Dr. Tiller the late term abortionist. Did he deserve to die?
- 06-18-2009, 12:04 PM
Dr. Tiller the late term abortionist. Did he deserve to die?
Just posing the question. He wan't just any abortionist, but one of only three "doctors" in the USA who would euthanise babies at up to 9 months in the womb. He may be resonsible for as many as 60,000 cases of infanticide, yet the MSM makes him out to be a holy martyr.
There's no question that his killer was a bad guy who took the law into his own hands and committed premeditated murder. But was Tiller himself really the sacred cow and martyr that the MSM makes him out to be, or was he a murderer as well? I vote the latter.
check out www .dr-tiller. com
"Tiller offers funeral services for babies he has killed. Tiller encourages the mother to hold the aborted baby and have their picture taken together. He calls this an "identification and separation encounter" and claims this will help the mother in the "process of healing.""
- 06-18-2009, 12:07 PM
was he a good, moral guy, no. Did he deserve to die, noTEAM GET DIESEL
GET DIESEL NUTRITION | SINCE 2002 | GETDIESEL.COMLike us on Facebook: GET DIESEL Facebook Page
- 06-18-2009, 12:14 PM
I agree with death sentences for convicted murderers.Animis Rep
06-18-2009, 12:17 PM
06-18-2009, 12:20 PM
06-18-2009, 12:25 PM
You don't have to be anti-abortion to be anti-murder, and "abortions" performed at a point at which the child could be delivered instead are murders to me.
Do I have any problems with first and even part of 2nd trimester abortions? no, as at that point the fetus is a parasite, no brain function worth noting, unable to breathe, etc.
06-18-2009, 12:27 PM
06-18-2009, 02:46 PM
No you dont but typically those who are anti abortion believe life starts very early. much earlier than you or I may think it does.
06-18-2009, 02:53 PM
yeah, but 3rd trimester is wrong without the mothers life being in significant risk, and even then i dunno. "We" carried a baby that we knew would be a miscarriage until the miscarriage just to not have the abortion, even though that is riskier than the abortion itself. Granted in this case, miscarriage was at 19 weeks, and no significant risk to her in doing it this way.
I'm not sure how the doctor could have lived with himself honestly, although murdering him was no better or worse than what he did.
06-18-2009, 03:40 PM
06-18-2009, 04:17 PM
I am posing the question. As for my own opinion. Am I sorry the man is dead? Absoluely not. Do I believe he was a murderer and at least as bad as the guy who gunned him down? Absolutely.
Once the baby is past the point of viability in the womb, the pregnancy can be terminated without murdering the baby. Killing a baby at 6-8 months in the womb because it has downs and the mother/parents don't want the responsibility of caring for a special needs child is not "abortion". It is murder.
The website is obviously anti-Tiller. But, the info in there does not libel him. It is just an account of what the man did for a living. IOW, it is what it is. I'm sorry if you don't like what you see.
I don't empathise with the guy who killed him, but I will say that the world is better off without him. The guy was a sociopath and nothing more than a hitman.
06-18-2009, 07:48 PM
Did he deserve to die? Yes, we all do.
06-18-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm sorry...pardon me if i'm jumping the gun but i wasn't aware anyone on this planet was qualified to pass judgment on anyone else, nevertheless to say who "deserves to die" or not.
I'd like to stand corrected. I mean really. I would.
06-19-2009, 08:48 AM
Do I consider him and those like him that perform LTA's a POS and worthless pondscum - yes. Did anyone have the right to execute him - no.
Will someone likely live a full life now that he is gone, actually, several someones yet to be born......probably.
06-19-2009, 09:05 AM
06-19-2009, 09:13 AM
This is a loaded question. He did not deserve to die.
Did he break the law in his state? Outside of ones pro choice or pro life moral stance, did he break the law?
If he did, then justice should be served, not a vigilante death sentence.
Personally, I think ALL men should just STFU........I mean really. Last time i checked, we cant get pregnant.
I am a pro choice candidate, btw. I have real authority issues when it comes to ones own body.
06-19-2009, 09:25 AM
We're talking specifically about children who could have been delivered live and not needed life support machinery or IV feeding, etc who instead were killed. This isn't a case of like with religious anti-abortionism arguing that it is a person the second the sperm and egg meet as these are babies that were deliverable the day they were killed. It isn't a question of the mother having control of her body, its a question as to whether she has the right to choose the surgical procedure that kills the infant over the one that delivers it.... Be all that said, for many of them its probably better that the abortion happens as the mother has to be a total useless heartless douchebag to do that anyhow.
Are all of our laws right? If they were, we wouldnt have laws that change year to year.
06-19-2009, 10:07 AM
i mean, no one on here can really believe they're qualified to point fingers at anyone, right? we're all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts and no one is capable of pointing fingers w/o having three pointed back at them. just sayin
cheers to killing people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong. gotta love the cognitive dissonance
let the discussion go on!
06-19-2009, 11:38 AM
We don't kill people to show killing is wrong. We kill people to punish them for murder. It's about justice, restitution, some deterrence (albeit debatable) and fairness.
If you take someones life unjustly (murder), how is it fair that you get to continue living yours after you took away that of someone else.
Away from the death penalty now. Is it acceptable to kill to save yourself or others? If a madman breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I feel my family is threatened or some thugs jump out of a dark alley armed and threatening me and my family; is it acceptable for me to use deadly force? Would that be murder? What if the imminent harm wasn't to my family but I am witnessing the atrocity? May I then act with deadly force to protect an innocent?
Now what if there is an ongoing atrocity that the law was insufficient to protect people from ie. it was not "illegal" by the powers that be? Perhaps it is a concentration camp and the "powers that be" are doing nothing to stop the innocents from being herded into the showers and in fact participating in the process (government funded abortion lets say).
Do my personal morals which tell me this is wrong get trumped by the state or should I act on my conscience and attempt to save further innocents from harm?
How is a baby who is viable outside the whom any different? Because it is inside another innocent who is "suddenly" at risk? What of my children who are already living outside of my wife's body? They put her health, well being and "lifestyle" at risk everyday. She no longer has the same freedoms over her own body as she had before children. We are now legally responsible for their well being and supervision and can not just come and go and do as and when we please. We have added stress to our lives which we all know is unhealthy and add'l burdens financially, logistically and emotionally.
Would it be ok with you if I punctured one of their little skulls & sucked their brains out to make things a little easier and less risky? I can choose one of our younger ones if that will make you feel ok with it. Or perhaps my eleven your old girl, she is a real handful. Life would sure be easier and less of a health risk with her gone. Or maybe one of my fourteen year olds? Boy or girl, you pick.
Lastly, where do we get our rights? From the state? I was under the impression that the state was their to PROTECT our unalienable rights. You know, the ones this great nation was founded upon. Endowed by a creator; the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. As soon as the state is no longer functioning within that capacity, what obligation do I have to continue to mindlessly follow under it's reign of tyranny?
This subject is deep and complex (speaking of OP) and it is difficult if not impossible to arrive at THE correct answer. We are either dealing in absolute finite truths or of infinite feelings and opinions; inevitably a smidgen of both. Who is right, who is wrong and who am I to say? Who really does, if anyone, have the rights of life and death? Do we live within a universe created and dictated by a set group of universal moral and physical laws or one of unguided randomness where we are on our own to decide what we feel is right or wrong and it doesn't really matter anyway because this life is all we have and after it is gone there will be no accounting of our actions so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die?
06-19-2009, 11:53 AM
Here's a question that should make it real simple. Is a baby that is past the age of viability, yet still in the womb, entitled to any of the basic human rights that the rest of us are under the law?
That's a question that no one seems to want to touch. The lib media only wants to talk about the right to choose, as if that is all that matters. But they won't touch the underlying question of human rights for an unborn child that is capable of living outside the womb, even if the pregnancy were to be terminated.
06-19-2009, 02:22 PM
06-23-2009, 04:41 PM
The moment i'm not responsible for a child that is born against my wishes is the moment i will not believe I have a say in the matter.Personally, I think ALL men should just STFU........I mean really. Last time i checked, we cant get pregnant.
06-23-2009, 05:31 PM
06-23-2009, 06:37 PM
I understand that, however, its not your body.
Thats the principal of the point.
Someone else telling you what you can or cant do to your own body. Let alone someone that cant even get pregnant.
I just dont think men should really have a say in the matter. Sorry.
If more people worried about the consequences of sex, instead of the feel good, we wouldnt have this mess.
06-23-2009, 08:06 PM
06-23-2009, 09:23 PM
He lived by the sword, and thus died by the sword. Did he deserve to die? Yes. Was it ok for someone to go outside the law and kill him? No.
06-23-2009, 11:05 PM
If you can kill a baby at nine months in the womb just because it has down's, then why not up to 30 days after a natural birth? Afterall, it is a choice, not a child right?
That's what makes "doctor" Tiller a particularly detestable human being. He was one of the US's most notorious serial killers IMO. The fact that it was not technically illegal doesn't make it any less of a crime against humanity.
Just a cop out. I've never been pregnant, but I have kids and feel like I have a say in the matter.I just dont think men should really have a say in the matter. Sorry.
06-24-2009, 08:47 AM
Alot of your statement doesnt make sense, who said anything about killing a baby after birth? Those are your words.
Luckily for alot of women (many in unfortunate circumstances), your above statement is still your opinion and not law.
And that is all it is. your opinion that you want to will upon someone else.
When you can get pregnant, then what you say might matter to me...And that's a big might.
Roe vs Wade hasnt been overturned for good reason.
Pro choice FTW.
06-24-2009, 08:54 AM
Choice for what exact? Did the parties involved have a choice to utilize protect against conception? Yes. Is abortion utilized to preserve vanity today? Yes. Does a viable life get to choose life or death in the womb? NOPE. Where is the choice in that?
Also saying FTW after the words Pro choice is just poor taste, utilizing a nascar term for the death of a childs life? I thought you had more couth than that.
The Historic PES Legend
06-24-2009, 08:59 AM
06-24-2009, 09:25 AM
06-24-2009, 09:29 AM
You mentioned Roe V Wade. Did you intentionally fail to mention the principle participant in the passage of Roe V Wade became an anti-abortionist almost immediately? What about the institution of Live birth abortions into the newest revision of FOCA? That has nothing to do with a woman body, only that she does not want a child in the world. Child is living, breathing, but left to die because he or she survived a botched abortion.
The slippery slope is getting steeper these days. Whats next, a child of 3 is to expensive, so just let them starve?
The Historic PES Legend
06-24-2009, 09:34 AM
06-24-2009, 01:45 PM
As well, saying its her body, what part of her body doesn't return to normal afterwards? What part of her body changes after week 32 that wouldn't remain exactly the same whether an abortion is performed as whether a delivery was performed? So thats a nice rallying cry and all, but when the infant has a heartbeat, brainwaves and lungs that can breathe air, his body counts too.
06-24-2009, 06:27 PM
If it ended with her choice on her body I would be fine. However, her choice can determine your rights. Yet your choice can not determine her rights.
It's a double standard
06-24-2009, 07:06 PM
You can have yours. It wont change mine.
This subject has split the nation, so its not like this is a taboo topic and I'm out of line.
I hold firm on my beliefs on personal rights. I cant say late term abortions are the greatest idea, but where do we draw that line? Your line may/is different than mine. And thats where the problem lies.
The initial thread has to do with Dr.Tiller getting killed. So, my question is, all you guys that are pro-life, or some facismile thereof......
What is your general consensus on the murder of the doctor. Are you guys in agreement that its okay for him to be killed?
I mean, you know this does well for the pro-life cause. Really helps push the pro-life movement in the right direction.
06-24-2009, 08:22 PM
The fact that a baby (not fetus) can live outside of the womb at 24-26 weeks is not my opinion. It is a medical fact. My statement that it is not a choice about what to do with one's own body at that point is also fact, not opinion, because there are two lives involved, not one.
As far as killing a baby after birth, that is a legitimate question about where we should draw the line legally. It is a fact (not an opinion) that a baby can live outside of the womb at 6 months, and certainly 9. Yet, you seem to think that it is okay to kill it at nine since it has not yet passed thru the vaginal canal.
So, if a woman were to decide a month after a live birth that she didn't want the responsibility of caring for a defective child, who am I to pass judgement if she decides to take it to a clinic and have it euthanised? Wouldn't you agree? Afterall, it's just an opinion and who am I to judge since I can't get pregnant?
Also, doesn't choice imply multiple options? It seems that in this context "choice" is limited to the right to abortion on demand only.
06-24-2009, 08:49 PM
Like i said, when you can get "with child" then i got ears for you.
Until then, I believe the woman should have rights and ownership up until birth.
Like it really matters what i think or say.......I can't get pregnant or have an abortion.....Just like the rest of you, just want to piss and moan about your point of view.
In all reality there is too much science and technology out there for late term abortions to be happening anyways........
Statistically, why are these late terms even happening. Not that it changes my point of view, I just dont understand why a women would need or want to wait that long anyways.
Possible legitimate reasons? Do they just procrastinate too long? Drugs, Alcohol? Why? Seriously.
FACT- 1% of abortions come after week 21......... Why am I even arguing.
06-24-2009, 09:50 PM
So 1% of 1.21 million is 12,100 in 2005. Thats an awful lot of murders. We've started multiple wars over less than that. For statistic's sake, thats not much less than die of skin cancer each year.In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
Which sounds all good and cozy except gaining 4 more pounds can be considered to be negative for the womans health, if the woman is stressed then having the baby can be considered negative to her mental health. So factually its just a nice glossy addon that has no real value other than to make liberals feel good that a woman can't just do it because she wants to. The woman can claim that having stretch marks (or existing stretch marks getting worse) are a health issue...the Supreme Court has held that:
even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
“health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.
I have no qualms at all with abortions before week 20, and maybe even up to 22~23. but after that you have a deliverable child and if there isn't significant fatality risk to the mother, the doctor performing the abortion is performing murder.
06-24-2009, 11:35 PM
I don't have much to add after Easy's response. The fact that a very small % of abortions are late term doesn't justify what Tiller was doing. That doesn't change the fact that the pregnancy can still be terminated without a homocide and there are plenty of people who will adopt special needs kids. My understanding is that over 80% of Tiller's late term abortions were for trivial reasons (i.e. downs, retardation, deformities, etc.). He was exploiting a niche market for the money.
Similar Forum Threads
- By titstatus in forum Post Cycle TherapyReplies: 4Last Post: 04-01-2011, 10:11 PM
- By cassiusclay in forum Sports TalkReplies: 49Last Post: 10-18-2007, 07:13 PM
- By x_muscle in forum General ChatReplies: 20Last Post: 02-20-2006, 08:58 AM