We never know how long we have but it is a gift that God has given us. I know this is a simple way of thinking of things, but I guess I am a simple person in my beliefs. No offense is ever taken when anyone asks me questions about my belief in God. No offense is taken if they don't agree with me either. That is the choice God gave them. and I accept his authority on all things.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 07, 2009, 08:32:58 AM
While we're at it, let's have the source for this statement, too.

I'm right there with you...my impression of this entire post was that it was nothing more than someone pulling turdlets out of his/her ass and presenting them as fact.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 07, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
I am NOT your cyber nanny, though.

Of course not.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 07, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
You are always welcome to do the research yourself, and verify or refute any opinion I've stated.

As a matter of fact, I spent a fair amount of time trying to find anything to back up the "facts" you presented, and came up completely blank. That is why I asked for your source. I was still giving you the benefit of a doubt, allowing you to provide verification to convince me. I'll know better next time.

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 12:30:14 AM
I guess I find it offensive for someone to play God and determine life and death for babies. I also find it very offensive that they had to have their lives ended in such a way. To me it is cruel and very wrong.

Have you ever heard of those babies that survive abortion?  I think this occurred after a different type of procedure that supposedly allowed the baby to die while still in the womb.  But some were delivered still alive. This tends to follow my belief that NO ONE dies before they are supposed to. I could go into my belief system here, and you might find my way of thinking offensive as well, but I won't.  I will say this though, life is a lesson, and sometimes the lesson isn't for the individual soul about to be born, but to help another soul experience and learn something that they need to learn during this life.  No soul is lost, ever. Every one of them serves a purpose, no matter how short that existence is.

Do you mean the ones that survive with brain damage? Like one highlighted on the Internet as Baby Sarah Brown. That would be the one where a different method was tried, and which failed. The baby allegedly was already in position to deliver, the 15-year-old was so far along. *There are several articles, L, so look it up if you want verification... that is, if you are any good at Googling.*

I don't buy the argument that this was because people don't die before they're suppose to. Sometimes things just happen, and I surely cannot go with the notion that there is a sky daddy that intends for some law-abiding, gentle person to end up being mangled in a car wreck and left to suffer until dead, et cetera and so forth. Stuff just happens.

The baby was probably too developed and the chemicals not enough to permanently end her life... Instead she ends up disabled but still alive.

And the irony is, most people claim these procedures are because of a defective baby or the health of the mother... and yet, here's a healthy baby being aborted, who instead ends up defective. And further, the baby was adopted out and loved until she passed away a few years later.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 10:02:13 AM
*There are several articles, L, so look it up if you want verification... that is, if you are any good at Googling.*

Uh, no, there is a story that has been widely disseminated by pro-life groups.  I find nothing to suggest it is true.

Uh, well then, no need to provide links or photos then. Duh.

Here's some reality for you...

It doesn't matter whether the 9-month fetus is in or out of the womb or vagina... It's a fully formed human being, and taking its life ought to be, IMO, considered murder.

In the first 8 weeks, there is enough time to deal with an oops or rape or incest. There are numerous forms of birth control available today, and, young girls need only walk up to a teacher at school and ask for help if someone has been abusing them sexually.

I've yet to read any excuse for performing late-term abortions that sounds even remotely legitimate.

I LMAO when I read claims that it took two doctors to sign that a mother's health would be in jeopardy if she wasn't aborted at the last minute. On what planet could that possibly be a legitimate excuse, when doctors encourage women to deliver early if there are health complications such as cancer.

All I've seen posted here, or have read elsewhere, are just sorry excuses... too pathetic to even be laid out for examination.

If that's the case, why bother to continue to read.   

As well, no one was selling you the argument.   I don't force my belief system on anyone.  I just occasionally comment that there are things I believe. I expect no one to believe in what I do just because I do.  Unlike others who would have you either believe nothing, or solely in what the bible says.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 10:48:43 AM
Uh, well then, no need to provide links or photos then. Duh.

I would submit that you have no such links or photos that are not clearly propaganda or you would have already provided them.

QuoteIt doesn't matter whether the 9-month fetus is in or out of the womb or vagina... It's a fully formed human being, and taking its life ought to be, IMO, considered murder.

In the first 8 weeks, there is enough time to deal with an oops or rape or incest.

I agree with you but the number of late term abortions is extremely small and requires more than someone simply wanting to end her pregnancy.

QuoteThere are numerous forms of birth control available today, and, young girls need only walk up to a teacher at school and ask for help if someone has been abusing them sexually.

You clearly have never known anyone who was being sexually abused as a child.

QuoteI've yet to read any excuse for performing late-term abortions that sounds even remotely legitimate.

Well, when you get a medical degree, you come back and talk to us; ok?

QuoteI LMAO when I read claims that it took two doctors to sign that a mother's health would be in jeopardy if she wasn't aborted at the last minute. On what planet could that possibly be a legitimate excuse, when doctors encourage women to deliver early if there are health complications such as cancer.

Again, your ignorance of the medical circumstances that could develop late in a pregnancy is astounding.

QuoteAll I've seen posted here, or have read elsewhere, are just sorry excuses... too pathetic to even be laid out for examination.

It wouldn't do you any good anyway as you have illustrated that free thinking is clearly not synonymous with critical thinking.

I don't equate "critical thinking" with "murder justification."

You are welcome to show me just one case study where a healthy baby had to be aborted in the last trimester to save the mother.

Honestly, you can't have any sense of ethics to hold that opinion whatsoever. If the baby is healthy, there is no excuse on this planet for killing it to help out the mother. There are adoptive families lined up for miles who would love to adopt a healthy baby.

Like I also said, doctors recommend that mothers in ill health deliver early, and sometimes the mothers even hang on a few more weeks to give the baby a better chance at survival in a premie unit.

But go ahead.... cite me one case, and let's discuss it. It doesn't have to be a real case. No need for documentation. Just cite me an example where abortion is justified in the 3rd trimester.

No one needs to be a doctor to realize that aborting healthy fetuses in the last trimester can only be classified as murder. Aborting unhealthy fetuses can only legitimately be classified as a "mercy killing."

And, apparently the medical community must agree, or doctors and hospitals wouldn't be so reluctant to perform them... uh, hum... to save the mother.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 11:34:09 AM
I don't equate "critical thinking" with "murder justification."

You are welcome to show me just one case study where a healthy baby had to be aborted in the last trimester to save the mother.

How about you first show me where I've said that it happens?  More likely than not, the issue is the fetus and not the mother.

QuoteHonestly, you can't have any sense of ethics to hold that opinion whatsoever. If the baby is healthy, there is no excuse on this planet for killing it to help out the mother. There are adoptive families lined up for miles who would love to adopt a healthy baby.

And what if the baby is not healthy and will die anyway?

QuoteNo need for documentation.

That's your mantra.

QuoteJust cite me an example where abortion is justified in the 3rd trimester.

I personally know someone who a little more than a month ago delivered a full term baby that she knew would not live.  Doctors had noted that the fetus seemed to be lagging developmentally but were unable to be sure if it would continue to do so until later in the pregnancy when it was confirmed that the developmental problems were severe and the child would not survive.  In this circumstance, what is the point of continuing to carry the fetus.

QuoteNo one needs to be a doctor to realize that aborting healthy fetuses in the last trimester can only be classified as murder.

And this is happening where?

QuoteAborting unhealthy fetuses can only legitimately be classified as a "mercy killing."

Ah, so you get to decide what's a mercy killing and what isn't?

QuoteAnd, apparently the medical community must agree, or doctors and hospitals wouldn't be so reluctant to perform them... uh, hum... to save the mother.

Yeah, and it's also illegal.   :rolleyes:

Also, for those of you posting here with the astute "medical knowledge" that I don't have...

Explain to old dumbassed Freethinker how it is easier for an "ill" mother to go through a grueling abortion procedure, such as partial birth abortion, rather than to carry the baby a few more weeks, go through a c-section, or, deliver a few weeks early?

I'm all eyes. Lay the reading on me. :)

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 10:48:43 AM. . .
It doesn't matter whether the 9-month fetus is in or out of the womb or vagina... It's a fully formed human being, and taking its life ought to be, IMO, considered murder. . .

Since we're providing opinions, mine is in direct opposition to this.

The fetus is a parasite within the human body. The only thing that keeps the host (mother) systemic responses from attacking it and recognizing it as such are the genetics.

This parasite lives off the host, draining it throughout gestation. It is not "fully formed" at 6, 12, 18, 24, or even 30 weeks in most instances. In fact for the lion's share of the gestational period the fetus would not assume life outside of it's host or via some medical intervention by humankind. (Note the word "assume")

It is MHO that human "life" consists basically of two entities that must combine in order to achieve what humankind interprets as life; the physical being and the spiritual being. The two are united at first breath, thus achieving the definition by description of human life, and that prior to this union there is no life.

Given the stated purpose of religion being to secure the righteousness of the only portion of this union that matters, the eternal spirit, I would submit that it is not the physical portion of the union that matters at the end of the day, but rather the spirit. It matters not what happens to  the parasite until the merging of the physical and spiritual entities takes place.

In any case, I believe this to be true with just as much conviction as you believe in your opinion. The difference is I don't have legions of people running about distributing propaganda and utilizing hysterics in an attempt to force my beliefs upon others via legislation.

A woman should (and does by law) have a right to choose. It is her body, her life, and it should be her decision. (Along with the fathers input if he is so inclined).

Quote. . .And, apparently the medical community must agree, or doctors and hospitals wouldn't be so reluctant to perform them... uh, hum... to save the mother. . .

Umm, no. The threat of some zealot subjecting them to actual murder (as in the case in question here for example) weighs heavily upon the policies of medical institutions. Just the possibility of having to have every patient run the gauntlet of whack-nuts skipping and screaming in packs out front of the Establishment is enough to make patients go elsewhere to get their medical emergency cared for. Doesn't matter if they agree with the policy or procedures or not.

QuoteHow about you first show me where I've said that it happens?  More likely than not, the issue is the fetus and not the mother.

One of the deficits here is that documentation from Tiller's own website, as to his philosophy regarding the "health of the mother" as it pertains to mental, physical or... financial, has been removed from public viewing. A lot of this was posted at the Woodward News, which has also been removed from the web.

Whether the fetus is healthy or not, I fail to see any proof provided that abortion is the easier way to assist an ill mother.

QuoteI personally know someone who a little more than a month ago delivered a full term baby that she knew would not live.  Doctors had noted that the fetus seemed to be lagging developmentally but were unable to be sure if it would continue to do so until later in the pregnancy when it was confirmed that the developmental problems were severe and the child would not survive.  In this circumstance, what is the point of continuing to carry the fetus.

Either way, you are still taking a life. If society thinks "mercy killings" are okay in these circumstances, then there's no reason for a mother to be sent to an abortion clinic. Deliver the baby early, and let the infant die a natural death without installing life-sustaining appliances.

This cuts both ways, too. If society thinks we should not allow defective children to live and suffer and be a burden, then society also shouldn't have to fork over tax dollars and special education buildings in public school for mothers who "choose" to birth and raise defective children.

I think most cannot really have this conversation because it seems too Hitlerish. But it is a conversation that needs to be had, without making up silly excuses for why women rid themselves of late-term pregnancies.

QuoteUmm, no. The threat of some zealot subjecting them to actual murder (as in the case in question here for example) weighs heavily upon the policies of medical institutions. Just the possibility of having to have every patient run the gauntlet of whack-nuts skipping and screaming in packs out front of the Establishment is enough to make patients go elsewhere to get their medical emergency cared for. Doesn't matter if they agree with the policy or procedures or not.

Technically, we are both projecting onto doctors what we "think" their excuses are for not taking care of these situations "privately" in the hospital. So I don't agree it's just about whacknuts.

Also, if it IS about whacknuts, then sending these women to abortion clinics is like posting an advertisement, inviting the whacknuts to attack them.

If this were taken care of privately between the personal family physician and the woman, and the medical records were indeed secured and not passed around by hospital staff, then it would be much safer inside a hospital setting.

There are many issues that need addressed here... from being honest about why these abortions are being conducted, and also about securing the privacy of medical records inside the hospital.

QuoteThe fetus is a parasite within the human body. The only thing that keeps the host (mother) systemic responses from attacking it and recognizing it as such are the genetics.

I've made the same argument myself in the past, and technically I believe you are correct.

Viability can't really be THE deciding factor, though... because lots of folks are not viable without life-support equipment, and we don't let them lay there and die.  In fact, society jailed Dr. Kevorkian for attempting to "allow" extremely ill people to decide for themselves they didn't want to live.

So... defective, suffering adults weren't allowed to end their own lives, but defenseless babies can be snuffed if the mother makes that decision. This is where "critical thinking" does come in... and why there needs to be intense public discussions about how these situations can be ethically handled. Sending mixed messages is not the answer.

Furthermore, the left falls flat on its face when it makes the case against the death penalty for murderers and rapists, but then says we must allow the mother to end her own baby's life because of an inconvenience or illness.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 12:16:09 PM
Technically, we are both projecting onto doctors what we "think" their excuses are for not taking care of these situations "privately" in the hospital. So I don't agree it's just about whacknuts. . .

I do not know about you but my "opinion" is based upon first hand knowledge. My sister is an administrator for a major metro hospital in Chicago. That is the ONLY reason the hospital does not perform elective abortion.

Quote. . .Viability can't really be THE deciding factor, though... because lots of folks are not viable without life-support equipment, and we don't let them lay there and die.  In fact, society jailed Dr. Kevorkian for attempting to "allow" extremely ill people to decide for themselves they didn't want to live.

So... defective, suffering adults weren't allowed to end their own lives, but defenseless babies can be snuffed if the mother makes that decision. . . .

Apples and oranges; in one case it does not achieve the definition of "life" (fetus/parasite; no union of the two entities), in the other life has already been initiated and established (terminally ill). "In my opinion".

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 12:12:14 PM
One of the deficits here is that documentation from Tiller's own website, as to his philosophy regarding the "health of the mother" as it pertains to mental, physical or... financial, has been removed from public viewing. A lot of this was posted at the Woodward News, which has also been removed from the web.

Why does it not surprise me that your proof is mysteriously missing?

QuoteWhether the fetus is healthy or not, I fail to see any proof provided that abortion is the easier way to assist an ill mother.

I can't give you any specific examples but the AMA has supported a position banning late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the life of the mother is in extreme danger.  This would indicate that your position of this never being the case is bullshit.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 12:20:52 PM
Furthermore, the left falls flat on its face when it makes the case against the death penalty for murderers and rapists, but then says we must allow the mother to end her own baby's life because of an inconvenience or illness.

And the right doesn't do exactly the same thing by claiming to be pro-life at the same time it advocates the death penalty and war?   :rolleyes:

QuoteAnd the right doesn't do exactly the same thing by claiming to be pro-life at the same time it advocates the death penalty and war?   

Certainly that argument could be made. But if someone is genuinely guilty of heinous acts, they are not innocent... like an infant. So there's a big difference in the alleged hypocrisy of both stances.

QuoteWhy does it not surprise me that your proof is mysteriously missing?

As missing as yours? LOL. What I'm saying is that Tiller's website, where info about his philosophy regarding the need for abortion, can't be Googled by anyone, because it has been taken down. Either way, it wouldn't be proof of anything. Just an opportunity to read and discuss his philosophy.

QuoteI do not know about you but my "opinion" is based upon first hand knowledge. My sister is an administrator for a major metro hospital in Chicago. That is the ONLY reason the hospital does not perform elective abortion.

Again, that would be HER opinion as well, as I doubt very seriously she knows what is really in the heart of every physician there.

Even so, THAT itself is not a good excuse.

IF society thinks abortions are okay, then privacy is key here, and keeping the procedure between the doctor and the patient... instead of sending her off to an abortion clinic that is surrounded by zealots. The abortion clinic itself provides fuel for the hatefulness.

But society hasn't decided anything. A minuscule few on the supreme court made that decision.

QuoteI can't give you any specific examples but the AMA has supported a position banning late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the life of the mother is in extreme danger.  This would indicate that your position of this never being the case is bullshit.

Apparently not. And I quote from you, "the AMA has supported a position banning late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the life of the mother is in extreme danger."

Hello... IOW, if the mother can get two doctors to say her life is in danger, then the abortion of a viable (or healthy) fetus can take place.

And I ask... what possible illness could a mother have that would make an abortion of a healthy fetus safer than delivering early and putting the baby in a premie unit, or doing a c-section?

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 01:02:44 PM
Apparently not. And I quote from you, "the AMA has supported a position banning late term abortions of viable fetuses unless the life of the mother is in extreme danger."

Hello... IOW, if the mother can get two doctors to say her life is in danger, then the abortion of a viable (or healthy) fetus can take place.

And I ask... what possible illness could a mother have that would make an abortion of a healthy fetus safer than delivering early and putting the baby in a premie unit, or doing a c-section?

Why would they use that wording if such a possibility didn't exist?

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 12:59:11 PM
. . . and keeping the procedure between the doctor and the patient... instead of sending her off to an abortion clinic that is surrounded by zealots. The abortion clinic itself provides fuel for the hatefulness. . .

I do not disagree in basis with this statement, however one look at what transpires at every clinic around the country and no hospital administrator or manager worth their salt would ever endorse the elective abortion procedure on campus, for the very reasons previously stated. And then there's the free speech thingy. . . so society must endure the zealots despite the fact they are wrong.

Hospitals long ago cast aside the philanthropics and today are nothing more than an extension of American business; each hospital's performance being gauged largely by profit level rather than compassion and caring for those in need. Performing of elective abortions on campus is widely (and correctly) viewed as a deterrent to business and profits simply because of zealots like the one that killed this doctor. (Who violated no laws and was legally performing an endorsed procedure).

The actions of the perpetrator in question in this case is a perfect example as to why hospitals stopped performing elective abortion for the most part, and it is what perpetuates the existence of clinics for elective abortion. Hospitals do not want to assume the unreasonable risk the actions of such zealous groups and individuals present.

And if you think a hospital administrator is "out of touch" with the opinions of doctors, you may want to speak to one on the subject one day. Doctors are very opinionated and do not shrink from sharing their opinions in a very direct manner.

Sure there are doctors that will not perform terminations, just as there are doctors that will not perform brain surgery, surgery in general, etc., etc., etc. Their reasons are their own, but it does not and should not negatively impact the ability of others to do so within the confines of the laws of the land.

I found it interesting that the Dr. was one of only three that perform late term abortions. Also that this Dr. had performed over 60,000 late term abortions. I do know Dr's personally and know that they do not believe in abortions except for the safety of the mom. It just seems that if this practice was so accepted by the medical field, there would be more doing them. JMO

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 02:47:48 PM
I found it interesting that the Dr. was one of only three that perform late term abortions. Also that this Dr. had performed over 60,000 late term abortions. I do know Dr's personally and know that they do not believe in abortions except for the safety of the mom. It just seems that if this practice was so accepted by the medical field, there would be more doing them. JMO

McG, that 60k figure is propaganda put out there by the zealots. That figure is very much inflated and incorrect.

As I implied earlier, I am sure you will find doctors on both sides of this issue and that statistically it would be representative of the division within society in general however, it is still legal and necessary.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2009, 02:56:43 PM
McG, that 60k figure is propaganda put out there by the zealots. That figure is very much inflated and incorrect.

:rolleyes:

Actually, wasn't that figure thrown out there by the king of liars Bill O'Reilly? 

He would have had to perform upwards of 32 abortions a week, every week, and would have had to have started on day one when the Supreme Court ruled about 36 years ago.

I say again from my signature line:

One of the gravest dangers to the survival of our republic is an ignorant electorate routinely feeding at the trough of propaganda.

We don't really know what the numbers are, do we? Because any requests for statistical information is met with shrill cries that providing such would be an invasion of privacy, even when the government is only asking for data independent of the patient names?

So why not just make some up?

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 03:53:39 PM
We don't really know what the numbers are, do we? Because any requests for statistical information is met with shrill cries that providing such would be an invasion of privacy, even when the government is only asking for data independent of the patient names?

Perhaps we don't know the exact numbers, but do the math.  He would have had to have performed abortions at the rate I stated above every day with no time off ever since the Supreme Court ruled.  It's propaganda at best, and an outright lie at worst.  Billy O feeds his sheeple this kind of crap night after night after night and they keep coming back for more.  And even worse, I think he does it to incite.  :mad:

Quote from: Exterminator on June 08, 2009, 03:56:35 PM
So why not just make some up?

They don't need to do it themselves when they have Bill O'Reilly doing it for them. 

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 03:53:39 PM
We don't really know what the numbers are, do we? Because any requests for statistical information is met with shrill cries that providing such would be an invasion of privacy, even when the government is only asking for data independent of the patient names?

"We" know enough to know propaganda when we see it. It is statistically impossible for this late doctor to have performed 60k late term abortions. . . That is nothing more than hysterics at work and another example that, along with the killing of this doctor, demonstrate the ends to which these zealots will go to, to force their beliefs upon everyone.

Palehorse... I am not a fan of hospitals today either. They are too motivated by profit. In fact, profit should not even come into it IMO. And all the bloodsuckers at the top need to find other industries to raid. :)

However, what I'm trying to say is that IF we can come up with a set of guidelines that are reasonable, and IF things are more transparent information wise (not invading privacy)... then hospitals should be able to deal with these situations "privately."

I do think "privately" is safer than walking through a picketline, trying to get into a specialized clinic for abortions.

Back before Roe v Wade, D&C's were very popular. *wink, wink*

Quote"We" know enough to know propaganda when we see it. It is statistically impossible for this late doctor to have performed 60k late term abortions. . . That is nothing more than hysterics at work and another example that, along with the killing of this doctor, demonstrate the ends to which these zealots will go to, to force their beliefs upon everyone.

I would hope that isn't true. I've no idea how long he was in practice, or if maybe the 60,000 was a total number of abortions over the years.

There's no reason why we shouldn't know the exact number of late-term abortions performed, though. Statistical information is important in understanding the issue, without having to invade anyone's privacy.

Yes the 60,000 abortions was over the years, not this year alone. Sorry I did not make that clear it is perfectly viable that he could of done that many.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 03:58:18 PM
Palehorse... I am not a fan of hospitals today either. They are too motivated by profit. In fact, profit should not even come into it IMO. And all the bloodsuckers at the top need to find other industries to raid. :)

However, what I'm trying to say is that IF we can come up with a set of guidelines that are reasonable, and IF things are more transparent information wise (not invading privacy)... then hospitals should be able to deal with these situations "privately."

I do think "privately" is safer than walking through a picketline, trying to get into a specialized clinic for abortions.

Back before Roe v Wade, D&C's were very popular. *wink, wink*

Theoretically I agree however, what's to stop them from picketing the hospitals? Nothing. It will not matter to them whether or not the procedure is being performed or not, just that it could be.

Before Roe vs Wade coathangers in the alley or backrooms were quite popular too. As were deaths due to infection and hemorrhage. . .  :spooked:

It has been so long since society has had to deal with that little "secret" that generations have forgotten about it. . . But it is still there; waiting.

Quote from: Locutus on June 08, 2009, 03:57:27 PM
Billy O feeds his sheeple this kind of crap night after night after night and they keep coming back for more.  And even worse, I think he does it to incite.  :mad:

Interesting. I recently read an op-ed piece that says precisely that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html)

"O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence."

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 04:04:38 PM
Yes the 60,000 abortions was over the years, not this year alone. Sorry I did not make that clear it is perfectly viable that he could of done that many.

PUHLEEEZZZEE!!!  Open up your brain and do the fuggin' math.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bo D on June 08, 2009, 04:06:35 PM
Interesting. I recently read an op-ed piece that says precisely that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html)

"O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence."

Spot on that is.  And O'Reilly is still peddlin' the lies even as late as last week:

Quote

The liberal outcry over the murder of Kansas late-term abortion doctor George Tiller demonstrates exactly where American discourse is going. Shot dead in a church by an anti-government militant, Tiller did not deserve his fate. Even though the man destroyed an estimated 60,000 fetuses that could have lived outside the womb, he was an American citizen entitled to protection. No matter what you think about abortion, it is a sad day for the country when vigilantism takes a life.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?printerFriendly=true&pid=26686&said=null&satype=null

And the alternative:

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

:biggrin:

"me", that one's for you.  :razz:

A guest on Coast to Coast was the first I heard to statistically "bust" that 60k propaganda as being what it is, a lie made up to inflame. Since I was driving I didn't remember the math but I did recall hearing it was impossible even over his entire career. . . Including if you added in any electives abortions he may have performed.

Apparently that's not good enough to enlighten the sheeple.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Locutus on June 08, 2009, 04:25:19 PM
Apparently that's not good enough to enlighten the sheeple.  :rolleyes:

(http://whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/sheeple_flag.jpg)

You can't blame Bill O"reilly for what some nut case did. It has been decided over the years that music, movies and news that show or provoke violence are not accountable. There you go giving the criminal the excuse for what he did. He did it, he is guilty, period. No one held his hand and made him shoot the Dr. Give me a break.  REALLY!

Now we know why Mommie Dearest had such an aversion to wire hangers!  ;D

Seriously... when you go back to the coat hanger days, one must remember that:

1) there was not a wealth of reliable birth control to use,

2) there were not the welfare programs available today for welfare moms,

3) a woman was severely ostracized for birthing children out of wedlock.

So, either way, I don't see society headed back to coathangers.

Also, before men were involved in controlling women's bodies en toto, there were wise women who knew how to deal with these situations privately... from birth control to oops control for those who were weary or impoverished.

I believe the case can be made that when men took over the healing/nurturing aspects, women started impaling themselves on coat hangers.

Quote from: Locutus on June 08, 2009, 04:13:03 PM
And the alternative:

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

:biggrin:

"me", that one's for you.  :razz:

The Huffington Post????  Give me a break.   :groan:   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 04:36:13 PM
Now we know why Mommie Dearest had such an aversion to wire hangers!  ;D

Seriously... when you go back to the coat hanger days, one must remember that:

1) there was not a wealth of reliable birth control to use,

2) there were not the welfare programs available today for welfare moms,

3) a woman was severely ostracized for birthing children out of wedlock.

So, either way, I don't see society headed back to coathangers.

Also, before men were involved in controlling women's bodies en toto, there were wise women who knew how to deal with these situations privately... from birth control to oops control for those who were weary or impoverished.

I believe the case can be made that when men took over the healing/nurturing aspects, women started impaling themselves on coat hangers.

Interesting conjecture that, but I'd be interested in just how it is that there are so many choosing abortion nonetheless today.

The fact is that reproduction is a fierce driver within our genetic makeup, especially when we are young. Legal standing of abortion notwithstanding, unwanted impregnation is going to remain the result and so is abortion. That cannot be controlled. Women will have abortions and I believe they have the right to make that choice.

Removing that right by making the procedure illegal will only drive them to seek out alternative venues to have it performed. Historic statistics validate the results that will come to pass should this be the case. The slaughter and mangling of women will start anew should this transpire, although I will submit that society's penchant for statistics may feed a quicker reinstatement of legalized abortion once the women begin dying and being rendered sterile over it.

. . .when men took over the healing/nurturing aspects, women started impaling themselves on coat hangers.

That may have been true "back in the day" however I believe that the women of today are better informed, hold a stronger standing within society and the world, and thusly are better prepared to deal with the situation. Certainly they have proven themselves more than capable of dealing with healthcare and nurturing challenges and today hold positions of authority within this and every other field.

QuoteThat may have been true "back in the day" however I believe that the women of today are better informed, hold a stronger standing within society and the world, and thusly are better prepared to deal with the situation. Certainly they have proven themselves more than capable of dealing with healthcare and nurturing challenges and today hold positions of authority within this and every other field.

Then why are there still so many abortions?

I don't really believe there are near as many in recent years. Back when I used to get emails from the abortion rights people, they were saying Oklahoma was down to one or two clinics, from originally something like 50.

And whether it be yesterday or today, legal or illegal... I don't think many women handle the emotional aspects of the procedure well.

I'm also not terribly impressed with the women's movement today. Mostly, it's a bunch of women who loathe cosmetics and like to act like men. Noooo, thank ya. I don't consider that a terribly nurturing environment.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 07:18:11 PM
I'm also not terribly impressed with the women's movement today. Mostly, it's a bunch of women who loathe cosmetics and like to act like men. Noooo, thank ya. I don't consider that a terribly nurturing environment.

I haven't heard much lately in this country about the women's movement. With the ratification of Titles vii, ix and xx, we pretty much won. All that is left is to enforce the law in court, when it is necessary. I'm sure there are a few shrill grandstanders still hollering for the cameras, just as there are still some union bosses who want to talk about the exploitation of workers, even though this country hasn't seen a sweat-shop or a company store in decades. We enforce mine safety in the courts now, just as we do equal pay for equal work.

The new battlefield is in the third world, and I have nothing but admiration for the activist women who are risking their lives in those countries to make a better world for their daughters.

Hasn't seen a sweat shop in decades?

Oh dear... then what were all the Kathie Lee tears over? And why was Frank running around handing out money to the sweat shop workers?

Right now, trafficking women is one of the biggest moneymakers with all kinds of folks involved, rumored to be at the highest levels of government. Of course, human smuggling is big, too... and guess what they're smuggled for? Slave labor.

Sheesh.

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 04:31:34 PM
You can't blame Bill O"reilly for what some nut case did.

Please try to focus on the issue.  Nobody blamed O'Reilly that I can see anywhere in this thread.  If they did, please point it out.

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 04:31:34 PM
It has been decided over the years that music, movies and news that show or provoke violence are not accountable.

Again you mix apples with oranges.  I haven't seen any music, movie, video game, or news show advocating violence against any one person by name as Bill O'Reilly did.  He may not have stated it overtly, but he certainly implied it. 

Quote from: mcgonser on June 08, 2009, 04:31:34 PM
There you go giving the criminal the excuse for what he did. He did it, he is guilty, period. No one held his hand and made him shoot the Dr. Give me a break.  REALLY!

I'm not giving the perpetrator any excuse for anything.  Again, if you read carefully, you'll see that. 

Now since this whole O'Reilly issue has been brought up, let's examine his remarks and see if he's really guilty of the charges of which he's been accused.

Here is one set of remarks from Billy O:

Quote
OK. So, I'm the fascist, I'm the bad guy, I'm the problem. Not Tiller. No, he -- no, no, no. He's a good guy. Now, Tiller's pumping all kinds of money into obviously the attorney general race. He wants the guy that's gonna let him off the hook to win. Those of you listening in Kansas, you ought to know that. You know, I don't -- I'm not gonna tell you who to vote for. You guys know these guys better than I do, but I tell you what, anything Tiller wants, I'm voting the other way. And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech.

Now Billy O has a nationwide audience of people who largely abdicate their intellect to his BS on a nightly basis.  Might he possibly be in some manner to blame for this? 

BTW, the last sentence is sarcasm. :wink: It illustrates a common practice amongst those who routinely participate in this sort of venue.  That tactic may just have to be discussed on a different thread as it's not just a tactic of those who participate in online discussion forums.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 08, 2009, 08:03:41 PM
I haven't heard much lately in this country about the women's movement. With the ratification of Titles vii, ix and xx, we pretty much won. All that is left is to enforce the law in court, when it is necessary. I'm sure there are a few shrill grandstanders still hollering for the cameras, just as there are still some union bosses who want to talk about the exploitation of workers, even though this country hasn't seen a sweat-shop or a company store in decades. We enforce mine safety in the courts now, just as we do equal pay for equal work.

The new battlefield is in the third world, and I have nothing but admiration for the activist women who are risking their lives in those countries to make a better world for their daughters.

I don't disagree, but I believe that women still have some more to endure, before women are viewed by ability and accomplishments rather than gender.  IMO, you only have to look back a few months to a year to see a vivid picture that proves sexism is still alive and well. While I think any form of sexism is unacceptable, I personally find it especially disgusting when women are a party to the devaluation of their own gender.

For example, during the most recent presidential candidate race, it was extremely disturbing to me the number of women who were ready to disregard a candidate simply based on the fact that she may or may not have a monthly cycle. The women that I encountered who admittedly would be offended if someone assumed that they couldn't perform the duties of their responsibilities based on their monthly cycle, in all sincerity seemed to think that was a valid reason to make an important election decision. Nevermind, voting record, current issue stance or even perceived ability.

As long as there are people who are willing to limit the accomplishments of the movement by propagating stereotypes, dismissing the importance of the ongoing struggle or making sweeping value judgments of an entire gender and it's right to  equality, based on their own narrow view of the world, then women may never be truly equal. In other words, as long as there are people who confuse a woman's right to equality with "acting like a man", then it's obvious to me that the race is not won.

Hello all.  I don't get to stop by here too often these days, but I do have one question.  What makes people believe that any aborted fetus ends up in heaven?   Where is the evidence to support that belief?

Exactly the same place as all the other evidence that supports anyone going to heaven no matter what lifestage they are at when termination occurs. 

http://www.kansas.com/topstories/story/845044.html

Abortion doctors death leaves gap in care for women seeking abortions in Kansas, along with statistics about no. of abortions done in Kansas.

Quote from: Locutus on June 08, 2009, 11:47:11 PM
Now Billy O has a nationwide audience of people who largely abdicate their intellect to his BS on a nightly basis.

I would submit that anyone who tunes into Bill O'Reilly on a nightly basis has no intellect to abdicate.

Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2009, 07:21:05 AM
I would submit that anyone who tunes into Bill O'Reilly on a nightly basis has no intellect to abdicate.

Excellent point!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Bo D on June 08, 2009, 04:06:35 PM
Interesting. I recently read an op-ed piece that says precisely that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060303238.html)

"O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O'Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence."

Does this back up my opinion LO

Quote from: Freethinker on June 08, 2009, 10:26:18 PM
Oh dear... then what were all the Kathie Lee tears over? And why was Frank running around handing out money to the sweat shop workers?

That was Honduras, sugar. One of those third-world countries I mentioned.

Sheesh.

Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 08, 2009, 11:47:44 PM
I don't disagree, but I believe that women still have some more to endure, before women are viewed by ability and accomplishments rather than gender.

There will always be those who devalue women, making jokes about dumb blondes, women drivers, nagging wives. It cuts both ways. When dealing with an idiot manager, I frequently mutter, "The real tragedy of testosterone poisoning is that it is so rarely fatal." That is also sexist. And there isn't a law in the world that can make me stop believing it, or to make the advocates of the dumb blonde stereotype stop believing that one. However, there is a law forbidding the firing of the dumb blonde, just because she is female. Attitudes can't be legislated. Fortunately, actions can.

QuoteAs long as there are people who are willing to limit the accomplishments of the movement by propagating stereotypes, ... then women may never be truly equal. In other words, as long as there are people who confuse a woman's right to equality with "acting like a man", then it's obvious to me that the race is not won.

Again, we can't hope to legislate the way people think. And there will always be those True Believers who can't see past their own pet Single Issue to make a judgment based on qualification and experience. Maybe I'm whistling in the dark, but I think that type is more noisy than effective.

Maybe the race isn't won, but at least the track is level now. I crashed through the glass ceiling fifteen years ago. It's getting more common all the time. We just have to keep running.

QuoteThat was Honduras, sugar. One of those third-world countries I mentioned.

Sheesh.

Honduras and Manhattan, sweetness.

Do your homework!

How timely...

(http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/06/09/tomo/story.jpg)

Looks like the anti-abortion terrorists get what they wanted.

---

Slain doctor's clinic closing permanently (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/09/kansas.tiller.clinic/index.html)

A Wichita, Kansas, women's clinic headed by a doctor who was shot to death at his church will permanently close, attorneys for the doctor's family said Tuesday.
Flowers are left outside Dr. George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas, after his death.

"The family of Dr. George Tiller announces that effective immediately, Women's Health Care Services Inc. will be permanently closed," the statement said. "Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic."

Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. doctors who performed late-term abortions, and he already had survived one attempt on his life before being gunned down in his church May 31.

An anti-abortion activist, Scott Roeder, has been jailed on first-degree murder and aggravated assault charges in Tiller's death.

Roeder has not yet entered a plea to the charges, and police have not disclosed a motive in the case. But associates have said the 51-year-old suspect was a regular among the anti-abortion protesters that routinely gathered at Tiller's Wichita clinic.

"We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service," Tiller's family said Tuesday. "That is a legacy that will never die. The family will honor Dr. Tiller's memory through private charitable activities."

Tiller practiced medicine for nearly 40 years. Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems," Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and a friend, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

"The many women who come for late abortions, in fact, have desperate circumstances with a desired pregnancy," he said. "They want to have a baby, not an abortion."

But Tiller's practice made Wichita a flashpoint in the controversy over abortion, which opponents routinely decry as the killing of unborn children.

Most anti-abortion leaders quickly condemned Tiller's killing and disavowed Roeder. The National Right to Life Committee, the largest anti-abortion organization in the United States, said it "unequivocally condemns" violence. And Wichita-based Operation Rescue said Roeder never was "a member, contributor, or volunteer."

Since Tiller's death, supporters have left a few bouquets of flowers outside his clinic. The architecture of the low-slung, windowless concrete building -- which is fenced off, monitored by cameras and separated from buildings behind it by a moat-like ditch -- reflected the threats he faced for nearly two decades.

Now for all of you who were calling this man a monster, pounding your keyboard in righteous anger all on this thread, let's one more time examine this from the article:

Quote

Tiller practiced medicine for nearly 40 years. Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems," Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and a friend, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

"The many women who come for late abortions, in fact, have desperate circumstances with a desired pregnancy," he said. "They want to have a baby, not an abortion."

Now I'll await some of the more reasonable ones of you to retract your monster comments made earlier.  :wink:

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:08:32 PM
. . .Now I'll await some of the more reasonable ones of you to retract your monster comments made earlier.  :wink:

Hope you packed a lunch. . . and a dinner. . . and a midnight snack. . . and a breakfast. . .

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:08:32 PM
Now I'll await some of the more reasonable ones of you to retract your monster comments made earlier.  :wink:

(http://www.dereila.ca/dereilaimages/Long%20wait.jpg)

Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2009, 01:30:42 PM
(http://www.dereila.ca/dereilaimages/Long%20wait.jpg)

LMFAO. Bo nails it!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:08:32 PM
Now for all of you who were calling this man a monster, pounding your keyboard in righteous anger all on this thread, let's one more time examine this from the article:

Now I'll await some of the more reasonable ones of you to retract your monster comments made earlier.  :wink:

America's most notorious abortionist

(http://www.dr-tiller.com/index.htm)

First of all, I never claimed he was a monster..........and I do not excuse the actions against him, in any way, shape or form...it was 100% wrong.

Secondly, I have NOT been reading or keeping up on this thread the last couple of days, I know there was some discussion regarding the number of abortions that he claimed to have done....60,000.....is the claim, made by himself....if you get on the link I provided, there is audio, where he claims this with pride.

I will ALWAYS disagree with Dr. Tiller's practice.....ALWAYS!.. :yes:

I found this quote, and I find it very appropriate.....

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrict the heartless." Martin Luther King, Jr.

HH, can't you discern facts from the rantings of an obvious religious nutjob and zealot who created the website to which you linked?

And I ask again the question to which there's been no answer.  If these aborted children go straight to heaven, as most of you believe, then why not let god tend to god's business and stop sticking your collective noses into the lives of women you know nothing about?

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:52:37 PM
HH, can't you discern facts from the rantings of an obvious religious nutjob and zealot who created the website to which you linked?

Did you even READ any of the link, or did you just jump to conclusions, and assume he was a 'nutjob, zealot'?.......

With THAT attitude, EVERYBODY against abortion is a 'nutjob, zealot'....read it for a change.....he does a very nice job
submitting facts and his opinions...........he even states that "This website isn't about abortion; it's about one abortionist.".......

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
And I ask again the question to which there's been no answer.  If these aborted children go straight to heaven, as most of you believe, then why not let god tend to god's business and stop sticking your collective noses into the lives of women you know nothing about?

I'm sorry, but that may be the lamest comment I have ever heard you say.............are you really serious?

let's just kill EVERYBODY THEN.....and let God tend to His business... :rolleyes:

why don't you worry about Obama/Government sticking his/thier collective noses into the lives of American Citizens and try to control EVERYTHING they can get thier hands on?.....ie Fanny & Freddie, Banks, Auto Industry...at the cost of TAX payers, at an ALL time record rate...?

yet you get your panties up your crawl, because, SOME people find it autrocious, that many people out there are killing innocent babies, so they can keep thier figure... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:00:16 PM
Did you even READ any of the link, or did you just jump to conclusions, and assume he was a 'nutjob, zealot'?.......

Of course I read it.  I clicked and read several of the sections there.  How do you think I came to that conclusion? 

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:00:16 PM

With THAT attitude, EVERYBODY against abortion is a 'nutjob, zealot'....read it for a change.....

Now how exactly did you make that leap of logic?  You said that, not me.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:00:16 PM

he does a very nice job submitting facts and his opinions...........he even states that "This website isn't about abortion; it's about one abortionist.".......

Bingo!  That's what makes him a nutjob and a zealot.  :wink:

Again from the article:

Quote

Tiller practiced medicine for nearly 40 years. Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems," Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and a friend, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

"The many women who come for late abortions, in fact, have desperate circumstances with a desired pregnancy," he said. "They want to have a baby, not an abortion."

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 02:17:40 PM
Tiller practiced medicine for nearly 40 years. Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems," Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and a friend, said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

"The many women who come for late abortions, in fact, have desperate circumstances with a desired pregnancy," he said. "They want to have a baby, not an abortion."

You think the guy I linked was nuts..........I say Anderson Cooper is nuts.........you got any proof that Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems?...or are you taking his 'friend's' words as fact?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
I'm sorry, but that may be the lamest comment I have ever heard you say.............are you really serious?

Of course I'm serious.  It's a perfectly logical question to ask of those who are so sure that some god is in control of everything, but still seek to control the actions of others with whom they disagree up to and including sticking their noses into the medical decisions of other people whom they know nothing about.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
let's just kill EVERYBODY THEN.....and let God tend to His business... :rolleyes:

Too much caffeine this morning HH.  Yet another illogical statement in a subsequent post.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
why don't you worry about Obama/Government sticking his/thier collective noses into the lives of American Citizens and try to control EVERYTHING they can get thier hands on?.....ie Fanny & Freddie, Banks, Auto Industry...at the cost of TAX payers, at an ALL time record rate...?

Off topic, although certainly some of these policies concern me.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
yet you get your panties up your crawl, because, SOME people find it autrocious, that many people out there are killing innocent babies, so they can keep thier figure... :rolleyes:

Prove it!  Show me data where many women are using abortion as a primary means of birth control so they can "keep their figure."  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 02:54:27 PM
You think the guy I linked was nuts..........I say Anderson Cooper is nuts.........you got any proof that Most of his patients were grappling with pregnancies that were "fatally or catastrophically complicated by medical problems?...or are you taking his 'friend's' words as fact?

LMAO!!  I would love to hear why you think Anderson Cooper is nuts.   

I would certainly take his own words, the words of his friends, and the words of his family over the words of a religious nutjob zealot who sets up a website to malign someone who is performing perfectly legal medical procedures. 

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 02:54:56 PM
Prove it!  Show me data where many women are using abortion as a primary means of birth control so they can "keep their figure."  :rolleyes:

Every possible reason for abortion (other than serious health issues for the mother or baby) is a selfish one....in my opinon....

Anderson Cooper is a liberally biased journalist.........who refers to those who attended demonstrations againts government spending as...."Teabaggers"........though I'm sure you thought it was funny, it is NOT what a CNN reporter should be doing.... bashing Americans.

and it is the same argument you guys used against Garden Girl.....it was Tillers, next door neighbors, cousins, pediatritian's, plumber who said that... ;D



yeah!!!..............I HAVE HAD way TOO MUCH CAFFINE TODAY.... :yes: (I came to work at 5 am this morning)

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
Every possible reason for abortion (other than serious health issues for the mother or baby) is a selfish one....in my opinon....

. . .

So it is far better to have a 15-18 year old's life ruined than to terminate a parasite and learn the lesson? No second chances?

I disagree.

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:52:37 PM
HH, can't you discern facts from the rantings of an obvious religious nutjob and zealot who created the website to which you linked?

When a person is, himself, a religious nutjob and zealot, those like him seem completely normal.

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
And I ask again the question to which there's been no answer.  If these aborted children go straight to heaven, as most of you believe, then why not let god tend to god's business and stop sticking your collective noses into the lives of women you know nothing about?

Because the mom and dr made the decision to end their lives before they really started. I would say more but you tend to trash and bash opinions and references that you don't agree with. If you can have an open mind the answer to all is in the bible. You have to have an open mind and willing to learn attitude to understand what God is trying to tell you. God is taking care of his business don't worry! You just can't see it thru the curtain of disbelief and hurt you have up.

How many abortions a year are performed? I imagine its a number that would make us all gasp. And what situation would we be in if all of those aborted fetuses had grown up to be lil children and, nearly 40 years post Roe V Wade, adults? We're probably talking about millions born to mothers who didnt want them or couldnt provide for them. Im always amazed that the same people who cry about abortion, generally speaking, are the same ones who wail about welfare programs.
Would all of those so opposed to abortion see their taxes raised to support the unwanted children we'd have around? Just thinking aloud here...

Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
When a person is, himself, a religious nutjob and zealot, those like him seem completely normal.

based upon your assumption........I'm good with this explaination.. :yes:

Quote from: Gryphon on June 09, 2009, 03:28:15 PM
How many abortions a year are performed? I imagine its a number that would make us all gasp. And what situation would we be in if all of those aborted fetuses had grown up to be lil children and, nearly 40 years post Roe V Wade, adults? We're probably talking about millions born to mothers who didnt want them or couldnt provide for them. Im always amazed that the same people who cry about abortion, generally speaking, are the same ones who wail about welfare programs.
Would all of those so opposed to abortion see their taxes raised to support the unwanted children we'd have around? Just thinking aloud here...

They're all about the hypocrisy.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 09, 2009, 03:28:15 PM
How many abortions a year are performed? I imagine its a number that would make us all gasp. And what situation would we be in if all of those aborted fetuses had grown up to be lil children and, nearly 40 years post Roe V Wade, adults? We're probably talking about millions born to mothers who didnt want them or couldnt provide for them. Im always amazed that the same people who cry about abortion, generally speaking, are the same ones who wail about welfare programs.
Would all of those so opposed to abortion see their taxes raised to support the unwanted children we'd have around? Just thinking aloud here...

based upon that line of thinking.......we could also claim that there COULD be more TAX payers and more federal income that COULD have been generated........

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2009, 03:32:07 PM
based upon that line of thinking.......we could also claim that there COULD be more TAX payers and more federal income that COULD have been generated........

Yeah, filling all of those non-existent jobs.  Yee-haw!

Quote from: mcgonser on June 09, 2009, 03:26:22 PM
If you can have an open mind the answer to all is in the bible.

I have a pretty open mind, but doggone it, I have looked and looked all through the Bible and I can't find the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere.

Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2009, 03:37:04 PM
I have a pretty open mind, but doggone it, I have looked and looked all through the Bible and I can't find the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere.

No mention of Pythagoras in there either.

Quote from: Bo D on June 09, 2009, 03:37:04 PM
I have a pretty open mind, but doggone it, I have looked and looked all through the Bible and I can't find the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere.

;D

Quote from: mcgonser on June 09, 2009, 03:26:22 PM
Because the mom and dr made the decision to end their lives before they really started. I would say more but you tend to trash and bash opinions and references that you don't agree with. If you can have an open mind the answer to all is in the bible. You have to have an open mind and willing to learn attitude to understand what God is trying to tell you. God is taking care of his business don't worry! You just can't see it thru the curtain of disbelief and hurt you have up.

Been down that road and done that.  That's why I can speak more intelligently about it than most who are still stuck in that rut.  :wink:  And I'll take science any day over the scribblings of people who believed the earth was flat.  :yes:

And no, you didn't answer the question.  If you're so sure that god is "takin' care o' business," then why does he need his followers to go around sticking their noses into everyone else's business.   You can't have it both ways. 

Quote from: Exterminator on June 09, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
When a person is, himself, a religious nutjob and zealot, those like him seem completely normal.

:biggrin:

True that.  :yes:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 08, 2009, 03:58:04 PM
"We" know enough to know propaganda when we see it. It is statistically impossible for this late doctor to have performed 60k late term abortions. . . That is nothing more than hysterics at work and another example that, along with the killing of this doctor, demonstrate the ends to which these zealots will go to, to force their beliefs upon everyone.

He said himself that HE performed more than 60,000 abortions.......not just late term.....

he also said that he had as many as 10 women ready to go at one time with nothing but curtains seperating them...

33 years at 250 days (minus weekends and vac time)....that is 8250 days times 10 abortions.that is 82,500 '''POSSIBLE".....so 60,000 IS statisticly possible.

A Look At Tiller's Clinic
(http://www.dr-tiller.com/fort.htm)

I don't see anywhere on that link where the number 60,000 is mentioned.   Care to point it out in case I'm going blind?

Quote from: pariann on June 09, 2009, 02:08:03 AM
Exactly the same place as all the other evidence that supports anyone going to heaven no matter what lifestage they are at when termination occurs.

If you're referring to the Bible, please show me where it says that. 

I've already read the propaganda in that link you posted previously. These groups wrap themselves in the bible and invoke some right supposedly emanating from God as their mantra; then murder productive law abiding citizens. All as a means of forcing their belief system upon the masses. . . nice. . .

:rolleyes:

And no one is going to tell me that these jackass groups and on air personalities hold no blame in this. In fact I am betting that they are counting on one of their zealous supporters going Koo-Koo for KoKo Puffs and bombing / murdering the targets of their propaganda campaigns. It has happened too many times already for them not to understand it and use it.

Yeah, they have no part in it. Just like there are no government sanctioned initiatives wherein if you are caught, the U.S. doesn't know you. . .  :rolleyes:
Same shit, different clothing. . .

Quote from: ? on June 09, 2009, 04:15:40 PM
If you're referring to the Bible, please show me where it says that. 

Nope, I'm not referring to the bible.  Words written on paper are just words.  Not tangible evidence.  It's the faith that is put into what the words say that cause people to believe what they believe.   I'm saying there is NO evidence.  So the evidence you are asking for is in the same place as all other evidence that says when a human being is terminated from this life, they go to heaven.  It's faith based.  By now all adults should know there is no tangible or reproducible evidence to support that belief.

Quote from: pariann on June 09, 2009, 04:35:30 PM
Nope, I'm not referring to the bible.  Words written on paper are just words.  Not tangible evidence.  It's the faith that is put into what the words say that cause people to believe what they believe.   I'm saying there is NO evidence.  So the evidence you are asking for is in the same place as all other evidence that says when a human being is terminated from this life, they go to heaven.  It's faith based.  By now all adults should know there is no tangible or reproducible evidence to support that belief.

I certainly agree with there being no evidence.  My point was the following.  I read on this thread where it was implied that the aborted fetus goes immediately to heaven.  There isn't anywhere in the Bible that I know of that supports that belief.  If any of you know what verse(s) support that position, please speak up.

Do you know the Bible?  If you do, then you know that aborted human beings are not directly addressed.  Death of children and where they go is not addressed in a way that is clear cut.  What is addressed is that all human beings are sinful until they are saved.  To be saved you have to be able to acknowledge God and that Jesus died for your sins.  A prebirth infant/fetus whatever you want to call it, can't do that.  The bible also says that a spouse or child can be 'sanctified' which is not the same as saved, by the belief of their spouse or parent.  So it's up in the air whether an aborted fetus, if it has a soul at the moment of it's death, goes to heaven, hell, or a type of purgatory.  For those that believe in all that.  My belief is a bit different.  I don't think anyone goes to heaven, (or hell) until all the lessons have been learned.   Oops, said too much.  I'm done.

Quote from: pariann on June 09, 2009, 11:25:55 PM
Do you know the Bible?  If you do, then you know that aborted human beings are not directly addressed.  Death of children and where they go is not addressed in a way that is clear cut.  What is addressed is that all human beings are sinful until they are saved.  To be saved you have to be able to acknowledge God and that Jesus died for your sins.  A prebirth infant/fetus whatever you want to call it, can't do that.  The bible also says that a spouse or child can be 'sanctified' which is not the same as saved, by the belief of their spouse or parent.  So it's up in the air whether an aborted fetus, if it has a soul at the moment of it's death, goes to heaven, hell, or a type of purgatory.  For those that believe in all that.  My belief is a bit different.  I don't think anyone goes to heaven, (or hell) until all the lessons have been learned.   Oops, said too much.  I'm done.

Kind of sounds like you and I might think along the same lines with maybe a couple of differences.  :wink:

Quote from: ? on June 09, 2009, 10:53:23 PM
... I read on this thread where it was implied that the aborted fetus goes immediately to heaven.  There isn't anywhere in the Bible that I know of that supports that belief.  If any of you know what verse(s) support that position, please speak up.

The Catholics used to talk about Limbo.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Limbo.jpg/180px-Limbo.jpg)

You don't hear much about it these days. I wonder why not? I bet all those little guys were good at it!

Quote from: Locutus on June 09, 2009, 04:13:23 PM
I don't see anywhere on that link where the number 60,000 is mentioned.   Care to point it out in case I'm going blind?

Click on his biography;

George Tiller is America's most notorious abortionist. By his own count, he has performed over sixty-thousand abortions. (Listen to Tiller say this by clicking here (http://www.dr-tiller.com/biography.htm) .)

Quote from: Palehorse on June 09, 2009, 04:17:57 PM
I've already read the propaganda in that link you posted previously. These groups wrap themselves in the bible and invoke some right supposedly emanating from God as their mantra; then murder productive law abiding citizens. All as a means of forcing their belief system upon the masses. . . nice. . .

:rolleyes:

all i can say is............... :rolleyes: ........right back at ya  ;)

Quote from: pariann on June 09, 2009, 11:25:55 PM
Do you know the Bible?  If you do, then you know that aborted human beings are not directly addressed.  Death of children and where they go is not addressed in a way that is clear cut.  What is addressed is that all human beings are sinful until they are saved.  To be saved you have to be able to acknowledge God and that Jesus died for your sins.  A prebirth infant/fetus whatever you want to call it, can't do that.  The bible also says that a spouse or child can be 'sanctified' which is not the same as saved, by the belief of their spouse or parent.  So it's up in the air whether an aborted fetus, if it has a soul at the moment of it's death, goes to heaven, hell, or a type of purgatory.  For those that believe in all that.  My belief is a bit different.  I don't think anyone goes to heaven, (or hell) until all the lessons have been learned.   Oops, said too much.  I'm done.

Doesnt it say that we are BORN to original sin, though? Ya gotta be born, right? I mean a little clump of cells can hardly sin.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 08:25:39 AM
Doesnt it say that we are BORN to original sin, though? Ya gotta be born, right? I mean a little clump of cells can hardly sin.

So much for the innocent child thing. . .

The bible also teaches about the age of knowing. A child is innocent until they come of an age where they know what is right and wrong and that they are doing so. (sin) 3rd trimester abortions are not a clump of cells, they are a fully formed baby. Some believe that a soul is started upon conception, some think it is when the baby is born. What ever you believe. I do not believe that any soul of a innocent babe or child goes anywhere but to heaven.

just a clump of cells   


graphic picture (http://www.lifebeginsatconception.com/abortedbaby05.jpg)

"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Ronald Reagan in 1982

ooo shock me shock me.

Id be anxious to see what sort of happiness a first trimester fetus would be able to pursue.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 09:23:52 AM
ooo shock me shock me.

Id be anxious to see what sort of happiness a first trimester fetus would be able to pursue.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that statement?... :confused:

(http://www.crescent.edu.sg/pbl/2ksec1/1c2(3)/images/AbortedFetus-inhand(yuko).jpg)

thats more like it Henry. Im sure you're aware that the overwhelmind majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 09:26:23 AM
I'm not even sure what you mean by that statement?... :confused:

I mean, what happiness can a fetus pursue? You made the statement that its entitled to pursue happiness. Id be interested to know what sort of happiness a fetus at the stage pictured just below is capable of pursuing.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 09:26:43 AM
(http://www.crescent.edu.sg/pbl/2ksec1/1c2(3)/images/AbortedFetus-inhand(yuko).jpg)

thats more like it Henry. Im sure you're aware that the overwhelmind majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.

Big deal..........just because it doesn't look the same, it is STILL killing it......

and most automobile accidents happen within a mile from home.........THERE are STILL accidents that happen far away.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 09:28:21 AM
I mean, what happiness can a fetus pursue? You made the statement that its entitled to pursue happiness. Id be interested to know what sort of happiness a fetus at the stage pictured just below is capable of pursuing.

this is a very illogical statement G,

if it was NOT aborted, it COULD/WOULD/SHOULD have every RIGHT in the world to 'pursue' happiness.....no mater at what stage of 'life' it is in.

Enough with the graphic pictures!  Hawk when you show such graphic pictures you are no better than the new broadcasters who work to incite violence. 

It is also a slap in the face to everyone that has given birth to a third trimester child, (not on purpose), to have to see those pictures.  Perhaps at this time a link would have served better than a picture, and those with such morbid curiosity could go and look.

I will go off to work now, thinking of my twin boys, both born in the 26th week, one who died and one who is sleeping soundly in the bedroom, just out of high school.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 09:33:06 AM
this is a very illogical statement G,

if it was NOT aborted, it COULD/WOULD/SHOULD have every RIGHT in the world to 'pursue' happiness.....no mater at what stage of 'life' it is in.

Its not illogical at all. At the stage at which most abortions happen, its capable of nothing on its own, let alone the pursuit of happiness. I fail to see the logic in applying such rights based on what could/would/should happen down the road. 

A sure sign of desparation is when they whip out the graphic pics as a means to evoke emotional response.

And yes, those "parasites" were never born, never took the first breath within which the physical and spiritual are united to forum "life"; so, just a clump of cells.

Palehorse -- there is no proof that the physical and spiritual mix at the time the baby takes its first breath.

If there "were" such a thing as spirit, it would probably enter at the time the heart first starts beating (and not the placenta) as it requires an electrical impulse, which some might attribute to our spiritual nature. It is that impulse that leaves the body when we die.

"At 8 weeks the embryo is now called the fetus. It has MOST of its tissues and organs and well-developed hands and feet....

... this tiny creature is now quite definitely recognizable as a human being. It has lips, a nose, eyes and even eyelids...

... By the end of the 3rd month of pregnancy, although the fetus is only about 3 inches long, it is recognizably human. The SYSTEMS of the body are already well developed, with many organs more or less complete. NERVES and MUSCLES are working, and reflexes are becoming established. THE HEART PUMPS about 50 pints of blood through the circulatory system each day...."

Atlas of the Body, Rand McNally and Company

THUS, if the NERVES are working at 3 months... then even the latter first trimester abortions, and most certainly the early 2nd trimester abortions, would be painful to the fetus.

This is one of the reasons I only condone abortions during the first few weeks, when women have time to address oopsies or to get assistance in the event of rape or incest.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 10:08:07 AM
A sure sign of desparation is when they whip out the graphic pics as a means to evoke emotional response.

And yes, those "parasites" were never born, never took the first breath within which the physical and spiritual are united to forum "life"; so, just a clump of cells.

you and i will forever disagree on this issue.......

I have sent a pm to mageepet, with my apologies....thus, I changed my post with a link, instead of a picture.

desperate?........maybe, because I'm sick and tired, of those who think, that JUST because it has not drawn a breath yet, it is insignificant.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 09:41:53 AM
Its not illogical at all. At the stage at which most abortions happen, its capable of nothing on its own, let alone the pursuit of happiness. I fail to see the logic in applying such rights based on what could/would/should happen down the road. 

a two month old is its capable of nothing on its own......does it not have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 10:48:47 AM
you and i will forever disagree on this issue.......

I have sent a pm to mageepet, with my apologies....thus, I changed my post with a link, instead of a picture.

desperate?........maybe, because I'm sick and tired, of those who think, that JUST because it has not drawn a breath yet, it is insignificant.

You are correct, we will and do disagree.

And I am sick and tired of those affording attributes to a parasite that most certainly do not exist IMO, as well as assuming life exists at a stage of formation wherein the mass most certainly could not be sustained if removed from the host, and the uniformity of their blanket utilization of hysterics, scare tactics, and hyperbole in attempting to force their religious based convictions and beliefs upon the masses.

I will not be brainwashed. I will not be subjected to conditioning. I will not stray from that which I know to be true and correct.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 10:59:07 AM
I will not be brainwashed. I will not be subjected to conditioning. I will not stray from that which I know to be true and correct.

It is of MY opinion that you already are.."brainwashed".........and I will NOT stray from that which I know to be true...

a born baby also cannot sustain life WITHOUT a caregiver.............EVERYTHING needs support, until it can take care of itself........

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 10:59:07 AM
You are correct, we will and do disagree.

And I am sick and tired of those affording attributes to a parasite that most certainly do not exist IMO, as well as assuming life exists at a stage of formation wherein the mass most certainly could not be sustained if removed from the host, and the uniformity of their blanket utilization of hysterics, scare tactics, and hyperbole in attempting to force their religious based convictions and beliefs upon the masses.

I will not be brainwashed. I will not be subjected to conditioning. I will not stray from that which I know to be true and correct.

The bottom line in all of this being that what the doctor in question was accused of by his murderer, as well as those entities/individuals that undertook efforts to smear him during his career and life, is 100% legal and endorsed. The man did nothing wrong and was basically "hit" because his work went opposite of the religious beliefs held by those who oppose it.

What makes the beliefs of Christians any more valid than the beliefs of any other? Nothing. They just believe they are superior to everyone else and that everyone MUST fall into line and cadence. . .

Palehorse -- you brainwashed yourself with this nonsense about fetuses being parasites.  The parasite analogy works so long as you don't give it much thought.

But Henry makes a good point... a 2-month old baby can't do anything on its own either.... neither can a 6-month... They're entirely dependent on an older human for the first couple of years.... And then eventually, they start opening the refrigerator and smearing mustard all over your livingroom furniture. LOL!

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
It is of MY opinion that you already are.."brainwashed".........and I will NOT stray from that which I know to be true...

I'm not the one drinking the kool aid though. . . so prove it.  :razz:

QuoteThe man did nothing wrong and was basically "hit" because his work went opposite of the religious beliefs held by those who oppose it.

"Right and wrong" often have nothing to do with "legal and illegal." :)

He may have done nothing "illegal," but there are an awful lot of folks thinking he was doing something "wrong."

Of course, it was both "wrong" and "illegal" to murder the doctor.

There are some things that should go before the people in an election, and not just be left to the supreme court.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 11:07:39 AM
Palehorse -- you brainwashed yourself with this nonsense about fetuses being parasites.  The parasite analogy works so long as you don't give it much thought.

But Henry makes a good point... a 2-month old baby can't do anything on its own either.... neither can a 6-month... They're entirely dependent on an older human for the first couple of years.... And then eventually, they start opening the refrigerator and smearing mustard all over your livingroom furniture. LOL!

Clearly you lack a scientific perspective. Not your fault, everyone can't be a scientist.

You fail to consider that a 2 month old baby has undergone the union of physical and spiritual entities, and thusly meets the definition of "life".

You zealots need to think about that a little bit. What the hell is all the hand wringing and squabbling about? What are you fighting for? The eternal soul. Not the body or mind but the soul. (Spirit).

The thing you fight for doesn't even reside in the parasite until the unification point at first breath. . .   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 11:10:47 AM
"Right and wrong" often have nothing to do with "legal and illegal." :)

He may have done nothing "illegal," but there are an awful lot of folks thinking he was doing something "wrong."

Of course, it was both "wrong" and "illegal" to murder the doctor.

There are some things that should go before the people in an election, and not just be left to the supreme court.

The litmus test consists of the legislated laws of man / humankind / the land here. What was done to this doctor was wrong and illegal according to each. What the doctor did was legal and right according to each.

Just because a segment of society "believes" something to be wrong does not necessarily make it wrong for everyone. The law is what counts. If you do not like it, change it if you can. But just because your convictions are strong does not necessarily make them right. . . It is what the majority holds to be true within society that becomes law. That is why the law itself is akin to a living breathing entity; it changes as does society.

Palehorse -- get over yourself. You in no way have any grasp of scientific concepts. The minute you think YOU know when the spirit enters the body, you have proven yourself to be the creator of your own religion.

The fetal organs are developed and functional at the end of 3 months. The heart is already pumping blood like crazy... and the heart cannot pump without its own electrical impulse.

Electrical impulse would be a scientific concept...

Not this nonsense about the spirit entering the body when the baby takes its first breath. Actually, it's kinda funny that you can take an obviously "magical" concept and call it science.

At the risk of being off-topic - may I throw my wrench into this?

Do you believe that the alleged killer of the doctor should receive the death penalty if convicted?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 10:56:51 AM
a two month old is its capable of nothing on its own......does it not have a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Sure it is. It can at least perform all the mechanical aspects of life without being inside another person.

Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 11:26:26 AM
At the risk of being off-topic - may I throw my wrench into this?

Do you believe that the alleged killer of the doctor should receive the death penalty if convicted?

BTW, the question is directed to no one in particular.

No, and for the same reason I dont think anyone should. Death is an easy out for these people. A lifetime in prison seems a far worse punishment.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
Clearly you lack a scientific perspective. Not your fault, everyone can't be a scientist.

a bit arrogant aren't we?

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
You fail to consider that a 2 month old baby has undergone the union of physical and spiritual entities, and thusly meets the definition of "life".

Whose defintion?  Do you have any proof that the baby has undergone the union of physical and spiritual entities? are YOU being a little .... ZEALOT?  :confused: :rolleyes:

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 11:26:46 AM
Sure it is. It can at least perform all the mechanical aspects of life without being inside another person.

not for very long period of time it cannot.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 11:24:33 AM
. . .The minute you think YOU know when the spirit enters the body, you have proven yourself to be the creator of your own religion.

The fetal organs are developed and functional at the end of 3 months. The heart is already pumping blood like crazy... and the heart cannot pump without its own electrical impulse.

Electrical impulse would be a scientific concept...

Not this nonsense about the spirit entering the body when the baby takes its first breath. Actually, it's kinda funny that you can take an obviously "magical" concept and call it science.

Regurgitation of extremist propaganda doesn't make you right, but certainly is indicative of absorption into the herd. . .

1. I never stated that my "belief" has been or ever was confirmed via scientific evidence. Show me where I said such! Moreover, as a man of science I find said philosophy a lot more believeable than a book written, edited, and assembled by humankind, and utilized as a tool for centuries; as a means to obtain personal wealth and power and control the masses.

2. Some of the greatest minds in science have also endorsed such a philosophy. Should they also "get over themselves"?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:30:55 AM
a bit arrogant aren't we?

Whose defintion?  Do you have any proof that the baby has undergone the union of physical and spiritual entities? are YOU being a little .... ZEALOT?  :confused: :rolleyes:

A scientific approach / response to inquires is often misinterpreted as arrogance; so I'll let that comment pass.

From your perspective perhaps I may appear to be a zealot. But at least we who endorse such a philosophy do not go out and murder those who believe otherwise.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 11:39:29 AM
A scientific approach / response to inquires is often misinterpreted as arrogance; so I'll let that comment pass.

right... ;)

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 11:39:29 AM
From your perspective perhaps I may appear to be a zealot. But at least we who endorse such a philosophy do not go out and murder those who believe otherwise.

Nor do Christians........true followers of Jesus..........Just because some whatnut killed this man...claimed to have been a Christian.......does not mean he is a Christian.

btw, Jesus was considered to be one of the GREATEST philosophers.... ;)

Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 11:26:26 AM
At the risk of being off-topic - may I throw my wrench into this?

Do you believe that the alleged killer of the doctor should receive the death penalty if convicted?

My stance upon this has not changed, and the short answer is no.

"No" because the justice system cannot consistently adjudicate at this point in time.

Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 11:26:26 AM
At the risk of being off-topic - may I throw my wrench into this?

Do you believe that the alleged killer of the doctor should receive the death penalty if convicted?

If the state that he is tried in, declared him guilty, and that was the punishment for the crime....then YES.

I am thinking that I read that according to the A.G.of KS this killing didn't meet the criteria for seeking the death penalty in KS.  Perhaps, I am wrong and I don't have time to research it at this moment. 
However, it can be argued either way.
Here is a link, arguing for the death penalty.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1821013/dr_tillers_murderer_should_be_charged.html

If I should be able to find a link to prove I just didn't dream the A.G.'s statement I will post it later.
Sorry, i can't find anything at this time except a statement from Nola Foulston indicating the charges would be 1 count of first degree murder,and two lesser counts.  In Kansas, the charge would be capital murder if the death penalty were being sought.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:52:19 AM
right... ;)

Since we have met personally, am I now to understand that this is your evaluation of me?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:52:19 AM
Nor do Christians........true followers of Jesus..........Just because some whatnut killed this man...claimed to have been a Christian.......does not mean he is a Christian.

See, right there is the subjectivity of Christianity in action. Claim to be a good xtian and spew the propaganda, and the herd will follow. But do one thing that in hindsight is against the beliefs and they will run from you in droves. . .

The fact is this man would have been considered a "good Christian" until he reached emotional / informational overload and acted upon the messages of hate and malice being spewed by his fellow "good Christians".

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:52:19 AM
btw, Jesus was considered to be one of the GREATEST philosophers.... ;)

Really. . . funny his name never came up in philosophy. . . (Remember, I attended a "Christian" university).

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:56:40 AM
If the state that he is tried in, declared him guilty, and that was the punishment for the crime....then YES.

So ...the causing of death in one instance is ok ... but in the other, it is not?

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 12:02:29 PM
I am thinking that I read that according to the A.G.of KS this killing didn't meet the criteria for seeking the death penalty in KS.  Perhaps, I am wrong and I don't have time to research it at this moment. 
However, it can be argued either way.
Here is a link, arguing for the death penalty.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1821013/dr_tillers_murderer_should_be_charged.html

If I should be able to find a link to prove I just didn't dream the A.G.'s statement I will post it later.
Sorry, i can't find anything at this time except a statement from Nola Foulston indicating the charges would be 1 count of first degree murder,and two lesser counts.  In Kansas, the charge would be capital murder if the death penalty were being sought.

Very good. But let's for the moment forget about the nuances of differing state laws and just assume the death penalty is a possibility if convicted.

Would you (anyone) ask for the death penalty?

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PM
Since we have met personally, am I now to understand that this is your evaluation of me?

That is bullcrap PH, and you know it.  I have NOTHING but respect for you, but I DO NOT always agree with you...and I do NOT agree with you on this topic or some of your replies.

But would LOVE to grab a breakfast with you again sometime... :yes:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PMSee, right there is the subjectivity of Christianity in action. Claim to be a good xtian and spew the propaganda, and the herd will follow. But do one thing that in hindsight is against the beliefs and they will run from you in droves. . .

THIS is always the argument against .... so-called Christians.

The fact remains, that Jesus is clear on HOW we should act....and that is to LOVE one another as you would your neighbor....THIS man should NOT have killed this man....it goes against Jesus' teachings AND the law of the land....

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PMThe fact is this man would have been considered a "good Christian" until he reached emotional / informational overload and acted upon the messages of hate and malice being spewed by his fellow "good Christians".

again, hate and malice IS not a true representation of a Christian.....and THIS type of argument is used against Christians by ALL nonbelievers....and it, to me shows me that they do NOT understand the religion and a lack of even TRYING to understand.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:02:36 PMReally. . . funny his name never came up in philosophy. . . (Remember, I attended a "Christian" university).

so you are saying that he is not considered to be a philosopher, because you went to a Christian University, and THEY did not bring up his name, in that content?... :confused:

Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 12:11:59 PM
So ...the causing of death in one instance is ok ... but in the other, it is not?

one committed crime....the other did not.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 13, 2009, 04:59:08 PM
. . .I guess you can call me a zealot..

Perhaps it is the term "zealot" that you have taken offense to within the context of this discussion Henry. I only use that terminology because you gave me permission to!  :biggrin: :razz:

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 10:16:38 AM
Palehorse -- there is no proof that the physical and spiritual mix at the time the baby takes its first breath. . .

Just as much "proof" of this as there is a "great sky-being" and unless you toe the line and join the herd you are damned to the eternal flames of some great BBQ. . .

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:20:34 PM
one committed crime....the other did not.

Forgive me if I'm giving myself away here, but I cannot condone the taking of life - for whatever reason.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
That is bullcrap PH, and you know it.  I have NOTHING but respect for you, but I DO NOT always agree with you...and I do NOT agree with you on this topic or some of your replies.

:biggrin: Since Ex isn't here I was just making sure your BP gets the customary rise in pressure!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
But would LOVE to grab a breakfast with you again sometime... :yes:

We'll see wabbit. . . I may be serving "crow"! (Note I said serving, not eating).  :razz: :biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
THIS is always the argument against .... so-called Christians.

The fact remains, that Jesus is clear on HOW we should act....and that is to LOVE one another as you would your neighbor....THIS man should NOT have killed this man....it goes against Jesus' teachings AND the law of the land....

Did not this same man seek out the dredges of society, the whores, the cast offs, the killers, thieves, etc., and teach them? Tony Dungy aside, I don't see that happening. . .ever.

If a man strays from the "path of righteousness" should he not have the opportunity to mend his ways, repent, and move forward. Jeebus said he should so why are your average xtians so quick to condemn them, (kill them), and distance themselves from such folks?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
again, hate and malice IS not a true representation of a Christian.....and THIS type of argument is used against Christians by ALL nonbelievers....and it, to me shows me that they do NOT understand the religion and a lack of even TRYING to understand.

So what about all those folks tortured, killed, and pillaged during the crusades? What about all the people subjected to the very same horrendous actions on behalf of Christianity during the inquisition? What about the hundreds of thousands of human beings slaughtered in the name of "God" and Christianity in establishing this very country? If that's not what it is about it certainly has taken a long time to figure that out!

In fact, if certain "briefing cover pages" are to be believed it is STILL going on!

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 12:19:41 PM
so you are saying that he is not considered to be a philosopher, because you went to a Christian University, and THEY did not bring up his name, in that content?... :confused:

No, what I am saying is that when a listing of philosophers from throughout history is constructed, and placed within the texts and course studies of universities, that name doesn't appear on it. At least not at any university I or my children have attended.

He may very well have been a philosopher, but instead he is considered the messiah by most Christian sects.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:56:40 AM
If the state that he is tried in, declared him guilty, and that was the punishment for the crime....then YES.

This whole topic is going to go way off the beaten path and into the weeds. . . I can see it now. . .   :spooked:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:58:17 PM
This whole topic is going to go way off the beaten path and into the weeds. . . I can see it now. . .   :spooked:

I'm sorry dude! You're absolutely correct! Please accept my apologies, everyone. I withdraw my question and respectfully request that comments on my diversion be withheld.

Quote from: Bo D on June 10, 2009, 01:01:37 PM
I'm sorry dude! You're absolutely correct! Please accept my apologies, everyone. I withdraw my question and respectfully request that comments on my diversion be withheld.

Perhaps an additional topic is in order here? I'm quite supportive of dialog on the subject to say the least. . . It needs to be discussed!  :yes:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:36:57 PM
Just as much "proof" of this as there is a "great sky-being" and unless you toe the line and join the herd you are damned to the eternal flames of some great BBQ. . .

THEN by your own words, your scientific views are NO different than the 'zealots'.....RIGHT?

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 01:04:47 PM
THEN by your own words, your scientific views are NO different than the 'zealots'.....RIGHT?

No. . . my "scientific views" are backed by empirical evidence to support them.

You are confusing my personal philosophy and beliefs with scientific facts. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 01:03:27 PM
Perhaps an additional topic is in order here? I'm quite supportive of dialog on the subject to say the least. . . It needs to be discussed!  :yes:

I started a new topic here ...
http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=14485.msg318747#msg318747 (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=14485.msg318747#msg318747)

Fire away!  :biggrin:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 01:11:25 PM
No. . . my "scientific views" are backed by empirical evidence to support them.

You are confusing my personal philosophy and beliefs with scientific facts. . .

That being said, what makes my personal beliefs any less relevant and true than those you hold?

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 01:35:29 PM
That being said, what makes my personal beliefs any less relevant and true than those you hold?

it doesn't, and I don't go slamming your personal beliefs either....

QuoteRegurgitation of extremist propaganda doesn't make you right, but certainly is indicative of absorption into the herd. . .

I'm not the extremist here, Palehorse. That would be you. I can think these things through, based entirely on science... and not bring the magical concept of spirit into the mix.... AND still decide that aborting a fetus with its own beating heart is taking a life. I'm unapologetically Atheist.

Quote1. I never stated that my "belief" has been or ever was confirmed via scientific evidence. Show me where I said such! Moreover, as a man of science I find said philosophy a lot more believeable than a book written, edited, and assembled by humankind, and utilized as a tool for centuries; as a means to obtain personal wealth and power and control the masses.

You have repeatedly said that the spirit enters the body and joins with the physical when the baby takes its first breath. That is entirely a matter of religious belief, NOT science.

Quote2. Some of the greatest minds in science have also endorsed such a philosophy. Should they also "get over themselves"? 

When these scientists successfully demonstrate such a notion, then it will be considered a scientific theory. Until then, it is just a personal religious belief involving SPIRIT, an entirely non-scientific concept.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:58:17 PM
This whole topic is going to go way off the beaten path and into the weeds. . . I can see it now. . .   :spooked:

What you mean "going," Willis?

It left a couple of pages back. :biggrin:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:53:55 PM
:biggrin: Since Ex isn't here I was just making sure your BP gets the customary rise in pressure!  :biggrin:

Not the same though, I KNOW, you are not an arrogant asshole!!!........(ooopps... :redface:..did I just say that out loud?)   ;D

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:53:55 PM
We'll see wabbit. . . I may be serving "crow"! (Note I said serving, not eating).  :razz: :biggrin:

Well it won't be ther FIRST time I have ever eaten it....that's for sure.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:53:55 PM
Did not this same man seek out the dredges of society, the whores, the cast offs, the killers, thieves, etc., and teach them? Tony Dungy aside, I don't see that happening. . .ever.

so they don't exist, because YOU don't see them.......believe me, there are thousands and thousands of great people out there doing things, in the name of Jesus....they just don't seek attention.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:53:55 PM
If a man strays from the "path of righteousness" should he not have the opportunity to mend his ways, repent, and move forward. Jeebus said he should so why are your average xtians so quick to condemn them, (kill them), and distance themselves from such folks?

again, I think you are confusing the average xtian you speak of .... to something other than the average Christian, that lives in this country, who is raising families, goes to work, and worships the God of Abraham....I think the vast majority of Christians are getting a bad rap for a few loud mouths, that get the press...

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 12:53:55 PM
So what about all those folks tortured, killed, and pillaged during the crusades? What about all the people subjected to the very same horrendous actions on behalf of Christianity during the inquisition? What about the hundreds of thousands of human beings slaughtered in the name of "God" and Christianity in establishing this very country? If that's not what it is about it certainly has taken a long time to figure that out!

man has been screwing up since Adam and Eve.....in the name of God.

it does not mean, that there has not been thousands and thousands of great folks, who HAVE done great things, in the name of Jesus....because I know there has.

There is one thing that hasn't been brought up unless I missed it.  A person who kills a pregnant woman is also considered guilty of two counts of murder the second being the murder of an unborn infant.  So why is a fetus considered an unborn infant in that case but not in the case of abortion?  Anyone got an answer to that one that makes sense?

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:43:13 PM
There is one thing that hasn't been brought up unless I missed it.  A person who kills a pregnant woman is also considered guilty of two counts of murder the second being the murder of an unborn infant.  So why is a fetus considered an unborn infant in that case but not in the case of abortion?  Anyone got an answer to that one that makes sense?

in order for it to make sense to you, you'd need to distinguish the difference between what a woman chooses to do with her own body and what is forced on her by someone else.
Your question clearly indicates you aren't drawing that distinction.

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 02:44:34 PM
in order for it to make sense to you, you'd need to distinguish the difference between what a woman chooses to do with her own body and what is forced on her by someone else.
Your question clearly indicates you aren't drawing that distinction.

I'm referring to the fact that on the pro abortion side of the argument is that the fetus isn't considered a living being.  If that is the case there are a whole lot of people who were convicted of two murders who shouldn't have been.

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
It is of MY opinion that you already are.."brainwashed...

LMFAO!  This from someone who believes there's an invisible man living in the sky!

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 02:14:20 PM
Not the same though, I KNOW, you are not an arrogant asshole!!!........(ooopps... :redface:..did I just say that out loud?)   ;D

Suck it, you uneducated, redneck teabagger.

Quote from: Exterminator on June 10, 2009, 02:54:34 PM
Suck it, you uneducated, redneck teabagger.

NOW THAT, is MY EXTERMINATOR!!!

Nobody can slam me, like you do!!!.....you have a  REAL  gift.... ;)

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 02:03:52 PM
I'm not the extremist here, Palehorse. That would be you. . .

And yet you spew their propaganda. . . Walks like a duck, talks like a duck. . .

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
NOW THAT, is MY EXTERMINATOR!!!

Nobody can slam me, like you do!!!.....you have a  REAL  gift.... ;)

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.   :biggrin:

Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 10, 2009, 01:48:00 PM
it doesn't, and I don't go slamming your personal beliefs either....

My personal beliefs don't go around spewing propaganda and trying to force themselves upon others by threatening damnation and an eternal BBQ. . .

Don't take it so personal Henry, it isn't you I have the problem with but rather the path oragnaized religion follows, how it got there, and the methods it employs. (As you already know).

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:43:13 PM
There is one thing that hasn't been brought up unless I missed it.  A person who kills a pregnant woman is also considered guilty of two counts of murder the second being the murder of an unborn infant.  So why is a fetus considered an unborn infant in that case but not in the case of abortion?  Anyone got an answer to that one that makes sense?

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 02:44:34 PM
in order for it to make sense to you, you'd need to distinguish the difference between what a woman chooses to do with her own body and what is forced on her by someone else.
Your question clearly indicates you aren't drawing that distinction.

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:49:22 PM
I'm referring to the fact that on the pro abortion side of the argument is that the fetus isn't considered a living being.  If that is the case there are a whole lot of people who were convicted of two murders who shouldn't have been.

They try to rationalize abortion w/ finding murderers guilty of two crimes by saying that particular mother "wanted" her baby, and the murderer took her "choice" away.

But most aspects of the abortion issue are rationalization at its finest.

I especially love it when people try to categorize the abortion issue into religious versus secular, as Palehorse tries to do with me. And yet, Palehorse's entire argument rests on his own religiosity regarding the magical entrance of a spirit with the first breath.... Careful we do not inhale an extra spirit or two ourselves. Cover your mouth when inhaling deeply.  ;D

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
They try to rationalize abortion w/ finding murderers guilty of two crimes by saying that particular mother "wanted" her baby, and the murderer took her "choice" away.

But most aspects of the abortion issue are rationalization at its finest.

I especially love it when people try to categorize the abortion issue into religious versus secular, as Palehorse tries to do with me. And yet, Palehorse's entire argument rests on his own religiosity regarding the magical entrance of a spirit with the first breath.... Careful we do not inhale an extra spirit or two ourselves. Cover your mouth with inhaling deeply.  ;D

Then it depends on what the defination of "it" is in other words?   :biggrin:

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
They try to rationalize abortion w/ finding murderers guilty of two crimes by saying that particular mother "wanted" her baby, and the murderer took her "choice" away.

But most aspects of the abortion issue are rationalization at its finest.

I especially love it when people try to categorize the abortion issue into religious versus secular, as Palehorse tries to do with me. And yet, Palehorse's entire argument rests on his own religiosity regarding the magical entrance of a spirit with the first breath.... Careful we do not inhale an extra spirit or two ourselves. Cover your mouth when inhaling deeply.  ;D

Yeah, keep yapping. It is clearly obvious to anyone with a brain that you've had several doubles of the kool aid yourself. . . Freewanker. . .

So, why don't you take this opportunity to share with us some of your fondest memories from the womb? Come on don't be shy. You say life begins in the womb, so why don't any of you remember it? Humm?????  :rolleyes:

Buy a clue. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 05:29:24 PM
Yeah, keep yapping. It is clearly obvious to anyone with a brain that you've had several doubles of the kool aid yourself. . . Freewhanker. . .

So, why don't you take this opportunity to share with us some of your fondest memories from the womb? Come on don't be shy. You say life begins in the womb, so why don't any of you remember it? Humm?????  :rolleyes:

Buy a clue. . .

I remember it as being wet, dark, and really really noisy.  I'm thinking also that might be the reason for my claustrophobia because there wasn't a whole lot of room either.

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 05:42:22 PM
I remember it as being wet, dark, and really really noisy.  I'm thinking also that might be the reason for my claustrophobia because there wasn't a whole lot of room either.

Prove it smartypants. . .

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 05:46:10 PM
Prove it smartypants. . .

I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it unless you can do a mind meld.   :razz:

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 02:43:13 PM
A person who kills a pregnant woman is also considered guilty of two counts of murder the second being the murder of an unborn infant.

This is not true in every state. In fact, Oregon and Florida just had bills introduced in their state houses attempting to address this question.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/06/senator_requests_bill_making_i.html

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/03/bill-would-defi.html

Laws in other states (i.e. Texas, Pennsylvania) specifically exempt abortion.

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 06:03:44 PM
I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it unless you can do a mind meld.   :razz:

A) I take no one at their word.

B) I am not mind melding with you. I am afraid of what I may experience!  :razz:

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 07:10:15 PM
A) I take no one at their word.

B) I am not mind melding with you. I am afraid of what I may experience!  :razz:

:devil09: :sneaky:

Rightly or not so rightly, Tiller's work will be carried on by a Nebraska physician

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 08:20:24 PM
Rightly or not so rightly, Tiller's work will be carried on by a Nebraska physician

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting

And when you guys kill him, there will be another. . . Just like cats; they're everywhere!

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 08:21:22 PM
And when you guys kill him, there will be another. . . Just like cats; they're everywhere!

Which guys are you referring to?  White supremacists, Free Men, or Posse Comitatus.  I don't belong to any of them.

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 08:23:49 PM
Which guys are you referring to?  White supremacists, Free Men, or Posse Comitatus.  I don't belong to any of them.

Picky huh. . .

Pro-Lifers

Well, thank you, I don't believe I have actually came out on either side.  I do like you clearing up who you are speaking to instead of the anonymous, "guys." I do believe the man in custody for shooting Tiller is a member of the Freemen.

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 08:27:07 PM
Well, thank you, I don't believe I have actually came out on either side.  I do like you clearing up who you are speaking to instead of the anonymous, "guys." . . .

And the active participants within this topic would greatly appreciate your reading through the topic and posts before jumping in and attempting to take said active participants to task over your unwillingness to do so, or lack of comprehension skills; whichever is applicable.

I have read the whole thing over and over, I do understand it. Are you the spokesman for all the other active participants or just the block bully?  When you say something and are called in it, you say others don't understand the subject.  You  need to be able to make your point as clearly as you expect it from others.  Perhaps it is you who need to re-read the thread and understand it better.

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 08:43:29 PM
I have read the whole thing over and over, I do understand it. Are you the spokesman for all the other active participants or just the block bully?  When you say something and are called in it, you say others don't understand the subject.  You  need to be able to make your point as clearly as you expect it from others.  Perhaps it is you who need to re-read the thread and understand it better.

Okay. . . talk to the hand from here forward. . . ummkay?

For the record, I'm pro-choice and will remain pro-choice, as it pertains to whatever laws are in place regarding abortion.

Labels such as pro-choice and pro-life are stupid anyway, and effectively prohibit any reasonable discussion.

The pro-abortion folks who believe it is totally the right of the woman to have an abortion right up unto the last month are the ones who are basing their decisions on old wives tales and mythology... manufacturing feel-good rhetoric about babies not being a person until they exit the vagina and take a deep breath.

Honestly, that opinion is so medieval and barbaric, anyone that believes that ought to be ashamed. That's not pro-choice, that's "willfully stupid."

Freethinker, did you remember to address that to the horses ass errr. I mean hand or hoof  or whatever  cause his horse face isn't listening. LOL

 :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:   :rolleyes:

Wow, I wished I'd thought of that!

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:   :rolleyes:

Oh dear.... sounds like Palehorse grazed into the loco weed again.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 09:42:03 PM
Oh dear.... sounds like Palehorse grazed into the loco weed again.

I've got a garden full of weeds again if he's still hungry.... :biggrin: Damn rain..... :mad:  Now back to our regularly scheduled topic.....



PS  I realize also that in about 3 weeks I might be wishing for some of this rain too.... :rolleyes:

Oh dear, I had thought the regularly scheduled topic was to call the new people a bunch of uncomprehending idiots.. I think it started going awry at the time I posted a link about another doctor coming to Kansas from Oklahoma to do 3rd trimester abortions.

Gryphon  ME -- have you been posting under the Enid/Woodward moderated section? I can't remember... Because Mageepet has a MYOB II thread where we stay off-topic and talk about whatever we want.

We would love to have some of your rain, but it keeps going around us save for a few sprinkles.

Back to "PaleHorse Rides Again... through the fantasies of his own mind."

Quote from: mageepet on June 10, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
Oh dear, I had thought the regularly scheduled topic was to call the new people a bunch of uncomprehending idiots.. I think it started going awry at the time I posted a link about another doctor coming to Kansas from Oklahoma to do 3rd trimester abortions.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 09:42:03 PM
Oh dear.... sounds like Palehorse grazed into the loco weed again.

Hey, you two started in on me, and since you are both new I gave you a few free passes before I engaged in your juvenile behavior.

Anybody who has posted around me knows this but for your edification I'll say it here.

With me you get what you give. Provide intelligent questions and information to back it and I will do the same. Give me shit, I'll give you diarrhea and force you to drink it.

And you have seen nothing. . . yet. . .

Sorry "me,"  -- I saw your avatar and thought you were Gryphon. Never ask a post-menopausal woman why these things happen. We don't know.  ;D

Quote from: Freethinker on June 10, 2009, 10:01:39 PM
Sorry "me,"  -- I saw your avatar and thought you were Gryphon. Never ask a post-menopausal woman why these things happen. We don't know.  ;D

:rotfl:  I can relate to that post-menopausal thing believe me. 
I haven't been to that area yet but I just might venture that way at some point. 

QuoteHey, you two started in on me, and since you are both new I gave you a few free passes before I engaged in your juvenile behavior.

Anybody who has posted around me knows this but for your edification I'll say it here.

With me you get what you give. Provide intelligent questions and information to back it and I will do the same. Give me shit, I'll give you diarrhea and force you to drink it.

And you have seen nothing. . . yet. . .

Such a tough one, aren't ya?  You started the name-calling yourself, and now get all whiny.

Mageepet and I are both well-educated, and our responses are sufficiently intelligent... Yours fall into the realm of fairy tales on the abortion issue, and that is a scientific fact.

You bring it on all you want, because I don't shrink at threats, filthy name-calling or threats of bodily harm. Something that you insist on doing with most of your posts.

Also, your Russian is quite inadequate, but then... who cares?

Quote from: Gryphon on June 10, 2009, 08:25:39 AM
Doesnt it say that we are BORN to original sin, though? Ya gotta be born, right? I mean a little clump of cells can hardly sin.

It also says that God knew the babies in the womb.  I'm not so sure that it says 'born'.  I don't know the bible that well, I looked up passages regarding the topic. There are whole discussions with opinions about this particular topic.  Though I will not say the articles I read that led to discussion aren't biased.

Quote from: LOsborne on June 10, 2009, 06:59:30 PM
This is not true in every state. In fact, Oregon and Florida just had bills introduced in their state houses attempting to address this question.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/06/senator_requests_bill_making_i.html

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/03/bill-would-defi.html

Laws in other states (i.e. Texas, Pennsylvania) specifically exempt abortion.

I've not read further than this post yet....but I'll throw in two cents here.  Hawaii found a mother not guilty of any wrong doing...any criminal activity, when she smoked crack at least 3 days prior to the birth of her son, and on the morning of his birth.  He died two days later from meth complications (high doses in his system).  It was ruled that a pregnant woman cannot harm her unborn child because it is not a person until it is born. 
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Nov/30/ln/FP511300342.html

BUT there is a federal law in effect that makes it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child if you are anyone except the mother.   (Am I to understand these two states are introducing a bill to become a law going against the federal law? I thought federal trumps state.)

In reference to freethinkers comment that it's justified as a murder crime because the mother wanted the child...might want to check this out:

Gerardo Flores of Texas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison after kicking his pregnant girlfriend repeatedly in the stomach to cause her to lose the couple's twins. The girlfriend, Erica Basoria, did not want the babies to be born and allowed Flores to kick her, but she was not charged with any wrongdoing by the state of Texas.

The previous paragraph comes from WND, but I double checked the story with what most should consider a legitimate news source and it says the same thing: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UPM6IG1.html

I don't believe the criteria for causing the death of an unborn human being as murder crime has anything to do with whether the mother wanted the baby or not.

Quote from: Palehorse on June 10, 2009, 09:56:24 PM

And you have seen nothing. . . yet. . .

Is it appropriate to acknowledge the core posters?  Because I think we have seen EVERYTHING. LOL

Quote from: me on June 10, 2009, 05:42:22 PM
I remember it as being wet, dark, and really really noisy.  I'm thinking also that might be the reason for my claustrophobia because there wasn't a whole lot of room either.

Sounds like there was a lot of traffic.   :biggrin:

Quote from: pariann on June 11, 2009, 01:39:34 AM
BUT there is a federal law in effect that makes it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child if you are anyone except the mother.   (Am I to understand these two states are introducing a bill to become a law going against the federal law? I thought federal trumps state.)

It looks that way. I don't know why anyone would be surprised at Florida wasting time on meaningless legislation, though. Just last year the Florida legislature attempted to pass a law banning truck nutz. SB1992

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article487210.ece

It failed.

Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2009, 07:35:12 AM
Sounds like there was a lot of traffic.   :biggrin:

:party:

QuoteIn reference to freethinkers comment that it's justified as a murder crime because the mother wanted the child...might want to check this out:

Gerardo Flores of Texas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison after kicking his pregnant girlfriend repeatedly in the stomach to cause her to lose the couple's twins. The girlfriend, Erica Basoria, did not want the babies to be born and allowed Flores to kick her, but she was not charged with any wrongdoing by the state of Texas.

To be clear, though... I said those in favor of abortion "rationalized" that it was murder when the fetus is killed along with the mother, as part of the argument for charging the murderer with two crimes instead of one.

This is the type of argument I have witnessed by hardcore pro-choice folks.

There is also a sector of pro-choice that doesn't want the murderer charged for the 2nd crime, because they are afraid it will open up the door to reverse Roe v Wade.

As you can see by the Texas judgment, the hypocrisy reeks. Either killing those babies was illegal or it wasn't, and if the mother wanted them dead, too, she should have went to jail with the boyfriend.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 11, 2009, 10:20:15 AM
As you can see by the Texas judgment, the hypocrisy reeks. Either killing those babies was illegal or it wasn't, and if the mother wanted them dead, too, she should have went to jail with the boyfriend.

I agree, she should be an accomplice to the crime....and tried as such.

Quote from: Freethinker on June 11, 2009, 10:20:15 AM
Either killing those babies was illegal or it wasn't, and if the mother wanted them dead, too, she should have went to jail with the boyfriend.

Or gone.   :rolleyes: