Was the murder of Dr. George Tiller justified?

[Amelia]

I support the right of all women who are carrying dead fetuses removed before the women die of sepsis. No ecxcaptions 100%.

What if the woman will die with a live fetus inside her?

Suppose we had a law that said abortion ONLY when the woman is in danger of dying from the pregnancy. No exceptions.

For one thing, cases like this could happen while people were arguing over whether the threat to the mother's health met the legal bar:

BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital





And even if that standard were followed without fault and no woman was ever allowed to die from not having an abortion, there are other complications to consider. What if a woman would become disabled or infertile waiting for a nonviable child to find its way out of her body on its own?

 

[Amelia]

Do you believe the person who shot and killed the abortion doctor was justified in doing so.

Are we cross-referencing this thread with the discussion here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-it-across-our-intellectual-battleground.html



Since you didn't ask if he was legally justified then to be consistent with that I'd have to answer "yes" it appears he was justified since it appears that he believed it was the right thing to do. And society is justified in locking him up to remove the threat he poses.

I'm "biting a bullet".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can you imagine waking up on morning to the news that the surpreme court upheld the right for parents to terminate an infant up to one week after birth? What! You consider that murder. Well, using the logic of the "pro choice" crowd, it's not murder if the law (surpreme court) says it is not.
Does this situation seem unrealistic to you. It seems very realistic to many who remember the roe vs. wade verdict who believe abortion is murder -- but now it isn't because the surpreme court says so.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law, and you incorrectly perceive rulings of the Court as somehow being ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious.’

They are not.

Griswold/Roe/Casey concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, and how far the state may go to limit the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process. Prior to viability, therefore, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

After the women gives birth, however, the issue is no longer a matter of civil law, and the courts are guided by the doctrine of criminal law. It’s ignorant idiocy, therefore, to speculate that killing a one-week-old infant could ever be ‘justified.’

 

[Amelia]

Can you imagine waking up on morning to the news that the surpreme court upheld the right for parents to terminate an infant up to one week after birth? What! You consider that murder. Well, using the logic of the "pro choice" crowd, it's not murder if the law (surpreme court) says it is not.
Does this situation seem unrealistic to you. It seems very realistic to many who remember the roe vs. wade verdict who believe abortion is murder -- but now it isn't because the surpreme court says so.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law, and you incorrectly perceive rulings of the Court as somehow being ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious.’

They are not.

Griswold/Roe/Casey concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, and how far the state may go to limit the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process. Prior to viability, therefore, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

After the women gives birth, however, the issue is no longer a matter of civil law, and the courts are guided by the doctrine of criminal law. It’s ignorant idiocy, therefore, to speculate that killing a one-week-old infant could ever be ‘justified.’

Aside from the question of whether accusing posters of "ignorant idiocy" is allowed in this forum, it is not far-fetched at all to speculate about if or when euthanasia of infants could be made legal.

 

[BobPlumb]

Can you imagine waking up on morning to the news that the surpreme court upheld the right for parents to terminate an infant up to one week after birth? What! You consider that murder. Well, using the logic of the "pro choice" crowd, it's not murder if the law (surpreme court) says it is not.
Does this situation seem unrealistic to you. It seems very realistic to many who remember the roe vs. wade verdict who believe abortion is murder -- but now it isn't because the surpreme court says so.

You’re confusing criminal law with civil law, and you incorrectly perceive rulings of the Court as somehow being ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious.’

They are not.

Griswold/Roe/Casey concerns the relationship between the individual and the state, and how far the state may go to limit the right to privacy in the context of substantive due process. Prior to viability, therefore, the state lacks the authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not.

After the women gives birth, however, the issue is no longer a matter of civil law, and the courts are guided by the doctrine of criminal law. It’s ignorant idiocy, therefore, to speculate that killing a one-week-old infant could ever be ‘justified.’

Any decision made by the court can be rationalized.

 

[Mertex]

Most anti abortionists are men. Funny, that.

And, its mostly men who don't support their children. Dead beat moms are rare while dead beat dads are sadly very common.

I wish the anti-freedom folks also cared about children but once you're born, you're just not important. In point of fact, many of the same people who are against abortion have also been very vocal in favor of taking any and all help away from children and the women who are raising them alone.

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[Mertex]

Karen Santorum did not have an induced abortion of a healthy fetus. Technically it was a septic involuntary abortion. The fetus had died and became infected. The infection from the dead fetus was spreading and would have killed her.

Why was it okay for her to have an abortion? Now you know.

Is that your spin on it? Because this article tells a different story. The fetus had not died, but there was the possibility that she might have if they didn't induce labor to what was a non-viable fetus.

This is interesting because I believe Santorum supports a bill that does not allow women to have an abortion even when their lives are at risk, but when it came to his wife, he was okay with it? And Karen, admitted, that if it came down to the wire, where her life was in danger, she would have allowed it because of her other children. Hmmmmmmmm, more hyporicsy.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.

Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different | Our Silver Blog

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you believe the person who shot and killed the abortion doctor was justified in doing so.

Why are you still hung up on this? Do you think that bringing up the act of a crazy person, who was convicted, somehow justifies your personal position?

 

[Listening]

Do you believe the person who shot and killed the abortion doctor was justified in doing so.

Why are you still hung up on this? Do you think that bringing up the act of a crazy person, who was convicted, somehow justifies your personal position?

Yeah,

This is the clean debate zone.

Some people don't understand what debate is.

The OP isn't an assertion with a corresponding argument in support.

XXXXXX

I was wondering if you can report posts that really, in no way constitute debate.

 

[Listening]

Most anti abortionists are men. Funny, that.

And, its mostly men who don't support their children. Dead beat moms are rare while dead beat dads are sadly very common.

I wish the anti-freedom folks also cared about children but once you're born, you're just not important. In point of fact, many of the same people who are against abortion have also been very vocal in favor of taking any and all help away from children and the women who are raising them alone.

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

At least you've made an argument.

The only problem is that somehow you seem to equate Obamacare with something that is better than what we currently have. That has never been established, and is now being shown to be B.S.

Snap, A.K.A....foodstamps is not helping anyone either. With the possible exception of large companies (and that is what the government does).

Next, you assume that because people don't like it at the federal level, they don't like it all.

Again, not true. There are plenty of programs that I'd like to see discussed by my state that I don't want the federal government involved in.

The U.S. Constitution is (was) a limiting document. The fact that both the GOP and democrats ignore that has brought us to the point we are today....with our Affirmative Action President showing just what an incompetent fool he is ....and lots of people who've been kicked off their health care plans by miserable insurance companies that just needed his permission to do so.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Most anti abortionists are men. Funny, that.

And, its mostly men who don't support their children. Dead beat moms are rare while dead beat dads are sadly very common.

I wish the anti-freedom folks also cared about children but once you're born, you're just not important. In point of fact, many of the same people who are against abortion have also been very vocal in favor of taking any and all help away from children and the women who are raising them alone.

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

I couldn't agree more.

There are very real people, children, elderly, vets, disabled - all going hungry because that's what the right wing of our government voted to do.

We are supposedly the richest country in the world and yet we do not take care of our own.

 

[tinydancer]

His killer took away our legal chance to prove many allegations,

Pity. I would have preferred a trial of Tiller much like Gosnell's trial.

 

[Listening]

And, its mostly men who don't support their children. Dead beat moms are rare while dead beat dads are sadly very common.

I wish the anti-freedom folks also cared about children but once you're born, you're just not important. In point of fact, many of the same people who are against abortion have also been very vocal in favor of taking any and all help away from children and the women who are raising them alone.

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

I couldn't agree more.

There are very real people, children, elderly, vets, disabled - all going hungry because that's what the right wing of our government voted to do.

We are supposedly the richest country in the world and yet we do not take care of our own.

You bed...

Like Harry Ried....wanted to take care of that kid with cancer....

"Why would I do that ....?"

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Karen Santorum did not have an induced abortion of a healthy fetus. Technically it was a septic involuntary abortion. The fetus had died and became infected. The infection from the dead fetus was spreading and would have killed her.

Why was it okay for her to have an abortion? Now you know.

Is that your spin on it? Because this article tells a different story. The fetus had not died, but there was the possibility that she might have if they didn't induce labor to what was a non-viable fetus.

This is interesting because I believe Santorum supports a bill that does not allow women to have an abortion even when their lives are at risk, but when it came to his wife, he was okay with it? And Karen, admitted, that if it came down to the wire, where her life was in danger, she would have allowed it because of her other children. Hmmmmmmmm, more hyporicsy.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.

Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different | Our Silver Blog

Everyone's abortion is different.

Even though more than 2/3rds are medically necessary the final word on the subject must be that its no one's business except the woman's.

Even if ALL abortions were because of "convenience", we each own our own body and that fact ends all argument.

Its stunning to me that here, in the US, there is any discussion about taking basic rights away from women. I also believe that if it were men whose rights were being discussed, there would be nothing to discuss.

The Santorum's abortion was not different and how dare they say that other women, other families just want to get rid of a minor inconvenience.

 

[tinydancer]

And, its mostly men who don't support their children. Dead beat moms are rare while dead beat dads are sadly very common.

I wish the anti-freedom folks also cared about children but once you're born, you're just not important. In point of fact, many of the same people who are against abortion have also been very vocal in favor of taking any and all help away from children and the women who are raising them alone.

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

I couldn't agree more.

There are very real people, children, elderly, vets, disabled - all going hungry because that's what the right wing of our government voted to do.

We are supposedly the richest country in the world and yet we do not take care of our own.

Only country on the planet where some poster on a message board can argue that people are starving in America and then run to another thread and bitch that obesity is killing the country.

 

[tinydancer]

*cough*

from Luddly's post.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

So what is it?

 

[tinydancer]

Karen Santorum did not have an induced abortion of a healthy fetus. Technically it was a septic involuntary abortion. The fetus had died and became infected. The infection from the dead fetus was spreading and would have killed her.

Why was it okay for her to have an abortion? Now you know.

Is that your spin on it? Because this article tells a different story. The fetus had not died, but there was the possibility that she might have if they didn't induce labor to what was a non-viable fetus.

This is interesting because I believe Santorum supports a bill that does not allow women to have an abortion even when their lives are at risk, but when it came to his wife, he was okay with it? And Karen, admitted, that if it came down to the wire, where her life was in danger, she would have allowed it because of her other children. Hmmmmmmmm, more hyporicsy.

“The cramps were labor, and she was going to get into more active labor,” Santorum said. “Karen said, `We’re not inducing labor, that’s an abortion. No way. That isn’t going to happen. I don’t care what happens.’ ”

As her fever subsided, Karen – a former neonatal intensive-care nurse – asked for something to stop the labor. Her doctors refused, Santorum recalled, citing malpractice concerns.

Santorum said her labor proceeded without having to induce an abortion.

Karen, a soft-spoken red-haired 37-year-old, said that “ultimately” she would have agreed to intervention for the sake of her other children.

“If the physician came to me and said if we don’t deliver your baby in one hour you will be dead, yeah, I would have to do it,” she said. “But for me, it was at the very end. I would never make a decision like that until all other means had been thoroughly exhausted.”

The fetus was delivered at 20 weeks, at least a month shy of what most doctors consider viability.

Santorum: Our Abortion Was Different | Our Silver Blog

Everyone's abortion is different.

Even though more than 2/3rds are medically necessary the final word on the subject must be that its no one's business except the woman's.

Even if ALL abortions were because of "convenience", we each own our own body and that fact ends all argument.

Its stunning to me that here, in the US, there is any discussion about taking basic rights away from women. I also believe that if it were men whose rights were being discussed, there would be nothing to discuss.

The Santorum's abortion was not different and how dare they say that other women, other families just want to get rid of a minor inconvenience.

How did she abort the baby?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You know their old mantra: "Once you are born - you are on your own"! So in essence, most of the people that are anti-abortion are probably just passionate about doing away with the act of abortion, but their passion has nothing to do with "saving a life" - because if they cared about saving a life they wouldn't be against Obamacare, Snap, Welfare, WIC, etc., and they would certainly be concerned with gun violence, where so many innocent "children" die, yet they insist that anyone should be able to get whatever type of weapon they desire, because that is freedom, regardless of how many "children" are killed with guns. Rather hypocritical if you ask me.

I couldn't agree more.

There are very real people, children, elderly, vets, disabled - all going hungry because that's what the right wing of our government voted to do.

We are supposedly the richest country in the world and yet we do not take care of our own.

You bed...

Like Harry Ried....wanted to take care of that kid with cancer....

"Why would I do that ....?"

The difference between right and left.

Those wacko libs do not walk past a starving child while carrying an anti-freedom sign.

 

[tinydancer]

The woman lost her baby. For a political score card liberals are calling this an abortion.

Sad. Just sad

 

[tinydancer]

I couldn't agree more.

There are very real people, children, elderly, vets, disabled - all going hungry because that's what the right wing of our government voted to do.

We are supposedly the richest country in the world and yet we do not take care of our own.

You bed...

Like Harry Ried....wanted to take care of that kid with cancer....

"Why would I do that ....?"

The difference between right and left.

Those wacko libs do not walk past a starving child while carrying an anti-freedom sign.

Put up a picture of a conservative passing by a starving child in America while carrying an anti freedom sign or you are just being overly dramatic.

Prove it.

Let's see the picture or the video.