George Tiller shot.

gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

posted by bill sikes

No, it's not even an answer to my question.


Did you or did you not ask

Yes.

I can't find anything about anything about the numbers of deformed and mutilated children you mentioned.


No, but that (Italy) was specifically mentioned. I would like to find out the figures.




I am trying to find out the extent of the problems alluded to (figures regarding deformed and mutilated children born as a result of the accident), without being buried in an avalanche of side issues and verbiage. So far, no luck on the figures.


What kind of answer were you expecting? There were no births because the women took the decision to abort, the tests carried out on the foetuses showed no sign of dioxin poisoning.

It doesn't just indicate it actually states none were found. it is a report on tests carried out on 34 foetuses from seveso after the event -30 from induced abortions and four naturally occurring ones.

No indications of mutagenic, teratogenic or fetotoxic effects of TCDD could be found.


What more do you need to know?

posted by bil sikes

You've answered your own question there, haven't you.


Actually no I was asking for your opinion. Personally I don't think it is an easy one to answer but the choice has to be left with the one carrying the foetus-as do you I see.

posted by bill sikes

Under "normal" circumstances, I don't just think it, I know it - you have only to briefly examine laws worldwide to see that this is indupitable.


Looking at it that way you are correct-it is also true that women are not given any choice in some countries as to whether they get pregnant or not. Perhaps the question does anyone have the moral authority or moral right to make those sort of decisions for them? Now that's a whole debate in itself. Clearly there are many who think women are not capable of choosing for themselves. I have this theory misogynists are actually scared of women and doubt their ability to compete with other males and have to dis-empower women and keep control in order to feel they have a chance of getting a mate.

Erik;1199899 wrote: How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Rape is terrible, but killing your unborn baby is much worse.


It's always been the "moral" guardians that have made bearing a bastard such a stigma and made it so difficult for single mothers to keep their babies. It was fine upstanding individuals that thought it was acceptable to fire single women that got themselves pregnant thus ensuring they had no choice in the matter and were happy to leave them and the child destitute-or go to a back street abortionist before it gets to that point. It's always been the moral guardians that have tried to prevent teenage girls getting access to contraceptives and keeping them ignorant of the facts of life and been only too willing to join in the universal condemnation when some "weak willed" teenager gets themselves pregnant-another sinner they can pray over. It's been the moral guardians that have made it acceptable for a man to walk away from his bastard child and keep his good name while the real criminal has to carry the child and deal with the consequences. original sin and all that clearly women are evil temptresses. It's the moral guardians that hold to the view someone who gets raped must somehow have provoked the attack, if a girl gets drunk and has sex it's her fault since she shows her lack of morals and self control but if a bloke gets in a drunken fight well it was just the drink and he's not really a violent person. If a girl gets her drink spiked and is raped (which seem to quite prevalent) and can't remember well she shouldn't have accepted a drink from a stranger in the first place or perhaps even have been in a bar in first place.

It's the canting hypocrisy and double standards surrounding the debate that makes a mockery of many of the pro-lifers arguments.

Now we have the fine upstanding moral guardians justifying terrorism and murder all in the name of the greater good as seen by them.

posted by erik

A woman doesn’t have the right to terminate her pregnancy any more than I had the right to do what is described in the above story.


Should she not also have the right to decide whether she gets pregnant or not? If that pregnancy is not a choice she has made then surely she has a right to terminate it once she knows about it.

If a teenage girl is pregnant because she has been denied free choice and access to contraceptives then I would put it to you that those who deny that choice are guilty of moral arrogance.
User avatar
Peg
Posts: 8673
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Peg »

Erik;1199899 wrote: How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Rape is terrible, but killing your unborn baby is much worse.


If your wife was raped, would you expect her to carry the product of that rape for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise that child as your own that you wanted her to carry? How about a little sister who is still in school? Would you expect her to carry that child for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise the baby for her? Nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child? Where was this person's right not to get raped. Where is her right not to have an unplanned pregnancy?
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Peg;1199969 wrote: If your wife was raped, would you expect her to carry the product of that rape for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise that child as your own that you wanted her to carry? How about a little sister who is still in school? Would you expect her to carry that child for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise the baby for her? Nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child? Where was this person's right not to get raped. Where is her right not to have an unplanned pregnancy?


Any woman who could look at a baby, even if it's still in her womb, and have it killed in a horrible way, scares the sh!t out of me.
User avatar
Peg
Posts: 8673
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Peg »

hoppy;1199973 wrote: Any woman who could look at a baby, even if it's still in her womb, and have it killed in a horrible way, scares the sh!t out of me.


I can't imagine any scenerio where I would want an abortion, but I also realize we are all not the same. While I could never bring myself to have an abortion, I can understand why others would. My main problem with abortion is when a person uses it to replace birth control. When I was little, I knew a girl who had 4 abortions claiming she was raped all 4 times.
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by qsducks »

Erik;1199899 wrote: How the child is conceived is completely irrelevant. Whether it’s from a brutal rape or consensual sex nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child simply because of the circumstances surrounding his/her conception.

Rape is terrible, but killing your unborn baby is much worse.


It is relevent when that fetus is conceived in rape, incest & forced sex. Rape is just not terrible, it's unbearable with a load of women. And men get a slap onthe hand for it.:-5
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

qsducks;1200084 wrote: It is relevent when that fetus is conceived in rape, incest & forced sex. Rape is just not terrible, it's unbearable with a load of women. And men get a slap onthe hand for it.:-5


I would think murdering a baby even more terrible. But, that's just me.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Lon »

hoppy;1200089 wrote: I would think murdering a baby even more terrible. But, that's just me.


Using the word BABY instead of embryo dramatizes your position on abortion doesn't it? BABY MURDERER!! Sounds dreadful. It's not a baby yet, nor is the following a chick yet.

Attached files
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1199917 wrote:

Aren't you fortunate that you can't be raped and impregnated.

I wonder if you'd change your tune then?:rolleyes:




I admit, such a situation would be traumatic beyond my comprehension, however, when it comes to doing the right thing the answer is obvious.

Butchering your baby (however unplanned or unwanted it is) far exceeds the crime of the rapist who impregnated you. The only reason people feel differently is because Abortion is socially acceptable, and legal. Much like gassing millions of Jews and using their skins to make furniture was socially acceptable in Nazi Germany during the war.

The baby is a human being whose life is every bit as valuable as yours or mine, so why should that life be extinguished because of something his/her father did?

I have a wife and three daughters, and if the unthinkable happened, and one of them where raped and impregnated I would want them to keep the baby.

It would be a nightmare to be sure, and I would spend some time in jail for killing the rapist, but the child would be raised as one of our own. The child is innocent, and is not responsible for how he/she was conceived.

The problem is, society has become so morally corrupt, selfish and lazy that the "easy" way (Abortion) is often the first choice, even though its murder.

I find it ironic that the same people who support killing unborn children label me as "hateful".

And don’t talk to me about "sexism" or "feminism" because I could care less about these labels of entitlement people fancy for themselves. In this world, your value as a human being is defined by your actions, nothing less, nothing more. Anybody who says different is simply putting on a show and wasting my time.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Peg;1199969 wrote: If your wife was raped, would you expect her to carry the product of that rape for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise that child as your own that you wanted her to carry? How about a little sister who is still in school? Would you expect her to carry that child for 9 months? Would you be willing to raise the baby for her? Nobody has the right to deny life to an unborn child? Where was this person's right not to get raped. Where is her right not to have an unplanned pregnancy?


Obviously the act of rape would take that right away from her. However, killing your baby is worse. I know it’s difficult to separate the two, but its necessary in order to do what’s right.

Like in my last post, it would rather my wife/daughter/sister carry the baby for 9 months and raise the kid as their own then kill him for something his father did.

Throughout life we are constantly ending up in situations where we are forced to choose between right and wrong. More often than not, doing the right thing is the most difficult option, like carrying a rape conceived baby for 9 months and raising him/her. Regardless the circumstances, the choices we make during these times define who, and what we are.

You can try to justify it with some delusional sense of rights you think you have, or cover it up with all the silly little "my body, my choice" or "pro-choice" stickers you like. Underneath it all, the cold, hard fact of who you are is still the same. If you are someone who choose to support abortion, you are someone who values your own personal comfort more than you would value the life of your child.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Kathy Ellen »

Post #151 by gmc....



It's always been the "moral" guardians that have made bearing a bastard such a stigma and made it so difficult for single mothers to keep their babies. It was fine upstanding individuals that thought it was acceptable to fire single women that got themselves pregnant thus ensuring they had no choice in the matter and were happy to leave them and the child destitute-or go to a back street abortionist before it gets to that point. It's always been the moral guardians that have tried to prevent teenage girls getting access to contraceptives and keeping them ignorant of the facts of life and been only too willing to join in the universal condemnation when some "weak willed" teenager gets themselves pregnant-another sinner they can pray over. It's been the moral guardians that have made it acceptable for a man to walk away from his bastard child and keep his good name while the real criminal has to carry the child and deal with the consequences. original sin and all that clearly women are evil temptresses. It's the moral guardians that hold to the view someone who gets raped must somehow have provoked the attack, if a girl gets drunk and has sex it's her fault since she shows her lack of morals and self control but if a bloke gets in a drunken fight well it was just the drink and he's not really a violent person. If a girl gets her drink spiked and is raped (which seem to quite prevalent) and can't remember well she shouldn't have accepted a drink from a stranger in the first place or perhaps even have been in a bar in first place.



It's the canting hypocrisy and double standards surrounding the debate that makes a mockery of many of the pro-lifers arguments.





Well said gmc...thank you...
User avatar
Kathy Ellen
Posts: 10569
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Kathy Ellen »

Hello Eric and welcome to the garden:-6 Don't think that I've met you before.





I know that you have such strong feeling about abortion, but I'm wondering why you seem so angry in your discussions. That's only my opinon though.



I've read your position and other's positions and understand both side as best I can.



I just don't understand why some anti-abortion members think that it's ok to also kill the abortion doctors. Whether one agrees or not with their thinking, what gives them the right to kill and cheer others for killing these doctors when abortions are legal in their State????



Please help me to understand this hatred that anti-abortion members have against abortion doctors when they kill or blow up abortion clinics:-3
freetobeme
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by freetobeme »

Pro-life in this case seems to be an oxymoron. While I do have qualms about late term abortions, these were not taken nor done lightly. Read these stories, and tell me if you think it would be better had these pregnancies not been terminated.

A Heartbreaking Choice
senior's politics and discussion
qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by qsducks »

freetobeme;1200255 wrote: Pro-life in this case seems to be an oxymoron. While I do have qualms about late term abortions, these were not taken nor done lightly. Read these stories, and tell me if you think it would be better had these pregnancies not been terminated.

A Heartbreaking Choice


I read these earlier today...and it was heartbreaking...I had tears in my eyes. I suffered a miscarriage years ago & it was a child that was very wanted. However, being pregnant & having your fetus diagnosed with what I read...no brain, no chance of being a child or ever growing up without pain or tons of operations/hospitalizations isn't fair to the child or to the parents. I got pregnant with my last child in my late 30's...had an amnio, etc. Thankfully he was a healthy baby boy...I caught a load of flak for having the amnio from pro-life family members & a couple of peeps from church and each time my answer was "tough crap on your end". We had decided that if anything showed up in the amnio that showed the fetus was brain damaged or had other diffuculties that we were not going to continue on with the pregnancy.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Victoria;1199912 wrote: Sometimes I just wish so much it was men who got pregnant.
That would be great if we could truly share somehow, wouldn't it? Talk about bonding! Too bad humans don't lay eggs; that'd be a decent compromise. Then both parents could take care of the baby together almost from day one. :-6
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Hello Kathy, thank you for the warm welcome :)



I know that you have such strong feeling about abortion, but I'm wondering why you seem so angry in your discussions. That's only my opinion though.

Aborting a baby is no different than taking your one month old infant and slitting his/her throat. It’s just as brutal, it’s just as wrong, and it angers me when I hear people try to justify it. It can’t be justified any more than murdering a small child can be justified. The fact that it’s legal at all is a disgrace to our country.

I've read your position and other's positions and understand both sides as best I can.



I just don't understand why some anti-abortion members think that it's ok to also kill the abortion doctors. Whether one agrees or not with their thinking, what gives them the right to kill and cheer others for killing these doctors when abortions are legal in their State????

Let me be clear about this, if ever I heard someone plotting to kill or harm an abortion doctor (or anybody for that matter) I would turn them in to the police without hesitation. However, what’s done is done, and I am personally relieved to see George Tiller in the ground. He made his living killing children which places him on par with some of our nation’s worst killers.

Please help me to understand this hatred that anti-abortion members have against abortion doctors when they kill or blow up abortion clinics:-3


I can’t presume to know what goes on in the mind of these criminals. Despite my strong feelings, I would never act out against an abortion doc or clinic. And while I strongly disagree with certain laws, I believe in the justice system and the people’s right to determine the laws of our country through our democratic process.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1200172 wrote: I

I have a wife and three daughters, and if the unthinkable happened, and one of them where raped and impregnated I would want them to keep the baby.

It would be a nightmare to be sure, and I would spend some time in jail for killing the rapist, but the child would be raised as one of our own. The child is innocent, and is not responsible for how he/she was conceived.

The problem is, society has become so morally corrupt, selfish and lazy that the "easy" way (Abortion) is often the first choice, even though its murder.




Erik,are you not aware of the hypocrisy in your statements?

You feel that all life in the womb is sacrosanct,and yet,you feel vindicated that premeditating the murder of the rapist is acceptable....and forgiveable?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Chockygirl;1200339 wrote:

Erik,are you not aware of the hypocrisy in your statements?

You feel that all life in the womb is sacrosanct,and yet,you feel vindicated that premeditating the murder of the rapist is acceptable....and forgiveable?
You don't see the difference between taking an innocent life and killing a criminal?? BTW, acceptable & forgiveable to/by whom?
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Erik;1200178 wrote: Obviously the act of rape would take that right away from her. However, killing your baby is worse. I know it’s difficult to separate the two, but its necessary in order to do what’s right.

Like in my last post, it would rather my wife/daughter/sister carry the baby for 9 months and raise the kid as their own then kill him for something his father did.

Throughout life we are constantly ending up in situations where we are forced to choose between right and wrong. More often than not, doing the right thing is the most difficult option, like carrying a rape conceived baby for 9 months and raising him/her. Regardless the circumstances, the choices we make during these times define who, and what we are.

You can try to justify it with some delusional sense of rights you think you have, or cover it up with all the silly little "my body, my choice" or "pro-choice" stickers you like. Underneath it all, the cold, hard fact of who you are is still the same. If you are someone who choose to support abortion, you are someone who values your own personal comfort more than you would value the life of your child.


But what would you do if your wide/daughter/sister didn't see things your way or see why she should have to carry and bring up a child she didn't want and had no say in whether it be conceived in the first place and just wanted rid of it? Whose choice should it be?

What about a situation where continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother- would you insist on it continuing and rip open the mother to save the baby and kill the mother-or would you let the mother choose? Used to happen quite a lot you know many women died in child birth and they still can we tend to take for granted good medical care. You can get to choose if you have a life saving operation or not but when it comes to carrying a baby to term knowing it can kill the mother whose choice to have an abortion or not? Who has the most right to make that decision?

You can try to justify it with some delusional sense of rights you think you have, or cover it up with all the silly little "my body, my choice" or "pro-choice" stickers you like. Underneath it all, the cold, hard fact of who you are is still the same. If you are someone who choose to support abortion, you are someone who values your own personal comfort more than you would value the life of your child.


This idea that woman have abortions as a convenient means of contraceptive or so they can continue with a pleasant lifestyle and make things easy for themselves is the kind of ridiculous sophistry much favoured and put about by those who are not pro choice-it saves then having to actually think about why people might find themselves faced with that kind of decision in the first place. There are obviously some who do do that but for the vast majority it's not just a matter of a quick scrape and then get on with things. It's the kind of decision they have to make and while you can try and influence them unless you are the one in that position you do not have a greater moral certainty that gives you the right to dictate what that decision should be.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1200339 wrote:

Erik,are you not aware of the hypocrisy in your statements?

You feel that all life in the womb is sacrosanct,and yet,you feel vindicated that premeditating the murder of the rapist is acceptable....and forgiveable?


You need to think before you post.

There was nothing hypocritcal about my statement. I never said "all" life is sacred, its not. People who commit crimes as vile as Rape and Murder need to be executed. Innocent children, however, do not.

Are you saying you value the life of a Rapist more than you do an unborn child?
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

gmc;1200387 wrote: But what would you do if your wide/daughter/sister didn't see things your way or see why she should have to carry and bring up a child she didn't want and had no say in whether it be conceived in the first place and just wanted rid of it? Whose choice should it be?

What about a situation where continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother- would you insist on it continuing and rip open the mother to save the baby and kill the mother-or would you let the mother choose? Used to happen quite a lot you know many women died in child birth and they still can we tend to take for granted good medical care. You can get to choose if you have a life saving operation or not but when it comes to carrying a baby to term knowing it can kill the mother whose choice to have an abortion or not? Who has the most right to make that decision?



This idea that woman have abortions as a convenient means of contraceptive or so they can continue with a pleasant lifestyle and make things easy for themselves is the kind of ridiculous sophistry much favoured and put about by those who are not pro choice-it saves then having to actually think about why people might find themselves faced with that kind of decision in the first place. There are obviously some who do do that but for the vast majority it's not just a matter of a quick scrape and then get on with things. It's the kind of decision they have to make and while you can try and influence them unless you are the one in that position you do not have a greater moral certainty that gives you the right to dictate what that decision should be.


I know there are several medical reasons for people to get an Abortion. However, it changes nothing. Let’s say you had a medical condition that required a transplant to save your life, and the only match was one of your kids (regardless their age). Would you have your child butchered (against his/her will) in the most horrible, painful way possible to gain the transplant you need to live?

It’s the same as abortion, and its a hard fact to swallow. The willful ignorance of the pro-choice movement and the complacency of everybody else are responsible for the daily butchering of unborn children. So as long as people don’t have the guts to accept the truth about abortion, it will never change.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Erik;1200481 wrote: There was nothing hypocritcal about my statement. I never said "all" life is sacred, its not. People who commit crimes as vile as Rape and Murder need to be executed. Innocent children, however, do not.

Are you saying you value the life of a Rapist more than you do an unborn child?


Oh, I say, rather a fine shot.I don't think you'll get a sensible answer, though, there's not much sensible in this little pot-boiling thread.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1200481 wrote: You need to think before you post.

There was nothing hypocritcal about my statement. I never said "all" life is sacred, its not. People who commit crimes as vile as Rape and Murder need to be executed. Innocent children, however, do not.

Are you saying you value the life of a Rapist more than you do an unborn child?

There are many people who don't deserve to live because of their atrocious crimes,however,there is the justice system to decide their fate,not some vigilante with a gun who feels they have a right to murder to even the score.

If you follow religious teachings,as I'm guessing that you do,"ALL" life is supposedly sacred,how then do you justify your actions to your god?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Chockygirl;1200568 wrote: [...]

If you follow religious teachings,as I'm guessing that you do, [...]
:wah: Based on what? He's been very careful to stay strictly secular.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Accountable;1200268 wrote: That would be great if we could truly share somehow, wouldn't it? Talk about bonding! Too bad humans don't lay eggs; that'd be a decent compromise. Then both parents could take care of the baby together almost from day one. :-6

:wah:

Or,we could do what the seahorse does;take over part of the gestation period and the birth.
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

gmc;1200387 wrote:

What about a situation where continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother- would you insist on it continuing and rip open the mother to save the baby and kill the mother-or would you let the mother choose? Used to happen quite a lot you know many women died in child birth and they still can we tend to take for granted good medical care. You can get to choose if you have a life saving operation or not but when it comes to carrying a baby to term knowing it can kill the mother whose choice to have an abortion or not? Who has the most right to make that decision?



I would like to read Erik's answer to this.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1200585 wrote:

I would like to read Erik's answer to this.


I already answered it on the previous page.

"I know there are several medical reasons for people to get an Abortion. However, it changes nothing. Let’s say you had a medical condition that required a transplant to save your life, and the only match was one of your kids (regardless their age). Would you have your child butchered (against his/her will) in the most horrible, painful way possible to gain the transplant you need to live?

It’s the same as abortion, and its a hard fact to swallow. The willful ignorance of the pro-choice movement and the complacency of everybody else are responsible for the daily butchering of unborn children. So as long as people don’t have the guts to accept the truth about abortion, it will never change."
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1200592 wrote: I already answered it on the previous page.

"I know there are several medical reasons for people to get an Abortion. However, it changes nothing. Let’s say you had a medical condition that required a transplant to save your life, and the only match was one of your kids (regardless their age). Would you have your child butchered (against his/her will) in the most horrible, painful way possible to gain the transplant you need to live?

It’s the same as abortion, and its a hard fact to swallow. The willful ignorance of the pro-choice movement and the complacency of everybody else are responsible for the daily butchering of unborn children. So as long as people don’t have the guts to accept the truth about abortion, it will never change."

No,you didn't answer the question.

This is what gmc asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

What about a situation where continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother- would you insist on it continuing and rip open the mother to save the baby and kill the mother-or would you let the mother choose? Used to happen quite a lot you know many women died in child birth and they still can we tend to take for granted good medical care. You can get to choose if you have a life saving operation or not but when it comes to carrying a baby to term knowing it can kill the mother whose choice to have an abortion or not? Who has the most right to make that decision?
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1200568 wrote:

There are many people who don't deserve to live because of their atrocious crimes,however,there is the justice system to decide their fate,not some vigilante with a gun who feels they have a right to murder to even the score.

If you follow religious teachings,as I'm guessing that you do,"ALL" life is supposedly sacred,how then do you justify your actions to your god?


Now you are making baseless assumptions. What I do and do not believe in regards to religion are irrelevant to the issue. Abortion isn’t a talking point, a political stance, or a religious view. Its a black and white issue regarding the murder of unborn children and the ignorance of those who support the act.

By assuming my pro-choice stance makes me a religious, you are saying that only people of religion value the life of an unborn child, which is not true at all.

Personally, I believe that rapists, child molesters, and murders need to be put to death without a second thought. They have shown that they cannot interact with society without seriously harming innocent people, thus forfeiting their right to live. Just because I’m happy that George Tiller is dead does not mean I don’t believe in the justice system. The guy who shot George broke the law and needs to be punished to the fullest extent.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1200598 wrote: Now you are making baseless assumptions.

Yes,I did make an assumption-mea culpa.

I would like to read your answer to the question that gmc and I have both asked you.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Ok Chockygirl, I have given it some thought, here is my answer:

First of all, let me say that such a situation stands out as unique from every other reason to get an abortion. This situation involves the act of terminating the life of one in order to save the live of another which sets it apart from the issue of "women’s reproductive rights". Therefore, a whole different line of thinking needs to be applied to properly assess this particular act of abortion.

So with that being said, here is my answer. If a doctor could prove that the further development of the baby inside the womb would kill the mother, the mother should retain the right to authorize her doctor to remove the baby. If the child has developed to a point where it could possibly survive, he/she should be removed via normal delivery or c-section. When the baby is removed, it would be the doctor’s duty to do everything in his/her power to save the life of the pre-mature baby.

And if the baby has not yet developed to the point where survival is physically possible but there would still be physical remains the doctor would terminate the baby in a manner that would not cause the baby any pain. At that point, the Childs remains would be treated like thoes of any other deceased child.

This is the only case where abortion is justified as the mom has to choose whether or not to live or die, and that is not a choice that should be taken away from her.

Personally, this is what I would want if it where my wife on the operating table.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »



Thanks for your opinion,Erik.

Thanks to everyone for the interesting debate of a very contentious subject,and I think this is probably the end of this particular thread.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Lon »

chockygirl;1201047 wrote:

thanks for your opinion,erik.



thanks to everyone for the interesting debate of a very contentious subject,and i think this is probably the end of this particular thread.






no no---------not yet!!
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Chockygirl;1201047 wrote:

Thanks for your opinion,Erik.



Thanks to everyone for the interesting debate of a very contentious subject,and I think this is probably the end of this particular thread.
I think that's not your call, Miss Takeover. :mad:







:yh_bigsmi
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Lon »

How do you feel about aborting animal fetuses. I'm serious.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Lon;1201074 wrote: How do you feel about aborting animal fetuses. I'm serious.


Does the animal want an abortion just for convenience, or to save her life?
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Lon »

hoppy;1201084 wrote: Does the animal want an abortion just for convenience, or to save her life?


It's for the animal owner's choice.
hoppy
Posts: 4561
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:58 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by hoppy »

Lon;1201089 wrote: It's for the animal owner's choice.


I was kidding.:D
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Lon »

hoppy;1201096 wrote: I was kidding.:D




I wasn't
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Chockygirl;1201047 wrote:

Thanks for your opinion,Erik.

Thanks to everyone for the interesting debate of a very contentious subject,and I think this is probably the end of this particular thread.


Most definitely not-it's not your call. IMO the threads that should be allowed to run till they peter out are the ones where there is the most disagreement. Most of the problems i the world are caused by the inability of people to sit down and argue about things they fundamentally disagree on. You might not change any opinions but at least you might better understand the others point of view which is better than nothing. If we all agree with each other what's the point of having a discussion forum? You either talk your differences through or you fight about them and it's only takes one or two to start a fight or a war that most people would rather not have.

posted by erik

First of all, let me say that such a situation stands out as unique from every other reason to get an abortion. This situation involves the act of terminating the life of one in order to save the live of another which sets it apart from the issue of "women’s reproductive rights". Therefore, a whole different line of thinking needs to be applied to properly assess this particular act of abortion.

So with that being said, here is my answer. If a doctor could prove that the further development of the baby inside the womb would kill the mother, the mother should retain the right to authorize her doctor to remove the baby. If the child has developed to a point where it could possibly survive, he/she should be removed via normal delivery or c-section. When the baby is removed, it would be the doctor’s duty to do everything in his/her power to save the life of the pre-mature baby.

And if the baby has not yet developed to the point where survival is physically possible but there would still be physical remains the doctor would terminate the baby in a manner that would not cause the baby any pain. At that point, the Childs remains would be treated like thoes of any other deceased child.

This is the only case where abortion is justified as the mom has to choose whether or not to live or die, and that is not a choice that should be taken away from her.

Personally, this is what I would want if it where my wife on the operating table.




Also posted by erik

A woman doesn’t have the right to terminate her pregnancy any more than I had the right to do what is described in the above story.


So at least you concede that in some cases the choice should lie with the woman.

What about a situation where the woman knows that the child will be born severely mentally handicapped or with defects that mean it's life will be relatively short and painful whose choice should it be in those circumstances?
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by Accountable »

Lon;1201074 wrote: How do you feel about aborting animal fetuses. I'm serious.
Okay I'll bite. I don't care one way or the other about aborting animal feuses (should that be feti? :yh_think), but aborting a cat fetus is still killing a kitten.



Why do you ask? I'm serious.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

gmc;1201134 wrote: Most definitely not-it's not your call. IMO the threads that should be allowed to run till they peter out are the ones where there is the most disagreement. Most of the problems i the world are caused by the inability of people to sit down and argue about things they fundamentally disagree on. You might not change any opinions but at least you might better understand the others point of view which is better than nothing. If we all agree with each other what's the point of having a discussion forum? You either talk your differences through or you fight about them and it's only takes one or two to start a fight or a war that most people would rather not have.

posted by erik



Also posted by erik



So at least you concede that in some cases the choice should lie with the woman.

What about a situation where the woman knows that the child will be born severely mentally handicapped or with defects that mean it's life will be relatively short and painful whose choice should it be in those circumstances?


It changes nothing. If a parents child gets cancer, disabled in a car accident, develops MS or some other debilitating disease does the parent have the right to kill him/her? Of course not, discovering the disability while the mom is still pregnant doesn’t give her the right to kill her baby simply because it no longer fits into her plans.

Being disabled, deformed, or in pain in no way reduces your value as a human being.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

George Tiller shot.

Post by gmc »

Erik;1201268 wrote: It changes nothing. If a parents child gets cancer, disabled in a car accident, develops MS or some other debilitating disease does the parent have the right to kill him/her? Of course not, discovering the disability while the mom is still pregnant doesn’t give her the right to kill her baby simply because it no longer fits into her plans.

Being disabled, deformed, or in pain in no way reduces your value as a human being.


I suppose that's the heart of the matter. When are you talking about a human being? On one level having an abortion is no different from using a contraceptive-you have prevented a birth. If a foetus can't survive outside of the womb is it a human being? It's very hard to discuss dispassionately is it not.

You do like to cling to this idea that people choose to have an abortion purely for convenience don't you. Were it that simple I would probably agree with you. But it's not is it? Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons and to assume it is a casual affair done for the convenience of those making that decision is a breathtaking arrogance. The only one who can make the decision is the one carrying the child.

Some religions argue that the only purpose of sex is procreation and a child is human as soon as it is conceived. Outside of marriage sex is a mortal sin and therefore some religions ban contraceptives for their followers it being god's will if you get pregnant or not. Arguably such an attitude is incredibly destructive in it's consequences. That people are daft enough to let someone decide those kind of things for them is a different discussion.

Personally I don't mind what religious followers do but I do object when they try and tell non believers their teenagers should not be allowed access to contraceptives and sex education in schools encourages promiscuity-despite all the evidence to the contrary-imposing their view regardless this denying a free choice. Most of the causes of teenage pregnancies arise from an obsession with sex that tries to pretend teenage sex doesn't happen while at the same time preaching abstinence and making sure the knowledge required to prevent std's as well as pregnancy is denied an airing. while obsessing about the mechanics of it and creating a culture where sexual attractiveness is all that matters.

Rather than treating it as a fact of life a prurient obsession with sex is fairly unhealthy don't you think? The teenage pregnancy rate in the states is the highest in the developed world and the abortion rate is up there as well. Ours is high as well but we have the same kind of double standards bout sex. ng.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

gmc;1201337 wrote: I suppose that's the heart of the matter. When are you talking about a human being? On one level having an abortion is no different from using a contraceptive-you have prevented a birth. If a foetus can't survive outside of the womb is it a human being? It's very hard to discuss dispassionately is it not.

You do like to cling to this idea that people choose to have an abortion purely for convenience don't you. Were it that simple I would probably agree with you. But it's not is it? Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons and to assume it is a casual affair done for the convenience of those making that decision is a breathtaking arrogance. The only one who can make the decision is the one carrying the child.

Some religions argue that the only purpose of sex is procreation and a child is human as soon as it is conceived. Outside of marriage sex is a mortal sin and therefore some religions ban contraceptives for their followers it being god's will if you get pregnant or not. Arguably such an attitude is incredibly destructive in it's consequences. That people are daft enough to let someone decide those kind of things for them is a different discussion.

Personally I don't mind what religious followers do but I do object when they try and tell non believers their teenagers should not be allowed access to contraceptives and sex education in schools encourages promiscuity-despite all the evidence to the contrary-imposing their view regardless this denying a free choice. Most of the causes of teenage pregnancies arise from an obsession with sex that tries to pretend teenage sex doesn't happen while at the same time preaching abstinence and making sure the knowledge required to prevent std's as well as pregnancy is denied an airing. while obsessing about the mechanics of it and creating a culture where sexual attractiveness is all that matters.

Rather than treating it as a fact of life a prurient obsession with sex is fairly unhealthy don't you think? The teenage pregnancy rate in the states is the highest in the developed world and the abortion rate is up there as well. Ours is high as well but we have the same kind of double standards bout sex. ng.


First off, life begins at conception. The baby may start off looking like a little bean, but it’s the start of a human being. Who are we to say it’s not?

I know that there are countless reasons of varying severity that women use to get an abortion, and that most of those reasons seem legitimate to a lot of people.

Furthermore, like I said before, if staying pregnant will kill the mother, she should retain the right to have the baby removed and all attempts should be made to save the life of the premature baby.

Other than that, no reason exists that justifies abortion regardless of how and when the child was conceived. Be it Rape, Incest, Unprotected Sex, it doesn’t matter, the unborn child should not have to pay for the actions of others with his/her life.

If the mom can survive child birth, she does not have the right to have her baby killed any more than I have the right to murder one of my grown kids.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

And to the girls who complain about getting pregnant after having consensual sex, all I have to say is this; Life is full of choices and consequences, if you don’t want to get pregnant keep your legs together. While the guy is responsible as well, you are the one who has to carry the baby and you are the one who can’t walk away while the guy can choose to simply drop off the radar. It may be unfair, but it’s the facts, it happens every day and it’s in your best interest to remember that when you go to bed with someone.

When you have sex (even protected sex) you are knowingly gambling with the possibility of getting Pregnant for the sake of physical gratification. And getting an Abortion because of this kind of activity is a crime equal to murder.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

gmc;1201134 wrote: Most definitely not-it's not your call. IMO the threads that should be allowed to run till they peter out are the ones where there is the most disagreement. Most of the problems i the world are caused by the inability of people to sit down and argue about things they fundamentally disagree on. You might not change any opinions but at least you might better understand the others point of view which is better than nothing. If we all agree with each other what's the point of having a discussion forum? You either talk your differences through or you fight about them and it's only takes one or two to start a fight or a war that most people would rather not have.



I think I was just musing that the debate was going around in circles,and rather than just repeating what had already been said,I thought we had more or less exhausted all our opinions.

And you're right-not my call.

User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

I do not understand this concept that, from conception, the foetus is an independent life and that its rights take precedence over all others.

As I see it, until the foetus is capable of self sustained existence, it is a part of its mother and is it a potential life. The life and well-being of the mother take precedence over that of the foetus until the foetus becomes capable of independent life.

I know of no-one who would perform an abortion once this stage had been reached and would find it unacceptable were anyone to do so.

As a statement of position I think that covers my base belief.
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Bryn Mawr;1201388 wrote: I do not understand this concept that, from conception, the foetus is an independent life and that its rights take precedence over all others.

As I see it, until the foetus is capable of self sustained existence, it is a part of its mother and is it a potential life. The life and well-being of the mother take precedence over that of the foetus until the foetus becomes capable of independent life.

I know of no-one who would perform an abortion once this stage had been reached and would find it unacceptable were anyone to do so.

As a statement of position I think that covers my base belief.


And like I said, if the mothers life is at stake, she should have the right to have the baby removed and the doc should do everything possible to save the baby.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1201386 wrote:

I think I was just musing that the debate was going around in circles,and rather than just repeating what had already been said,I thought we had more or less exhausted all our opinions.

And you're right-not my call.




True, its going to get to the point where im just going to copy and paste previous answers.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"
Chockygirl
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:15 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Chockygirl »

Erik;1201268 wrote:

Being disabled, deformed, or in pain in no way reduces your value as a human being.

That's a good point,Erik,but what if your doctor told you that the baby would be born seriously deformed and suffer extreme pain for the short time it would be alive.

Would you want that baby to suffer,no matter what?
Erik
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:27 pm

George Tiller shot.

Post by Erik »

Chockygirl;1201399 wrote:

That's a good point,Erik,but what if your doctor told you that the baby would be born seriously deformed and suffer extreme pain for the short time it would be alive.

Would you want that baby to suffer,no matter what?


I would want the baby to be treated the same as any other deformed human being that was in pain.
"Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer"

Return to “Abortion”