Onward Christian Soldiers! - Kansas abortion doctor killed.

[Palehorse]

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.

[Locutus]

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. 

[Sandy Eggo]

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

[Sandy Eggo]

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.

[Palehorse]

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! 

[Locutus]

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

[Y]

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  Therefore, her rights and protections cannot be superseded by the unborn, regardless of progression in the womb.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.

[Freethinker]

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?

[mcgonser]

Well said FT: 

[Freethinker]

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.

[mcgonser]

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.

[Locutus]

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. 

[Locutus]

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

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. 

Ahem!   I'm still waiting. 

[mageepet]

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.

[LOsborne]

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/