June 1, 2009

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Obama's response to the Tiller killing.

Exactly the only thing he could have said, isn't it?

200 comments:

Palladian said...

He could have said nothing.

Pogo said...

I think he meant "should not."


Heinous acts can in fact be resolved by violence.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Why can't he just STFU?

I'm sick of listening to his droning voice. Thank GOD for the remote control.

goesh said...

" I was elected to serve the American people and to work hard to resolve our many problems. I was not elected to provide commentary on high profile murders." - what the Prez should have said...

EDH said...

Rather than an attempt at conciliation, for those who view late term abortion as a "heinous act of violence" itself, in the context of Obama's broad individual support of making that practice legal, the statement has to sound like taking sides.

The equivalent of "I won."

Palladian said...

"Why can't he just STFU

He should just get it over with and start his own talk show like his book-club buddy Ooogoh. I'm sure any number of networks would happily surrender a prime-time slot for him.

Speaking of the Oligarch Reading Circle, Ooogoh Chavez says he has another book for Obama:

"President Hugo Chavez says he has a new book for President Barack Obama: "What Is to be Done?" by communist Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet state.

Chavez says he'll "give it to Obama at the next meeting."

And he'll be pleasantly surprised when Obama answers: Oh, thanks Ooogoh but I already have that one. I bought it last November....

Quayle said...

Palladian is first and first right (again.)

Obama could have said nothing.

Or is everything now within the federal government's purview?

Appears so.

rhhardin said...

The differences could be resolved by voting, if voting on them were allowed.

AllenS said...

I was surprised that Obama had the time to respond. I guess running GM isn't that hard afterall.

Bissage said...

Exactly the only thing he could have said, isn't it?

Not exactly.

President Obama would have done better to have said “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”

Besides, whatever gave the President the crazy idea the killer wanted to resolve any profound differences?

Maybe he just wanted to kill a killer.

Anyway, it’s good to see that a little roadside memorial has spontaneously generated in front of an abortion clinic.

Puts things in perspective.

Yes it does . . . yes it does.

Kristin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

He's right, but where does that leave the people who find abortion to be a heinous act of violence? The kind of abortions that Tiller was doing involve heinous violence. The child suffers. In some cases a child who could have survived on her own dies.

I have no intention of killing anyone over this, not would I encourage anyone else to kill abortionists.

But this doesn't change the dilemma for those who abhor abortion. When the state sanctions killing, what do you do?

g2loq said...

A "procedure" was performed on the "doctor".
What's the difference between the third and 243rd trimester?

Jennifer said...

Sort of implies that this is part of the abortion debate rather than a terrible crime committed by an individual, though doesn't it?

AJ Lynch said...

A roadside memorial has sprung up? Christ Althouse's posts are prophetic in a way. If I am snickering, does that make me a bad person?

Bek said...

I know what you guys will say about this, but I don't care. I'm a women and if anything like these stories happened to me, I have no idea what I would do; it's almost too painful to think about. But I know I would at least consider going to Kansas.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html

Roost on the Moon said...

An answer to the questions about why the federal government might involve itself: this is clearly terrorism.

Given that it is, does someone care to sketch out a non-racist argument that "pro-life" groups should not be wiretapped and infiltrated, with certain members perhaps detained without trial as a preventative measure?

Feel free to copy and paste from the "liberals" you've been mocking all these years.

That's an exaggeration to make a point, but in all seriousness, it wouldn't surprise me if Bissage's characterization of this as the "killing of a killer" doesn't get him on some kind of threat list.

The right wing is paranoid about all the wrong things.

knox said...

Why can't he just STFU?

I'm sick of listening to his droning voice. Thank GOD for the remote control.

LOL! DBQ rocks.

Chase said...

Given that it is, does someone care to sketch out a non-racist argument that "pro-life" groups should not be wiretapped and infiltrated, with certain members perhaps detained without trial as a preventative measure?1- By late Sunday, Mr. Newman said, some were already suggesting that there were links between the suspect and Operation Rescue. Someone named Scott Roeder had made posts to the group’s blog in the past, Mr. Newman said, but “he is not a friend, not a contributor, not a volunteer.”2- love that about your way of thinking, Roost - wiretap Americans we disagree with, not foreign terrorists who want to kill all of us. Just waiting for your advocacy of waterboarding members of Operation Rescue.

Roost on the Moon said...

I am not advocating anything but the limitation of secret government power. You missed the point Chase, try again.

Quayle said...

this is clearly terrorismReally? That's your definition of terrorism, so that an apparent one-time, non-organized, non-covert, domestic single person hand-gun killing is covered?

Should we have called out the army to catch and stop this guy?

And if you use terrorism for this murder, what word do you use for a truck bomb in a crowded city street or market?

SteveR said...

Guess I missed his similar statement last week when a young mother, up in Albuquerque was charged with strangling her baby and burying it in a playground. Cause that's kinda heinous too.

Cedarford said...

Probably words to the same effect were uttered by James Buchanan after the Harper's Ferry raid.

A historical problem if the Supreme Court steps in on difficult social issues and demands debate and elections aimed at forging a social consensus end.

It normally doesn't remove the underlying issue. It just creates conditions for it to fester.
=================
And sometimes, heinous acts of violence are indeed "a path to resolution of difficult issues".

And we should recognize that in the same way we snort when a Lefty pacifist chants "war never solves anything!". Sure it does.

The killer of Tiller may be a despicable nut, but his act ended the career of one of only 3 people now aborting healthy fetuses in America - after the people, their legislatures, passed laws barring it, their executive...was blocked in Fed court from ending the practice. The People failed to peacefully end a practice strongly opposed by 90% of the public, a practice generally condemned globally with a focus on China...(A practice outlawed in every country but China and by the courts of the USA, BTW).
But the nutcase was effective.

Now just two remain as Tiller's business was shut down.

Sort of like the last two cattle rustlers in New Mexico in 1885 learning their buddy, BIlly Lee Bob...the 3rd rustler, was just hanged by vigalantes and who contemplated a perhaps overdue career change...
=================
DBQ's hope that Obama will just STFU ignores the present expectation of the DC insiders and media that the Presidency has been transformed into the Lead Consoler and Healer in Chief and Facilitator of Ka-Loze-Uuure of the therapeutic society.
He doesn't open his yap, it shows he doesn't EMPATHIZE...Something Oprah deems very important...

Bissage said...

[I]t wouldn't surprise me if Bissage's characterization of this as the "killing of a killer" doesn't get him on some kind of threat list.

Roost counsels caution and that’s good advice. Forewarned is forearmed.

So I’m going to need something to say when the guys with the trench coats, sunglasses and earpieces show up at my front door.

And twice in one thread, John Lennon shows us the way: “I wasn't saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-[government] thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don't know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry.”

Maybe that will work.

Maybe not.

But until then . . . heh.

A deeply apologetic, frightened, little . . . heh.

Roost on the Moon said...

I think the killing of civilians for political purposes is a good definition.

"one-time" This was the second attempt on the doctor's life, and certainly not the only time zealots have attacked clinics with guns or bombs.

"non-organized" The 'prolife' movement is well organized.

"non-covert" It certainly was covert. I don't know you mean, here.

"domestic" Maybe this is the difference? Would it be different if the killer was an arab?

"single person" One person pulled the trigger this time, but there have been others and there will be more, it's the nature of terrorism.


"hand-gun killing" Yes, killing people with a handgun is roughly analogous to killing them with a sniper rifle or bomb.

"And if you use terrorism for this murder, what word do you use for a truck bomb in a crowded city street or market?"

I call that terrorism, too. It's not a magic word for me, it doesn't mean all legal considerations go out the window. But if we live in a country where it does, look out, because these Christian nuts have been effective terrorists, and the party in power isn't crazy about Christian nuts.

traditionalguy said...

Was the shooter a relative of Lee Harvey Oswald? He was a loner, they say. This time Obama got his message across well: "I am the sensitive caring One in face of my heinous opponents." That was his only message. Now with such a sensitive One as Leader we need to just support him during his long learning curve while he destroys any relationship with Israel and any reliance upon Free Market Capitalism. He is ever so sensitive and he does smile at us so good that it wont hurt while he does his job.

Roost on the Moon said...

And to the spook reading this thread: make sure you really read that Bissage post closely!

He is clearly offering his guess at the killer's mind, not a picture of his own.

Paranoia really is fun. I can see the appeal.

Lem said...

The democrats accused Bush of using 911 in the 04 election.

Obama is using this tragedy for political advantage just the same.

lacegrl130 said...

Everyday. He speaks everyday about something. Every.Single.Day

Lem said...

What if somebody on the left put this guy up to killing this Doctor so as to head off the opposition of Sotomayor?

Has anybody considered that possibility?

Why it is always the pro life people considered the mean spirited conspirator side?

Salamandyr said...

I'm glad Dr. Tiller's killer is goint to go to jail. I'm sorry that this nutjob's actions are going to make it harder for pro-lifer's. This guy is going to be a justification for the government to increase its harassment of pro-life organizations, and its sanctioning of abortion.

I didn't know Dr. Tiller, and as much as I would like to be shocked by the tragedy of a human life cut short, in this case that sympathy is overwhelmed at the disgust I have for all the lives he, legally, cut short.

elHombre said...

Exactly the only thing he could have said, isn't it?

Yes, it probably is the only thing he could have said given what he is.

OTOH, if he was what he told us he would be, he might have said:

We are deeply wounded as a nation when any individual chooses to take the law into his own hands. The wound is not merely to the victim and family -- who have our deepest sympathy. Here, the wound is also to the civilized discourse that is needed to resolve difficult issues that divide us. I call upon all citizens on both sides of the controversy to recognize these wounds and to resist the temptation to exploit this tragedy for political gain.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ said STFU Mr. President.

We love you DBQ!

Jeremy said...

Fen's Hero:

The suspect had been a member of the anti-government Freemen group and was convicted in 1996 on explosives charges after police officers discovered a fuse cord, a pound of gunpowder and nine-volt batteries in the trunk his car.

As to Dust Bunny - "I'm sick of listening to his droning voice. Thank GOD for the remote control."

Why not just remove the antennae from the trailer?

Jeremy said...

Lem said..."What if somebody on the left put this guy up to killing this Doctor so as to head off the opposition of Sotomayor? Has anybody considered that possibility?"

Lem, you are as dumb as a bag of rocks. Where in the world do you come up with this insanity?

An asshole commits murder in a church...to head off the opposition to a Supreme Court nominee's confirmation?

Good lord...

elliot said...

After 9/11, President Bush pointed out that not all Muslims were at fault, President Obama could have said something similar.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse:

DBQ and the Doors rock too....
Did a little dynamite about an hour ago! Took a look around me which way the wind blow....

You must have been procrastinating on those exams if you are not in a Doors mood.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Jennifer : Sort of implies that this is part of the abortion debate rather than a terrible crime committed by an individual, though doesn't it?

I think it is both. The man wasn't murdered out of the blue, it was a politically motivated act; one of rebellion against the state.

If lots of people went around killing abortion doctors there wouldn't be freely available, doctor performed abortions in this country, regardless of the laws set by the government.

I don't think this is the right way to go about determining policies in our republic. In that respect I think Obama had every right to comment on the issue and say what he did.

Minzo said...

"What if somebody on the left put this guy up to killing this Doctor so as to head off the opposition of Sotomayor?"

Please explain that conspiracy in more detail. How would killing George Tiller help Sotomayor in any way?

elHombre said...

[T]hese Christian nuts have been effective terrorists, the party in power isn't crazy about Christian nuts.

The party in power isn't crazy about Christians -- period.

This post by Roost is a great example of the kind of indiscriminate, generalized, condemnatory thinking that characterizes secular progressives.

Note that Christians -- evidently those who oppose abortion -- are "nuts," presumably because the abortion "issue" is "settled."

And pro-lifers are, therefore, terrorists! Settled.

And Bissage, you're paranoid. Settled.

Unbelievable!

Lem said...

Please explain that conspiracy in more detail. How would killing George Tiller help Sotomayor in any way?

Anti-abortion leaders voiced concern Sunday that the Obama administration and other Democrats may try to capitalize on the murder of Dr. George Tiller to defuse the abortion issue in upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kan. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren't known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights
.

Lem said...

If you look at the timing, the timing of the killing. It favors all too conveniently the nomination of Sotomayor.

traditionalguy said...

Famous story illustrating how people act: About midnight during the poker game, the big winners are yawning and asking where they put their coats, and the big losers are screaming DEAL! Is it about midnight in the USA?

TMink said...

David asked: "When the state sanctions killing, what do you do?"

I pray about it, I pray about it a lot. I talk about it, I share my opinion about it, I avoid making people other than my wife pregnant, I contribute money to groups that support women having the baby, and I vote.

I think that is all we can do.

Oh, and we can quickly and completely renounce people who share some of our values but commit murder.

Trey

Lem said...

People - Aren't you tired of playing defense.
We got to go on offence. Let’s not be cowed by this tragedy.
Let’s put it behind us and focus on the fight with Sotomayor.

traditionalguy said...

Lem...How you figure?

Kirby Olson said...

If he doesn't get Sotomayor in, he should now take this chance and get philosopher Peter Singer from Princeton, who has said that he thinks abortion should be ok up until three years of age. (Amend that to up to 110 for Republicans, Christians, and right-to-life people, and it would be catnip for the left!)

I'm not for the shooting. Especially at the poor man's LUTHERAN church. But heck, there's political momentum here for the left, and they've got to use it.

Lem said...

Lem...How you figure?

The 'pro-choice' side represents the march over onward towards thousands and hundreds of thousands of abortions yearly, and we are extremist?
because we want to change the culture of death? we are extremist?

dont get me started.

Lem said...

The left uses conspiracy theory as a tool to keep people feeling helpless, trapped and as though no matter what they do they will never make a difference.

Let’s boomerang some conspiracy their way!

Who put this guy up to killing the doctor - who stands to benefit more - look at the timing - who gets more mileage out of it?

UWS guy said...

According to andrew sullivans website there is now (after the muder of 10 other doctors--and 6000 attacks/threats/vandalisms) one doctor left in the united states who can save a woman after the 21st week.

Targeted terrorism works.

Ask Hypatia of Alexandria.

Lem said...

..there is now... one doctor left in the united states who can save a woman.

Oh, If I could only touch one piece of his garment.
Or just have his shadow cast on me.

bagoh20 said...

Serious important issues can and often are resolved through heinous violence. It is the last resort and always waiting when we fail to address issues peacefully. When issues are too difficult it is virtually inevitable that violence will eventually be the method. We may not like it, but like the American Civil War some disputes may be too tough to resolve without the cleansing exhaustion of heinous violence. Even knowing now how horrible it can be, I doubt we could avoid such devastating conflicts even with a do over. Is abortion one of these? If not what issue will require our next devastating resolution?

Freeman Hunt said...

one doctor left in the united states who can save a woman after the 21st week.

Save a woman? Give me a break. When it's really about saving a woman, her regular doctor will do it. You don't go to people like Tiller because your life needs saving.

Lem said...

If anybody shares any blame for Tillers death we should also include the president of the United States of America.

What was Obama doing at Notre Dame, other than playing politics and stirring up the issue for his own advantage?

Synova said...

"Guess I missed his similar statement last week when a young mother, up in Albuquerque was charged with strangling her baby and burying it in a playground. Cause that's kinda heinous too."

I'm sure it was a decision that she spent a great deal of time agonizing over. It's not a decision made lightly, and should not be made by someone other than the mother.

rdkraus said...

I told my wife I was watching Sponge Bob at the gym. She asked how that happened. I told her I was on the treadmill and turned on the tv. There was:

Obama.

Click.

Obama.

Click.

Obama.

Click.

Sponge Bob. Well, OK.

Invisible Man said...

The left uses conspiracy theory as a tool to keep people feeling helpless, trapped and as though no matter what they do they will never make a difference. .
Yes, the right would never use consipiracies about ACORN, FEMA trailers, Socialism, Tyrannical rule, Republican Car dealers, birth certificates, Bill Ayers writing books for Obama and hearing aid debate receivers. Never I tell ya'.

UWS guy said...

Freeman hunt:

Go to andrew sullivans website or salon.com and read the testamonials of his patients, some pro-life Catholics who found out the horrible prognostication of their child after the 21st week.

Pray, pray, when all the doctors are gone your births are not met with such tragedy young woman. Pray a man like tiller will spend six hours of consultation with you before being one of a handfull of doctors who will not force you to watch the agony of what carrying the fetus to term will mean.

If you don't want to remain ignorant of what that doctor actually did, read those websites.

Synova said...

"Save a woman? Give me a break. When it's really about saving a woman, her regular doctor will do it. You don't go to people like Tiller because your life needs saving."

Sometimes I think that pro-abortionists have this picture in their head of doctors in a real hospital telling a pregnant woman that she might die if she tries to carry her baby to term, but they can't operate on her there, she's got to go to a "women's health clinic" abortion mill because they simply do not *do* abortions.

The USAF is/was forbidden by law to offer abortions but I know a woman who had two of them at an Air Force hospital because they were *medically* necessary.

Tiller used medical "necessity" as a loop-hole, perverting it with malice aforethought to include stress or crabby soon-to-be grandparents.

A woman who needs to be "saved" can be saved by her own doctor in any hospital, even a Catholic one.

traditionalguy said...

Lem...I was confused, because I still see Sotomayor as being closer to permitting late term Tiller-type abortions to be restricted than anyone we are likely to see appointed by this President. She is in a position to do that, like Nixon was in position to open up to China, in a responsable way.

Freeman Hunt said...

UWS Guy, you assume that you're telling me things I don't know. You're not.

You're conflating killing children doomed to short lives with saving women's lives.

veni vidi vici said...

"Sort of implies that this is part of the abortion debate rather than a terrible crime committed by an individual, though doesn't it?"

Yes, and that's probably the point.

"And if you use terrorism for this murder, what word do you use for a truck bomb in a crowded city street or market?"

Why, "man-caused disaster", of course.

"What if somebody on the left put this guy up to killing this Doctor so as to head off the opposition of Sotomayor?"

I believe the plans for this conspiracy are outlined in Vince Foster's billing records. For the love of Pete...

Well, at least now the administration can get back to the Napolitano memo's recommendations vis. the reprobate terrorists called "pro-lifers" in the backwoods of America, rather than having to continue frontpaging the ongoing NoKo missile tests. Obama's statement was one of gratitude for changing the news focus to a "domestic terrorist" issue from the chronic NatSec problem of the NoKo's, where his underperformance has been rather glaringly apparent to all observers.

AJ Lynch said...

Yesterday Fen posted the medically necessary reasons where a patient's pregnancy could be deemed a 'mental health" issue.

The reasons included things like the pregnancy will damage her figure or impede her ability to find a suitable husband.

Pogo said...

"one doctor left in the united states who can save a woman after the 21st week"

That is the stupidest bullshit claim I have read online in over a year, even dumber than the Nigerian e-mail telling me I have inherited $26 million.

Speaking of which:
UWS guy,
This is to bring to your notice that I, Rev.Dr. Pogo Pogo, United Nations Regional Director to Nigeria representing the International Drug and Terrorist Enforcement (IDTE) has been appointed by United Nation/International Financial & Economic Crime Unit to Nigeria in association with AFRICA DEVELOPMENT BANK to pay 150 scammed victim’s the sum of $1000,000 USD (One million Dollars) each. You have been listed and approved for this payment as one of the scammed victims to be paid this amount in the second phase of the Economy Reform Project; I would like you to Provide/confirm your detail, so that your compensation would be paid out to you. Get back to me as soon as possible for more details on the immediate payments of your $1000, 000 USD compensations Beneficiary funds.

Please write me soon.

Roost on the Moon said...

Just for the record, Hombre, I wasn't insulting Bissage, he and I were (half-) joking that big brother might be spying on pro-lifers now.

And I wasn't even disparaging garden-variety christian pro-lifers. I myself think abortion is a tragedy. The ones who kill doctors and the ones who encourage or defend them are the ones I called nuts. They're always christians, though, I've noticed.

But you now have a situation in which democrats (who, according to you, despise all christians) control both houses of congress and the executive, including intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement.

My point was: I'd start donating to the ACLU, if I were you.

Lem said...

Lem...I was confused, because I still see Sotomayor as being closer to permitting late term Tiller-type abortions to be restricted than anyone we are likely to see appointed by this President.

I've heard the opposite. She's the 'sympathy' judge, certainly not for the unborn.

ricpic said...

Heinous acts of voter intimidation by the Black Panthers will not be punished by my administration because they're the right kind of heinous acts.

UWS guy said...

*god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem--let's say organs? Brain? Lungs? Developing outside the body-- freeman hunt, would you carry that child to term?*

Would you like a choice?

As of right now you only option to choose would be Kansas. And it's sole remaining doctor.

Freeman Hunt said...

freeman hunt, would you carry that child to term?Hell yes, I would. And I'd hope that in the meantime, someone would come up with an operation that might save him.

Did you honestly think that that was going to be some kind of rhetorical ace?

veni vidi vici said...

"*god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem--let's say organs? Brain? Lungs? Developing outside the body-- freeman hunt, would you carry that child to term?*"

The only case in which one would find that out so late in the term is where the parent has been seriously irresponsible in seeking prenatal care. Your hypothetical is a nonstarter, as such "medical emergencies" are generally revealed within acceptable timeframes for a first-term abortion or second-term DNC.

This is America, not Chad (hanging or otherwise).

Pogo said...

"god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem"

WTF are you talking about?

This is not a risk to the mother. A late term abortion is itself a risk to the mother, much moreso than delivering a deformed infant.

Criminey. Is this really what liberals think?

Leland said...

The suspect had been a member of the anti-government Freemen group and was convicted in 1996 on explosives charges after police officers discovered a fuse cord, a pound of gunpowder and nine-volt batteries in the trunk his car.Freaky isn't it. It's like something Bill Ayers might have done. It's amazing people consider these guys, heroes!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem"

What if God forbid you don't find out that the child you bore has some catastrophic problem until they are 6 months old? Should we terminate then?

How about at age 1 1/2 years old? You suddenly find out your child has a terminal illness or cancer. Should we terminate THEN?

When is it right, in your mind, to murder and inconvenient problem child?

How about adults who have a catastrophic illness. Why don't we just off them instead?

Lem said...

*god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem--let's say organs? Brain? Lungs? Developing outside the body-- freeman hunt, would you carry that child to term?*.

We don’t take extreme, unlikely and unique cases as templates on which to organize the society around.
As they say in the south, That dog wont hunt.

Roost on the Moon said...

Freeman said:
Did you honestly think that that was going to be some kind of rhetorical ace?The rhetorical ace is:

Do you honestly think that the government should coerce a mother to do so, on pain of imprisonment or other legal sanction?

Doesn't strike me as a conservative position.

Freeman Hunt said...

Do you honestly think that the government should coerce a mother to do so, on pain of imprisonment or other legal sanction?

Doesn't strike me as a conservative position
.

Coerce the mother to do what? Not kill someone? Heaven forbid.

And how did conservatism come up here? Does my position strike you as liberal? Does it make any difference how my positions strike you?

Lem said...

Do you honestly think that the government should coerce a mother to do so, on pain of imprisonment or other legal sanction? .

I'm not speaking for Freeman but; now we have to coerce people not to murder?

You lost me.

Roost on the Moon said...

Does it make any difference how my positions strike you?No no, think what you want of course. I was just pointing out that this is a pretty big, active government we're talking about, if aborting a pregnancy is illegal. Are you required to register your pregnancy?

Roost on the Moon said...

And Lem, if it really is Murder, then we're talking about first degree murder. So what kind of punishments are we talking? Death penalty? Life in prison? The mothers are at least as culpable as the doctors. So is this really what you're talking about?

You claim to not be extreme, but unless you just haven't thought about, the position that abortion is murder seems pretty extreme.

Salamandyr said...

I'm not sure how killing someone with a deformity is doing them a favor. Unless and until someone can show me that the "better place" spoken of in religious teachings actually exists, I'll continue to believe that all life is immeasurably precious, and even one circumscribed by pain and illness is preferable to annihilation.

Roost on the Moon said...

In fact if it is murder, you'd need to have homicide detectives investigating this stuff. You could probably employ tens of thousands of police in such units. Offer rewards for informants, and I bet you could be putting away record numbers of MURDERERS every year.

What a wonderful world that would be.

traditionalguy said...

We seem to like discussing the morality of murder. That is a religious issue. The political truth is that a woman can murder her own unborn child. But the community's interest in new born children is repulsed by seeing fully viable 6 month since conception un-born children quickly killed on an alter encouraging that extinction of the future of God's created human life on earth. Can God's love for human life be translated into a political compromise here? A political pragmatist that has God's love in them is our best bet.

Jeremy said...

The Department of Homeland Security: Rightwing Extremism

A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

"...antigovernment and reject federal authority..."

Or...wingnuts.

Jeremy said...

Pogo - "Criminey. Is this really what liberals think?"

This is what scientists and doctors think.

Later abortion is not an "elective" procedure, it is a "diagnostic" procedure.

You need to read more and talk less.

Freeman Hunt said...

Roost, you're dealing solely in canards now. You're making all sorts of assumptions that no one has endorsed here.

Jeremy, I showed you where on Tiller's own site that he offered elective late term abortions, and he even described them as "elective."

They've now gotten rid of the cache, but I have it saved on PDF. Send me your email address, and I will be happy to send it to you.

Revenant said...

The mothers are at least as culpable as the doctors.

"At least as"? Could you explain how they could possibly be MORE culpable than the person who actually performs the "murder"?

Jeremy said...

Freeman, you confuse a patient making a decision, based on the doctor's recommendation, with someone walking into a clinic and merely asking for a procedure.

The patient, unless unable to communicate, always has the option of "electing" to accept of reject a doctor's advice.

You and others here are merely trying to tell others what they can or cannot do with their own lives, and I've asked this question over and over and everybody dodges it:

If the decision relates to one's own wife, daughter or mother, and the doctor tells you ther is a very good chance she will die if an abortion is not performed...what would YOU do?

And by the way, it's actually a "late abortion," not a "late term abortion."

That term is used by the anti-abortion crowd and is not correct.

Jeremy said...

Revenant said..."At least as"? Could you explain how they could possibly be MORE culpable than the person who actually performs the "murder?"

Who the fuck are YOU...to tell a woman, after conferring with her doctor, and acting on his or her advice...what she can or cannot do with her own body...especially considering it is not "illegal" in any way.

What give YOU or anybody that right?

Jeremy said...

Salamandyr said..."I'm not sure how killing someone with a deformity is doing them a favor."

The procedure is performed to "save" the mother.

Roost on the Moon said...

Freeman,

Lem plainly said that abortion is murder. I ran with that to make a point.

You (more thoughtfully) called it killing someone, and I agree that it is. A special case of killing someone. It's easy to be morally disgusted by that, and I share some of your disgust. But that seems to be as far the pro-life movement thinks it through. If it's bad, it should be illegal. You really want to criminalize abortion? It's not a canard to try to imagine how that might be done.

I know nobody here has baldly endorsed these measures, but this is how we handle murderers in this country.

There are tragedies every day involving abortion. I can't figure out how (on just this one issue) you think the government can make a giant intervention and just make everything better.

George said...

Freeman, when he talked about elective he was careful to note it was pre viability. Note however that the standard for post-viability "theraputic" abortions (what a horror of a term) merely requires that the pregnancy be "detrimental" to the health of the woman.

Web cache:

Late Abortion Care
Elective
At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you.

bearing said...

The mothers are at least as culpable as the doctors.

"At least as"? Could you explain how they could possibly be MORE culpable than the person who actually performs the "murder"?
No kidding. One may be under extreme duress, possibly grief, possibly in heavy denial about what's actually happening; the other does it for money and knows damn well who he's killing.

Leland said...

you confuse a patient making a decision, based on the doctor's recommendation, with someone walking into a clinic and merely asking for a procedure.And you confuse a known psychopath killing an otherwise random person as an act of terrorism with a broad scope.

And by the way, it's actually a "late abortion," not a "late term abortion." I'd be interested to understand why advocates for abortion would consider the term "late abortion" better than "late term abortion". the use of "term" sort of limits the time period to still being in the womb.

George said...

Jeremy, two points. First, it is simply not true that the standard for a late abortion is to "save" the mother. Second, do you really not understand that the baby, once viable, must be provided with the rights of a person? If not, you have an ethically incoherent position where the mere difference of a foot of physical space determines the humanity of someone.

Cedarford said...

Lem said...
*god forbid someone finds out too late (say..23rd week?)that the child they're carrying has some catastrophic problem--let's say organs? Brain? Lungs? Developing outside the body-- freeman hunt, would you carry that child to term?*.

We don’t take extreme, unlikely and unique cases as templates on which to organize the society around.
Sadly, severe birth and genetic defects in fetuses are not uncommon, not unlikely at all. The women herself, biologists were amazed to learn about 15 years ago, posesses the ability to detect and abort and good share of the defectives through miscarriage. (up to 70% of all miscarriages).

In Europe and Asia where the general limit is 12 weeks, they almost all allow 3rd trimester abortions for life of the mother, significant, legally specific physical health threats to the mother, and a range of defined by law severe genetic/developmental abnormalities in the fetus.

The big controversy about Tiller initially involved him aborting in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, at a hefty fee - solely for the convenience of the mother. It being the only reason he originally claimed "as an absolute right Roe gave them". Then after more restrictive laws were passed, went to Federal court and tied them up for the last 8 years and blocked laws with arguments that the "health of the mother" included stress, depression about being stuck with an unwanted kid, the "sacred doctor-patient relationship" to alone decide what was a maternity health issue, yada yada...

Pogo said...

"Later abortion is not an "elective" procedure, it is a "diagnostic" procedure."

Bullshit.

What are you diagnosing, besides a soon-to-be-dead baby?

I don't think you know what the word "diagnosis" actually means.

Jen said...

The use of the term "elective" in medicine is different from the use of the word in common english.

Elective in medicine describes a procedure that is chosen, as opposed to an emergent procedure which, if not performed in that second, will result in catastrophe.

Elective here doesn't mean, HOORAY for the procedure! I elect to do it just for the fun of it! It just means it is non-critical at that second.

Many elective procedures are critical to the life of the patient. They are performed such that the patients condition does not become emergent.

Roost on the Moon said...

Rev, Bearing,

Sticking to the murder analogy, we can think of the doctor as a hired killer. In most such cases, I think we'd consider the person who made the decision to engage in murder and then paid someone to execute the act at least as culpable.

I don't actually believe that conceiving of abortion as murder helps us clear things up, precisely for reasons like this.

Pogo said...

"Many elective procedures are critical to the life of the patient."

You and Jeremy need to brush up on medical terms, it seems.

"Elective" means beneficial to the patient, but not essential for survival.

Non-elective does not mean emergent but essential for survival.

Joaquin said...

Don't know if this was posted.


"Monday June 26, 2006
In a 5-4 decision that saw new Justice Samuel Alito breaking the tie, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld a Kansas death penalty sentencing law. Under the state law, juries are instructed to impose the death penalty when evidence of a crime’s brutality is in equal weight to mitigating evidence explaining the actions of the defendant.

The Kansas Supreme Court had previously overturned the law, ruling that it violated the 8th Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment."

luz said...

I found the president's comments pretty insulting, actually. It sounds as if he thinks he needs to remind us nice, normal pro-life americans that we shouldn't go get a gun and shoot an abortion doctor.

Now, normally, my husband is busy with his work treating cancer patients while I raise our four lovely children. And we do usually put our extra money towards charity. Such as our local pro-life group, which claims to use the money to buy cribs and diapers for single mothers, but is probably really funding a domestic terrorist cell.

Perhaps we were thinking of putting our charity money towards a gun this month, but now, thanks to our president's words, we will reconsider. Thanks so much for those words of wisdom.

And while I'm on the topic, why is itthat Islam gets to be the "religion of peace" but we pro-lifers are now eternally tarred as "the real terrorists"?

Jeremy said...

How many of the anti-abortion people here, who constantly refer to this and other doctors who perform abortions, and the women who have such procedures...as "murderers"...have friends and relatives who have had abortions?

Have you told them that you consider them to be murderers?

Do you continue to associate with these murderers?

If so...isn't that rather hypocritical?

Jeremy said...

luz..."...pro-lifers are now eternally tarred as "the real terrorists"?"

Those who protest in a reasonable manner, via the changing of laws, etc...are not referred to as such. It's the assholes that bypass legal means and murder people at church that "tar" those who believe as you do.

Abortion is "legal" in America and those who commit illegal acts are no better than the terrorists we're fighting in the Mideast.
People who do such things are commonly referred to as "terrorists."

Did you agree with Timothy McVea when he decided to protest our government by blowing up 160+ American citizens?

George said...

Jeremy, IMO not all abortions are murders. Ripping the limbs off an 8 month old fetus and sucking its brains out, what Tiller did, THAT'S murder.

George said...

Oh, and as far as "assholes who bypass legal means" understand that Tiller and a crony routinely signed off on abortions as medically "necessary" when in fact they were elective.

Jeremy said...

George - "Jeremy, two points. First, it is simply not true that the standard for a late abortion is to "save" the mother."

I think it's performed when the doctor feels there is a very good chance the mother could die or suffer life threatening reactions to delivery.

As to the "viablity" of unborn, I think the doctor knows best.

Who would YOU choose, George...your wife, daughter or mother...or the unborn?

Synova said...

"I don't actually believe that conceiving of abortion as murder helps us clear things up, precisely for reasons like this."

I think that the reason that it doesn't clear things up is that pro-abortionists immediately argue with the assumption that all murder is 1st degree murder and treated exactly the same by the law and courts.

Rev doesn't think of abortion as murder (though I'm not sure what he thinks of 3rd trimester abortions) but he rightly points out that mitigating factors favor more leniency toward the mother than towards the abortion provider.

Having been pregnant four times my firm belief in my secret heart-of-hearts is that no woman should make a life-altering decision while subject to the hormones and stress of pregnancy. But you don't just go and *say* that pregnant women have diminished capacity. That's not an argument that can be made in this time and place, but people still know it and still sympathize with the mother.

The doctor hasn't any sort of excuse.

The reason that someone who contracts a murder is treated more harshly (usually) by the law is that it assumes a certain cold detachment and premeditation.

George said...

No, Jeremy, read the statement from Tiller's own website:

"Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health."

That, by the way, includes mental health which is the dodge Tiller often used to cloak an elective abortion.

Tiller, by the way, never claimed on Kansas' forms that the abortion was necessary to "save the life" of a woman.

You've bought a truckload of myths about late term abortions. So did I, once upon a time. When I found out the truth, I was utterly horrified.

Synova said...

"I think it's performed when the doctor feels there is a very good chance the mother could die or suffer life threatening reactions to delivery."

Do you *think* so? Really?

If the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy can be ended anywhere, certainly in any largish city with an excellent surgical hospital.

Why go to Kansas?

Palladian said...

"Criminey. Is this really what liberals think?"

Liberals don't do science, Pogo. It strays too often from the narrative.

Jeremy said...

George said..."Jeremy, IMO not all abortions are murders. Ripping the limbs off an 8 month old fetus and sucking its brains out, what Tiller did, THAT'S murder."

Again:

Who would YOU choose, George...your wife, daughter or mother...or the unborn?

Jeremy said...

Palladian - "Liberals don't do science, Pogo. It strays too often from the narrative."

Right.

Things like global warming and evolution?

What a dummy.

Synova said...

"How many of the anti-abortion people here, who constantly refer to this and other doctors who perform abortions, and the women who have such procedures...as "murderers"...have friends and relatives who have had abortions?

Have you told them that you consider them to be murderers?
"

I worked with a girl who was taken by her parents for an illegal abortion after her 5th month when she started to "show" and had felt the baby move.

I consider her parents (and the doctor) murderers. Not her.

She was just sort of bullied along, her decisions made for her, with little understanding of what it all meant except for the understanding that her parent's top concern was their reputation among wealthy friends.

I've always wondered how she felt about what was done to her once she got older and felt a baby move, again, and eventually held her child in her arms. I wonder if she learned not to think about it or if the ghost of her first baby that she felt move in her womb haunts her.

I know a man who's child was aborted and he felt that loss for as long as I knew him.

buster said...

"And Lem, if it really is Murder, then we're talking about first degree murder. So what kind of punishments are we talking? Death penalty? Life in prison? The mothers are at least as culpable as the doctors. So is this really what you're talking about?"

Ridiculous. Historically, when abortion has been a crime, it has always and everywhere been treated as something less than murder. That does not mean that it is not homicide. Nor is there any theoretical or practical reason why a mother who procures an abortion or self-aborts can't be treated differently than a third party who performs an abortion.

Revenant said...

Sticking to the murder analogy, we can think of the doctor as a hired killer. In most such cases, I think we'd consider the person who made the decision to engage in murder and then paid someone to execute the act at least as culpable.

There is that "at least as". In English, that means "possibly more than". The law doesn't think a woman who hires a hit man is more guilty of murder than the hit man himself. Neither do I. Do you? Who is the "we" in your sentence?

Jeremy said...

Synova - "If the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy can be ended anywhere, certainly in any largish city with an excellent surgical hospital."

And if they don't know until she's in her 5-6-7th month?

Maybe you should pass this valuable information onto those who die of cancer, strokes, heart attacks, etc.

You know...make sure the doctor takes care of your problems before they become more serious...but make sure you have plenty of insurance...right?

elHombre said...

Just for the record, Hombre, I wasn't insulting Bissage,.... My point was: I'd start donating to the ACLU, if I were you.

I stand corrected, Roost, but if it's all the same to you, I won't be contributing to the ACLU.

George said...

"Who would YOU choose, George...your wife, daughter or mother...or the unborn?"

That's a false choice Jeremy. Few if any of Tiller's clients were in that position.

For the very small number of women who face a choice between dying or delivering a viable fetus then I support their choice to live.

Synova said...

"Who would YOU choose, George...your wife, daughter or mother...or the unborn?"

All of the above.

DUH!

Why are you still pretending that anyone is trying to deny a woman an abortion to save her life?

Jeremy said...

So, if I understand the anti-abortion people here: ALL abortions are "murder."

Right?

How many here associate with these "murderers?"

NOBODY here associates with, are friends with, are related to...ANYBODY who's had an abortion?

You know..."murderers" or at least accomplices to the "murder?"

Is that true?

luz said...

Those who protest in a reasonable manner, via the changing of laws, etc...are not referred to as such. It's the assholes that bypass legal means and murder people at church that "tar" those who believe as you do.No, plenty of respected voices on the left are happy to tar "Christianists" one and all.

Quayle said...

Jeremy using his Sunday School voice: "Who the fuck are YOU...to tell a woman, after conferring with her doctor, and acting on his or her advice...what she can or cannot do with her own body...especially considering it is not "illegal" in any way."

I don't care what she does with her own body. I don't care what she does with any human cell that carries her DNA. Let's agree that a woman can do anything she wants with any cell that carries her exact DNA print.

I have great concerns, however, what a woman does with the other person in her body. So let's agree that a woman has no right to take any harmful action on any human cell that carries DNA that is different from hers.

Jeremy said...

Synova- "Why are you still pretending that anyone is trying to deny a woman an abortion to save her life?"

You should take the time to review the laws pertaining to late abortion.

But why are you avoiding the rationale most here throw out: That ALL abortions are "murder."

Are you saying it isn't?

George said...

Jeremy, I was friends with a woman who had an abortion. When she had her second abortion, I decided I didn't need to associate with someone that 1) callous or 2) clueless.

Jeremy said...

Quayle - "I have great concerns, however, what a woman does with the other person in her body."

So if it's your wife, daughter or mother...YOU would make the decision for her?

YOU, especially in the case of a late abortion, when the doctor tells you it's an absolute necessity...would tell your loved one...sorry, but I'm not leaving this up to YOU.

Is that what you're saying Quayle?

George said...

"You should take the time to review the laws pertaining to late abortion."

No, Jeremy, I think you should do that. Because you clearly do not understand them.

George said...

See, "absolute necessity" is NOT the legal standard.

Pogo said...

I also find it hard to believe medical information from someone who doesn't know what the words "elective" or "diagnostic" mean, but that's probably just my little hang-up.

Synova said...

Synova - "If the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy can be ended anywhere, certainly in any largish city with an excellent surgical hospital."

Jeremy - "And if they don't know until she's in her 5-6-7th month?"

Why are you still pretending that women with life threatening conditions can not be treated in any hospital in any city in any state that has adequate surgical facilities, just because the treatment requires the termination of a pregnancy?

I realize this is a pro-choice canard. (I think that's the first time I've ever used that word, but it sure seems to fit.) It's all, "OMGawd, you want women to DIE!!!"

George said...

The standard in Kansas, by the way Jeremy, is "substantive and irreversible" harm and includes mental considerations.

Oh, and who gets to decide this? Why the guy who is going to get paid for the abortion, that's who!

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"If the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy can be ended anywhere..."

My sister's life was in danger at 30 weeks when she developed pre-eclampsia, the placenta came loose, and she began to hemorrhage. Labor was induced in the hospital and they were able to save both her and my nephew, who just turned 14 this month and shows no ill effects from his prematurity at all.

Needing to end a third-tremester pregnancy early is not that uncommon. Hardly ever is it an either/or choice.

Mothers of children with Down syndrome report being asked why they didn't abort. This makes me ill.

Quayle said...

So if it's your wife, daughter or mother...YOU would make the decision for her?

YOU, especially in the case of a late abortion, when the doctor tells you it's an absolute necessity...would tell your loved one...sorry, but I'm not leaving this up to YOU.


Jeremy, what is so amazing or new about society protecting person A from person B's potentially harmful actions? We do it all the time.

And why do you automatically assume that because, as I argue, society should have a say in what Woman A does with Other-person B in her womb, that automatically means that society will decide unjustly or uncompassionately based on the situation?

Don't you trust your fellow citizens to get is right, and if not, how on earth do you tolerate our court system?

Jeremy said...

George said..."Jeremy, I was friends with a woman who had an abortion. When she had her second abortion, I decided I didn't need to associate with someone that 1) callous or 2) clueless."

That's wonderful, George.

But do you really think you know the medical history of all of your friends and relatives?

I think you should ask every one of them if they've taken part in any form of surgery that you feel constitutes "murder" and then tell them, that if they have...you will not associate with them ever again.

*I think everybody here who considers themselves to be anti-abortion should do that, too...so they make sure they're not being hypocritical when they refer to those who perform or have abortions as "murderers"...while still associating with these horrible people.

Let me know how this works out for everybody.

Jeremy said...

Quayle - I asked you a specific question.

What would YOU do?

Synova said...

"But why are you avoiding the rationale most here throw out: That ALL abortions are "murder."

Are you saying it isn't?
"

I may kill someone to save my own life, or if I believe that my own life is in danger (but don't have to prove that I really would have been killed). In some places I can even kill someone to save someone else's life.

Is self-defense "murder"?

Someone is pointing out that the best word might be "homicide." In either case, it's a *person* who has been killed, which isn't what the pro-choice side of things wants to hear, so changing over from "murder" to "homicide" isn't going to be acceptable to those who complain about the word "murder."

A real person is dead.

May I kill a real person to save my life or the life of another person? Yes, I may.

Jeremy said...

Quayle - "Don't you trust your fellow citizens to get is right, and if not, how on earth do you tolerate our court system?"

Abortion and late abortion is legal in America.

What's your point?

Jeremy said...

Synova - You, like others here, are not real big on actually answering specific questions.

I'll ask again: Do you, or do you not...think ALL abortion is murder?

And...if it were your mother or daughter...who would YOU choose?

Jeremy said...

George - "Oh, and who gets to decide this? Why the guy who is going to get paid for the abortion, that's who!"

The laws in Kansas established exactly who get to decide. Dr. Tiller was recently taken to court and found not guilty on 19 counts.

The Supreme Court says abortion is legal.

Do you understand what "legal" means?

Jeremy said...

Synova - "Why are you still pretending that women with life threatening conditions can not be treated in any hospital in any city in any state that has adequate surgical facilities, just because the treatment requires the termination of a pregnancy?"

When have I pretended women can't be treated at hospitals?

If hospitals afforded women the same treatment as Dr. Tiller, they would go to hospitals.

But they're not.

True?

Synova said...

Jeremy... I answered your question (as did others).

That you can't force it into your oh-so-clever "gotcha" is not *our* problem.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"If hospitals afforded women the same treatment as Dr. Tiller, they would go to hospitals.

But they're not."

Sure. Hospitals only offer late abortions when the mother's life is at stake.

Quayle said...

Jeremy, you're tiresome in this disucssion because you keep mixing positive statements with normative statements.

Take my advise - stick to one or the other.

Jen said...

If the nearest hospital is a Catholic hospital, that woman's life is definitely at risk.

Pogo said...

In China, late abortions are coerced, against the will of the mother. This is to meet the 'one child' restriction. 31% of pregnancies are aborted.

It's funny how socialist nations end up killing off their own progeny. Such was the case in the USSR, 57% of pregnancies resulted in abortion (now down to 55%).

IN Cuba, 54% of pregnancies result in abortion.

Now the USA is socialist, or as PRAVDA reports the "US is sliding into Marxism at breathtaking speed", one obvious question is in fact when this becomes so in America.

Or will we stay like Canada, where 22% of pregnancies end in abortion?


Socialism is just another death cult.

Pogo said...

"If the nearest hospital is a Catholic hospital, that woman's life is definitely at risk."

From someone ignorant of what "elective" means, that means nothing at all.

buster said...

Jeremy said:

"Synova- "Why are you still pretending that anyone is trying to deny a woman an abortion to save her life?"

You should take the time to review the laws pertaining to late abortion."

Jeremy, you know next to nothing about the law of late-term abortion. The Supreme Court decision upholding law prohibiting *certain medical procedures* often used in late-term abortions did *net* forbid any abortion at any time. It only forbid the use of the procedures in question when performing them. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, emphasized the point several times.

There was no evidence in the record that alternative methods would not be available in any foreseeable case.

The Court took no position about the legality of late-term abortion as such because the law in question did not forbid it as such.

Jen said...

@Pogo. What. Did you look it up on Wikipedia or do you use it at work?

Jen said...

@ Pogo:

Here you go. Straight from the Medical Dictionary.

"Elective: In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent.

Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time."

That's how I use it, that is how it is used.

The key here is "at that time". Like I said, there are many elective procedures that are done that are critical for the patients life, although the patient's life is not at risk AT THAT MOMENT.

Synova said...

"If hospitals afforded women the same treatment as Dr. Tiller, they would go to hospitals.

But they're not.

True?
"

Oh, absolutely true.

What you're confused about is just what "treatment" Dr. Tiller offered.

Pogo said...

You still don't know what the word means.

Merely adding 'at the moment' onto the dictionary definition doesn't correct your problem.

And my definition is clearer, and therefore more correct, hingeing on the idea of whether or not the procedure is essential for survival.

Florida said...

Heinous acts of violence, committed even BY the government, can be profoundly useful in resolving our political differences.

Why ... just ask Barack Obama. He is a product of heinous acts of violence committed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln has the singular distinction of being the only President of the United States to use our military against our own citizens.

He declared war against the Southern States to end slavery. He then set his Army about committing heinous acts of violence against other Americans.

So that Barack Obama could become President.

Heinous acts of violence END political discussions, and when used by the left, appear to be AOK!

Roost on the Moon said...

There is that "at least as". In English, that means "possibly more than". The law doesn't think a woman who hires a hit man is more guilty of murder than the hit man himself. Neither do I. Do you? Who is the "we" in your sentence?
"In English". Christ. I could cede this point, and it wouldn't change a thing. Replace "at least as" with "as". Does it matter? Who cares? It certainly doesn't make commissioning a murder a lesser crime than murder.

But I won't. I do think that paying a person to commit a crime on your behalf is at least as bad as committing the crime. I am ignorant about whether the law takes the same view, but I suspect in some cases it does.

But again, if not, so what? To what end are you picking this nit?

AJ Lynch said...

Only a liberal is so arrogant to think they can debate the meaning of the word "elective" with a physician.

UWS guy said...

An excerpt of a couple whom Dr. Tiller helped:

My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age. My wife just called with the news of his murder, weeping. I can't really come up with some profound political statement just now, so let me just list some memories of Dr. Tiller.
I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction.
I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.
He told the story of his previous shooting, where a woman shot him twice in both arms as he drove out of his clinic. At first he wanted to run her down with his Jeep, but then he thought "she shot you already George, she'll do it again!"
You who yell, "Allah Akbar" and dance in the street ululating at his murder; I hope someone is praying for your soul.

Jen said...

Pogo. Your life can be threatened in seconds, hours, days, or years. The beauty of some diagnostics is that we can see some of these things coming.

Because there is no such thing as divination, we rely on probability.

The procedure can be essential for survival (in the future) and elective (at that moment).

For example. A patient with prostate cancer can "elect" external beam radiation therapy with the guidance of his doctor.

The RT is elective even though the cancer is terminal.

Trust me. I know what the term means.

Synova said...

UWS guy, you're really offended by this, aren't you.

No one is dancing in the streets, but you're facing a losing proposition if you're trying to convince people that the man was a saint.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"You who yell, 'Allah Akbar' and dance in the street ululating at his murder; I hope someone is praying for your soul."

Who do you imagine is doing that?

Delusional.

UWS guy said...

Freeman hunt, Lem, and a bunch of others (I would guess you two as well) including some leaders of the pro-life movement have stated they aren't particularly sad he was killed....in so many words.

Of course today, ya'll are doing a big, "who me? I just called him worse than hitler and a child murderer...I shocked and saddened someone killed him."

UWS guy said...

have I read even one, "condolences to his wife?" No, nothing but murder is bad....but he was also a murderer.

so...yeah, he's in hell now.


Am I misquoting anyone?

Pogo said...

"Trust me. I know what the term means."

Impossible to tell from your posts. And if so, you are deliberately misusing it so far. Your addition now is even more obfuscatory.

Describe for me exactly what is "elective" about late term abortions but simultaneously "essential for survival". What precise medical condition occurs that would make a late term abortion 'life-saving' in "years"?

And with those named, their frequency among late term abortions, especially as fits Dr. Tiller's practice as he advertises it.

Pogo said...

Yes UWS guy, you're deliberately misreading. Your agenda is stupid and juvenile. Shove off.

UWS guy said...

Last cut and paste from Andrew Sullivan's site:

"I remember sitting in my bible study shortly after the Sept 11 attacks. The women were discussing the horrible things Islamic terrorists do in the name of their God and their religion. I was too private to let them know my experiences.
I ran three Plan Parenthood Clinics in the early 90s. I worked for Planned Parenthood when Dr Gunn was murdered in Pensacola.
I had been followed home from work. I had my car vandalized with pictures of aborted fetuses. My nurses had to receive police escorts to their cars in our parking lots. My office had rocks thrown through it. The clinic had to be searched by bomb sniffing dogs one night after being broken into. I received threats in the mail on a regular basis. My parents were always afraid I would be shot at going to work.
All this in the name of a Christian God and a Christian religion. It was religious terrorism. And it was US Citizen on US Citizen happening right here in our suburbs.

Jen said...

Pogo. You are intentionally trying to confuse the situation for whatever reason. If you don't want to understand I can't help you.


It's very like the difference of the use of the the word "theory" in science and the way it is used in the common language.

AlphaLiberal said...

Amazing that this plain statement can stir such vitriolic comments.

So when Bush rushed back to DC to intervene in the Schiavo case, were you all yammering that THAT wasn't a federal issue, either?

Doubt it.

Jen said...

Voila!

jeff said...

As mentioned in a previous thread and many times in this one, the service provided by Tiller was not, for the most part, based on the health of the fetus or the mother. According to HIS records that he has to by law turn over to the state of Kansas, of 600 some late term abortions he performed during a two year period in the late 90's, 1/4 of them were due to problems with the baby. 0% were do to any physical problems with the baby or the mother. The other 3/4 were justified by "mental health". I have no problem with people being pro-choice. As I stated on a previous thread, I am pro-choice to a point. However, aborting a healthy baby from a healthy mother is beyond my point. If your pro-choice right up to birth, so be it. But stop misrepresenting what late term abortion is. To paraphrase a over repeated question, if your healthy wife/daughter/girlfriend was going to abort her healthy baby in its 8th month because she felt depressed about taking care of a baby, what would you do?

Jen said...

Leave the decision up to her.

Synova said...

A crazy man shot two people at an Army recruiting center in Arkansas, killing one.

Condolences to his family. He was a good man embarking on a good life with a rich future before him.

Condolences also to the murderer's family, because that has to be horrible, to know someone close to you killed people.

Synova said...

Jen, would you?

If your healthy daughter got depressed in her 8th month and decided she couldn't deal with a baby you'd leave it up to her?

And when she wasn't depressed anymore and she asked you where you were to help her? Then you say, "It was your decision, Pumpkin, live with it."

Or what?

Lets you off the hook?

jeff said...

"Leave the decision up to her."

Ok. Just out of curiosity, what is your reasoning for that? There is no health issues, but you really wouldn't say a word? How about if she decided to do it 8 months and 3 weeks into the pregnancy? The day before giving birth? Do you have a line at all?

Synova said...

Or maybe the reaction would be, "Oh thank gawd you finally came to your senses... I'll drive."

Synova said...

I honestly can not comprehend the ability of people to calmly contemplate the death of their grandchildren.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here is a list of the sort of conditions that led people to have late-term abortions.

It's not always a question of the calendar. These are difficult, complicated and painful personal decisions.

Some people want blanket policies that have the State decide that people should take pregnancies to term even when it means a short, painful and gruesome life.

If we follow their demands, there will be women forced to give birth to children with these conditions.

That's real bad policy. Let's leave this decision with the parents.

And stop shooting people in the name of "life".

Jen said...

Wow. You guys really amp it up all on your own.

We went from my saying that I would leave it up to the woman to you deciding that I am contemplating the death of my own grandchildren.

That's just creepy.

AlphaLiberal said...

Red Herring Alert, via Synova:

If your healthy daughter got depressed in her 8th month and decided she couldn't deal with a baby you'd leave it up to her?Bullshit.

As is this:
I honestly can not comprehend the ability of people to calmly contemplate the death of their grandchildren.These reasons are more why these abortions happen:

Anencephaly
Trisomy 13
Trisomy 18
Trisomy 21
Polycystic kidney disease
Spina bifida
Hydrocephalus
Potter's syndrome
Lethal dwarfism
Holoprosencephaly
Anterior and posterior encephalocele
Non-immune hydrops

Jen said...

I think that these situations are often very complex and there are a myriad of things that we cannot pretend to comprehend about each individual situation.

We don't belong there. In the lives of another.

The government ESPECIALLY doesn't belong there.

I would imagine that each decision is individual with each person, involved with her family in a way that they see fit (because every person does not have a traditional family).

It's much much too complicated for anyone else to be involved with.

Synova said...

Okay, yes, I can understand not viewing a fetus in the earlier stages as a human that needs or deserves protection. It's not an illogical view to hold, overall, until the fetus develops to a point of viability. I disagree, but it's *reasonable*.

Supporting the abortion of a healthy fetus at a time well *after* viability outside the womb... why kill it if it can be removed alive? How is that logically, conceptually, or any other way different from a mother depressed or overwhelmed or even suffering post-partum clinical depression deciding to kill her already born infant?

AlphaLiberal said...

Jen:

It's much much too complicated for anyone else to be involved with.Agreed. So much for getting the government out of our lives!

And, I see you've encountered the straw (wo)man debate tactic so popular in these parts. All of a sudden you're a grandma trying to kill your offspring's offspring.

AlphaLiberal said...

Question for abortion opponents:

What penalties will you exact for the people - pregnant women and doctors - that you decry as "baby killers?"

How much prison time? (they really hate this uncomfortable question).

Jen said...

I just don't understand how this argument is progressing.

Synova said...

"if your healthy wife/daughter/girlfriend was going to abort her healthy baby in its 8th month because she felt depressed about taking care of a baby, what would you do?"

This was the question you seemed to be responding to, Jen.

Of those three things, we're not hypothesizing your "wife" or "girlfriend" so "daughter" is all that's left.

If your HEALTHY daughter was going to abort her HEALTHY baby (your grandchild) in it's 8th month because she was suffering from depression (and while the original hypothetical made a milder statement, I'll go with clinical depression) what would you do?

Your answer *seemed* to be that you'd leave it up to her, even if she was suffering from depression and she and the baby were both entirely healthy (apart from the depression).

It's not an impossible situation or "red herring". Alpha, and Jeremy (elsewhere), have been trying to insist that no one ever gets an abortion unless their child is going to be dead on arrival or the mother's life is in danger. I'm not sure what world they live in because the oh so serious reasons I've heard to abort a baby include the gem "I don't want to be fat in the summer."

Do you have ANY point at which you wouldn't "leave it up to her?"

Or do you really, honestly, think that women "never take abortion lightly" or that depressed people can be counted on to make the best possible of irrevocable life choices?

Synova said...

Alpha... we don't hate the "prison time" question... we just think it's stupid.

And it's been answered *many* times by several people... you just don't like the answers because they aren't the answers you want.

Jen said...

Synovia:

You ask good questions.

If you are asking me individually, with me and my personal relationship with my daughter, I cannot imagine where we will be in the future together. She is only 3.

Not everyone has the relationship that I hope to have with her when she is older.

I can IMAGINE that we would have a close relationship and that she would trust me to support her and help guide her.

However, as hard as I wish that to be true, it is only speculation. Not everyone has that relationship. And as hard as I try, she may be distant from me in the future.

What if (horrible to imagine), in spite of my best efforts at being a caring and devoted mother, she is a drug addict. What if I cannot advise her? What if . . . .there are an infinite number of permutations to each individual circumstance. I don't think that you can fathom them.

Therefore, each person, seeking the best council they can (and some times that is none), should make their own decision.

If they have loving and caring family to support them than that is great. But we can't assume that all people have the same opportunity that we do.

Jen said...

Alpha's prison question is exactly the same as yours is to me Synovia. Only it's on the opposite end of the argument's spectrum.

George said...

OK, Alpha, your list is a quarter of Tiller's clinteelle. What about the other 75 percent of elective, late term, abortions he performed?

Cedarford said...

Laura(southernxyl) said...
"If hospitals afforded women the same treatment as Dr. Tiller, they would go to hospitals.

But they're not."

Sure. Hospitals only offer late abortions when the mother's life is at stake.


Not true. Many hospitals will not hesitate to do a 3rd trimester abortion for the physical health of the mother (if early delivery is not an option) or if severe fetal abnormality or genetic defect is discovered.

Again, that is the standard in most developed nations other than America and China. 1st trimester OK, anything past that is only sanctioned on major health issues with the mother or major & legally defined genetic defect/developmental deformity in the fetus.

China takes Tiller's approach, and then some, to what justifies abortion.
But then China recognized that it had far too many people for a long-term sustainable China.

===================
Florida: Abraham Lincoln has the singular distinction of being the only President of the United States to use our military against our own citizens..

Not exactly true. Troops or militia were dispatched to shoot people in disaster areas found looting, dispatched against rebellious Indians, dispatched against minor rebellions (Shays, John Brown's raid, labor violence, dispersing the Bonus Marchers encampment). And enforcing martial law in territories and in riotous cities, guarding enemy aliens and their sometimes US citizen spouses and kids in relocation/internment camps.

veni vidi vici said...

"Freeman hunt, Lem, and a bunch of others (I would guess you two as well) including some leaders of the pro-life movement have stated they aren't particularly sad he was killed....in so many words."


Frankly, UWS, I'm not particularly sad he's dead, but that's because I didn't know the guy and I'm just not Alan Alda sensitive-man enough to pause and shed tears for every person who dies or is killed in the country, world, or otherwise.

If you are of such exquisite sensitivity, you may wish to consider counseling.

Not a fan of the services this guy provided, but I'm a "safe legal and rare" type of guy who believes that regulations are appropriate while banning abortion across the board is pure governmental overreach. On the other side of the coin, though, government funding has no place in these procedures, which should be financed for the indigent with the Emily's List and other abortion-lobbying groups' cash rather than having that cash spent on phalanxes of lawyers/lobbyists.

Basically, I'm with Jen at 5:57 but within the reasonable limits of survivability/viability. Late-term abortions performed on an elective basis strike me as profoundly irresponsible/negligent.

Is Tiller a hero? Apart from to his family, he's probably a hero to some no-life losers, somewhere. I'd reckon he probably didn't think so, and just wanted to work his day gig, go to church with his family and friends and live out the quiet glory of the middle-American lifestyle. I'd be surprised if he'd not envisioned coming to this kind of end, though. There's certainly no shortage of crazy people with no lives outside their own political opinions out there. Just read the comments on blogs!

Revenant said...

How much prison time? (they really hate this uncomfortable question).

There are really two questions here. One is "what is the morally appropriate punishment", the other is "what is the socially optimal punishment". The two are seldom the same. For example, the morally appropriate punishment for burglary is death. The socially optimal punishment is much less than that, because killing all burglars has costs to society (it encourages burglars to be more violent and ruthless, and risks executions of innocent people).

If abortion is murder, the morally appropriate punishment for both the doctor and the (former) mother is death. But that is not the socially optimal punishment, at least for the mother. If abortion is a capital crime for the mother, every woman who miscarries faces the risk of prosecution, and possibly wrongful execution as well.

Now, one could argue that the cost to pregnant women is worth the benefit of preventing abortions. But abortions can be prevented much more effectively, and at less social cost, but targeting the providers instead. In addition, if the mother doesn't face any criminal penalty for having had an abortion, she has much less incentive to keep it a secret that she had one if, later on, she comes to regret it (as many women do).

So if I were asked the best way to stamp out abortion using the law, my recommendation would be this: no penalties for the mothers, but a stiff prison sentence (say, 20 years) for performing an abortion, with no statute of limitations. Not only does the person performing the abortion face serious jail time -- he also has to worry about every woman he worked on eventually going to the cops.

Revenant said...

[various pro-lifers] have stated they aren't particularly sad he was killed....in so many words.

Why should they be sad he was killed?

I think you're confusing the intellectual belief that murder is wrong with the emotional reaction to a death. You can recognize that a criminal act is wrong, and approve of punishing the people who did it, but yet not feel any sympathy for the victim.

For example, if someone told me that all the people sending me "refinance your mortgage" spam had been robbed at gunpoint by an angry system administrator, I would nod and say "well, of course the guy should be caught and locked up". But I wouldn't spend even a fraction of a second feeling bad that the people got robbed, because those folks are dicks. :)

jeff said...

People keep coming back to all these health reasons the baby might have. OK, fine. I again stipulate that 1/4 of those late term abortions are done because of health reasons. My question continues to be about the majority of them that have nothing to do with the health of the baby or mother. That's all I am asking about. Are you OK with the majority of elective late term abortions when the baby and mother are both physically healthy. No need to bring back the "life of the mother" or the "damaged baby" argument.
Did Jen come up with the time line she is uncomfortable crossing? I am not trying for a gotcha moment, I am genuinely curious if you are OK with it right up to the moment of normal birth.

AlphaLiberal said...

Wow. Thanks for answering the question, Revenant.

So, 20 years for the Doc. But the woman is the key decision maker here, not just an accessory to the act. So, why should she be left unpunished by your abortion law?

I've heard it said that this is a sexist position, but am not the one to make the case. Something about it being patronizing, treating women as irresponsible children.

AlphaLiberal said...

George, what do you base this claim on?

"OK, Alpha, your list is a quarter of Tiller's clinteelle."

jeff said...

Alpha, Kansas requires the Dr to submit a report containing certain information about each abortion. During the trial a year or so ago, a couple of years was released into the public record. This is only for two years, but I don't think it is unreasonable to extrapolate it. For those 2 years (around '99) his records showed around 600 late term abortions, of which 1/4 were to reasons of the fetus health. Of the rest, 0% were based on the physical health of the mother, they were all listed as mental health. That is where he is getting that data. It isn't a claim, it is what Tiller reported. And as stated, perfectly legal.

jeff said...

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

I pulled the '99 report. Found 12708 total abortions for that year. Of those, 574 were after 22 weeks. Of that number, 302 were viable. Of the 574, 3 were due to the health issues with the fetus. Of the 302, 183 were partial birth. The reasons for all of the 183 were "mental health". I am unable to find a reason for the remaining 119. So for that year, somewhere between 60% and 100% of the viable fetus abortions were due to the mental health of the mother. Around 2000 Tiller stopped doing partial birth abortions, and when to injecting poison and then inducing labor. It looks like only the partial birth abortion required determining what kind of health issue required the abortion, at least on these docs. I will keep looking.

peter hoh said...

I'm much too exhausted to go through the Tiller threads to catch up. I'm sure this would have been better posted to an earlier thread, but here's Megan McCardle making some of the same points that Pogo was making in another thread.

I think Pogo and I might actually agree about something -- namely that Roe prevented the democratic process of hammering out a compromise in the statehouses, and that we are poorer for that process having been thwarted.

Revenant said...

Wow. Thanks for answering the question, Revenant.

You're welcome.

So, 20 years for the Doc. But the woman is the key decision maker here, not just an accessory to the act.

The key decision maker is the person with the actual ability to perform an abortion. A mother can "decide" all she wants, but in the absence of a willing abortionist her decision doesn't mean anything.

So, why should she be left unpunished by your abortion law?

Apparently you thanked me for answering without actually reading the answer. I already explained why the mothers should not be punished.

I've heard it said that this is a sexist position, but am not the one to make the case. Something about it being patronizing, treating women as irresponsible children.

If your point is that there are people in the pro-choice movement who make really dumb remarks about pro-lifers, I completely agree. But if you're trying to hint that I'm sexist, that's just silly.

JAL said...

Late to the game. (A lot of stuff has already been picked up and corrected. Probably to no avail. ;-) )

Jeremy said...
luz..."...pro-lifers are now eternally tarred as "the real terrorists"?"

Those who protest in a reasonable manner, via the changing of laws, etc...are not referred to as such. It's the assholes that bypass legal means and murder people at church that "tar" those who believe as you do.
3:40 PM
Let's see ... I believe someone in an earlier thread did a count. The numbers seemed to indicate disenfranchised loners who found a cause which gave them a way to express their pathology. So how about y'all not trying to make the pro-lifers on the list into full blown whackos. Oh. Sorry. Wrong narrative. Ayers can plot to blow up Fort Dix and a police station, and that gets a pass.

[TWWNBN] I think it's performed when the doctor feels there is a very good chance the mother could die or suffer life threatening reactions to delivery."Life threatening reactions?" Like what? Hives? Be specific.

[More TWWNBM] Who would YOU choose, George...your wife, daughter or mother...or the unborn?
3:45 PM
You act like this is something impossible for people who are pro- life to decide or deal with. It happens. People make choices which are excruciating. As my wise mentor once said -- Life isn't about good choices and bad choices as much as it is about having to make the best of two lousy choices. She was right.

There is a lot of medical misinformation in this discussion.

Jen, someone tried to tell you, but you must have missed it. When Pogo isn't practicing on the drum, Pogo is practicing medicine.

JAL said...

As for not wanting to deliver a live infant with a severe disability -- late term abortions involve delivery a baby's body, whether it is partial birth abortion (the baby is essentialy OUT of the woman's body) and has had scissors stuck in its skull and its brain sucked out, or in the technique now apparetnly favored, where the baby is killed in utero then delivered, the actual process is still vaginal delivery.

So much for honoring life and baby seals.

I speak as one who has delivered a 28 week, 2 lb 14 oz. baby who lived. He serves his country -- and all of us here on this blog --in the US Army. He is headed to Iraq on his second deployment.

I speak also as some one who has gven birth at the age of 44. (Different kid.) I refused prenatal testing, because it didn't matter. The child was who he/she was and we would deal with him/her respectfully and with love. Trully a "whatever."

We did not have to deal with disabilities, although we certainly had some anguish. My heart goes out to those who have children who are disabled.

I admire you folks, and thank you.

JAL said...

And as I go to bed, let me get back on thread with a high five to DBQ (11:06), lacegrl (12:23), Palladian, and the rest of you.

It is a long 4 years.

And I am so looking forward to 2010.

Synova said...

Jen: "Alpha's prison question is exactly the same as yours is to me Synovia. Only it's on the opposite end of the argument's spectrum."

And I appreciate your thoughtful answer. Many people have answered Alpha, but because he wants a particular sort of answer he pretends that his question is being avoided.