Onward Christian Soldiers! - Kansas abortion doctor killed.

[Exterminator]

I am NOT your cyber nanny, though.

Of course not.

[LOsborne]

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.

[pariann]

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.

[Freethinker]

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.

[Exterminator]

*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.

[Freethinker]

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.

[pariann]

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.

[Exterminator]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'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?

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.

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

All 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.

[Freethinker]

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.

[Exterminator]

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.

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.

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

No need for documentation.

That's your mantra.

Just 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.

No 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?

Aborting 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?

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.

Yeah, and it's also illegal.   

[Freethinker]

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.

[Palehorse]

. . .
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).

. . .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.

[Freethinker]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Freethinker]

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.

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.

[Freethinker]

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.

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.