Awful Murder

Censored by Laurie · June 2, 2009

So why not legalize all murder? To do otherwise is to legislate morality.

I don't view the illegality of murder, and lets go ahead and include violence in general to make sure we're throwing rape, assult, ect under this umbrella, as a moral question...rather one that constitutes constraints necessary to operate and live in a functioning society. The fact that these crimes are also morally reprehensible to any reasonible person is happenstance.

Questions of morality assume both a possible right and a possible wrong. Murder doesn't qualify. Rape doesn't qualify. Abortion, based on the fact that there is a debate on the issue, clearly does.

KingDL1 · June 2, 2009

You are right, there are reasons that there aren't too many doctors performing late term abortions.
3) There really isn't a high demand of pregnant ladies that WANT to wait until the last minute to get an abortion. Doctors perform them when the mother's life is as risk or the baby has a terrible abnormality.

Actually many hospitals have preformed this surgery when a patient's life is in eminent danger, and usually it is done in a way to try save the baby and the mother in a premy situation. His surgeries were not to try to save the babies. His were abortions from start to finish.

Edited June 2, 2009 by KingDL1

June 2, 2009

Actually many hospitals have preformed this surgery when a patient's life is in eminent danger, and usually it is done in a way to try save the baby and the mother in a premy situation. His surgeries were not to try to save the babies. His were abortions from start to finish.

The fetus isn't medically viable until after the 25th week. Even after that week and they beat the extreme odds and actually survive, preemies face an uphill battle with potential learning disabilities, retardation, growth problems, etc.

If your wife suddenly got all preeclampsia in the 23rd week... and the DR said that she is likely to die and the baby die, the choice is easy for you? You would take the chance and let them both die?

What about if you wife go diagnosed with rapidly spreading breast cancer and was in her 22nd week of pregnancy. She can't get treatment while being pregnant. The choice is easy for you?

I don't think it is so easy and I wouldn't pass off the doctor in judgment for handling these cases accordingly.

KingDL1 · June 2, 2009

The fetus isn't medically viable until after the 25th week. Even after that week and they beat the extreme odds and actually survive, preemies face an uphill battle with potential learning disabilities, retardation, growth problems, etc.
If your wife suddenly got all preeclampsia in the 23rd week... and the DR said that she is likely to die and the baby die, the choice is easy for you? You would take the chance and let them both die?
What about if you wife go diagnosed with rapidly spreading breast cancer and was in her 22nd week of pregnancy. She can't get treatment while being pregnant. The choice is easy for you?
I don't think it is so easy and I wouldn't pass off the doctor in judgment for handling these cases accordingly.

We are talking about Tiller and his cases? Because this is not what he was doing or not what he was under investigation for.

Tiller

keith · June 2, 2009

Questions of morality assume both a possible right and a possible wrong. Murder doesn't qualify. Rape doesn't qualify. Abortion, based on the fact that there is a debate on the issue, clearly does.

I respectively disagree with your fundamental premise on morality. Morality is not about a possible right and a possible wrong it is about the distinction between right and wrong. Sure there may be debates about abortion, but I do not think those debates center on the argument that abortion is right conduct. Even Obama in his speech at Notre Dame said he wanted to see fewer abortions. Why would he say that if he believes abortion is right conduct? I submit that the debate is not about the conduct. The debate is about a woman's right to determine what does and does not happen to her.

Keith

Edited June 2, 2009 by keith

keith · June 2, 2009

So will the culpirt be tried under the Hate Crime Laws??

Let's hope not. I mean what are we talking about here? All murders are created equal but some are more equal than others? Quite possibly some of the worst laws on the books.

Keith

Censored by Laurie · June 2, 2009

I respectively disagree with your fundamental premise on morality. Morality is not about a possible right and a possible wrong it is about the distinction between right and wrong. Sure there may be debates about abortion, but I do not think those debates center on the argument that abortion is right conduct. Even Obama in his speech at Notre Dame said he wanted to see fewer abortions. Why would he say that if he believes abortion is right conduct? I submit that the debate is not about the conduct. The debate is about a woman's right to determine what does and does not happen to her.
Keith

I did word that last sentence poorly. Perhaps stating that the act of illegalizing abortion would be an act of legislating morality...determining whether the act it self is right or wrong...would be a better way to end that statement than saying the entire debate is a moral question.

I touched on that in my post previous...saying that perhaps Obama may have moral reservations about abortion. This is what touched off the whole morality question to begin with.

Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify

June 2, 2009

We are talking about Tiller and his cases? Because this is not what he was doing or not what he was under investigation for.
Tiller

I don't doubt there are factual numbers on that site, but it is filled with hearsay. example: "His own former employee has testified to his deceptive tactics: ... ", "She was viciously attacked by the abortion industry, but, as the statistics verify, her statements were very close to the truth: "I was there for about seven months, which is a fairly representative amount of time. In over 95% of these babies, perhaps more, there was nothing wrong at all. Nothing. And these were third trimester abortions."

That looks factual. Some no named "former employee", no doubt a medical expert.

And yes, Kansas did look into these claim and found them to be false. He wasn't found guilty of wrong doing. He broke no laws.

hickoryhouse · June 2, 2009

And yes, Kansas did look into these claim and found them to be false. He wasn't found guilty of wrong doing. He broke no laws.

I think that was the point of the article, he broke no laws. The article was showing how broken the laws themselves are, full of loopholes.

KingDL1 · June 2, 2009

I don't doubt there are factual numbers on that site, but it is filled with hearsay. example: "His own former employee has testified to his deceptive tactics: ... ", "She was viciously attacked by the abortion industry, but, as the statistics verify, her statements were very close to the truth: "I was there for about seven months, which is a fairly representative amount of time. In over 95% of these babies, perhaps more, there was nothing wrong at all. Nothing. And these were third trimester abortions."
That looks factual. Some no named "former employee", no doubt a medical expert.
And yes, Kansas did look into these claim and found them to be false. He wasn't found guilty of wrong doing. He broke no laws.

The majority of the site is filled with stats not just hearsay, but read it how you want. In my book this guy was a monster, though I think he should be rotting in jail not gunned down in a church.

KRAM1 · June 2, 2009

This is a tough issue...whichever side of the question you are on, in the case of this murder it comes down to "man's judgement" at this time and not God's. Dr. Tiller will answer to God for his deeds and actions while alive on earth, but the killer of Dr. Tiller MUST answer to "man's justice". And, "murder" is illegal in the United States. Everyone will answer to God at the appointed time, but, no matter how one feels about abortion (is it murder, or is it not????), it is NOT in the eyes of the courts...man's courts. That is the difference. When/if the laws ever change, then one could say that Dr. Tiller was as guilty of murder as the killer of Dr. Tiller and have the courts take the appropriate action. Until then, whether we like it our not, Dr. Tiller is not a murderer in the eye's of the courts in the US, but the shooter may well be (depends upon the outcome of his trial I would say).

Me, I think it is a state issue and should be sent right back to each state to decide. The federal government has no constitutional right to be involved in this issue...but, following the above logic, until the time comes when the states are given back their due rights to decide, we have to go with the federal laws in this case.

Sometimes, one has to take the emotions out of the issue to find some consolation in such a challenging issue for many folks. For, me, I know which side I stand on for this issue, but it is not one I choose to debate "on-line".

UNTLifer · June 2, 2009

I don't view the illegality of murder, and lets go ahead and include violence in general to make sure we're throwing rape, assult, ect under this umbrella, as a moral question...rather one that constitutes constraints necessary to operate and live in a functioning society. The fact that these crimes are also morally reprehensible to any reasonible person is happenstance.
Questions of morality assume both a possible right and a possible wrong. Murder doesn't qualify. Rape doesn't qualify. Abortion, based on the fact that there is a debate on the issue, clearly does.

Wow.

So, debate on an issue constitutes morality?

UNT90 · June 2, 2009

This just makes me wonder what effect that job had on Tiller as a human being. I would think it would be extremely hard to watch human life be taken day after day after day, for what, 25 years?, without having some psychological effect on Tiller.

You think your job is mentally taxing, imagine having people call you a murderer for 25 years, and in some corner of your mind, wondering if the people calling you that are right. Imagine witnessing human life after human life being destroyed by your own hands. Would have been interesting to see this guy's personality.

Edited June 2, 2009 by UNT90

EagleD · June 3, 2009

But I think it's the place of churches, parents, and your neighbors to set the standards of decency.

So if there is a mosque in your neighborhood you are ok with their standards of decency? cool. I'll remember that in subsequent posts.

EagleD · June 3, 2009

Dr. Tiller will answer to God for his deeds and actions while alive on earth

You're an atheist, right?

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

Questions of morality assume both a possible right and a possible wrong. Murder doesn't qualify. Rape doesn't qualify. Abortion, based on the fact that there is a debate on the issue, clearly does.

The only reason there is a debate is because there is no clear definition of when life begins.

Is it geography? In the womb, not alive, out of the womb, alive? Is it viability? Can the fetus survive on its own? If so, it's a life, if not it's not a life. Is it a question of genetics? When that first strand of DNA forms is it a separate human life, worthy of protection? If so, then life begins at conception and all abortion is murder.

This is why there is debate, and why it is focused around a woman's right. The moment the public argument seriously turns towards the definition of human life, the abortion industry is doomed.

June 3, 2009

The moment the public argument seriously turns towards my definition of human life, the abortion industry is doomed.

Fixed it for you.

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

Fixed it for you.

I've made it very clear on this topic that I am pro-choice. My point had nothing to do with my personal beliefs, but the fact that the argument about abortion as a means of birth control will end the minute science can unequivocally define a human life.

June 3, 2009

I've made it very clear on this topic that I am pro-choice. My point had nothing to do with my personal beliefs, but the fact that the argument about abortion as a means of birth control will end the minute science can unequivocally define a human life.

I know. I know... Was fixing it for those that read it. My sarcasm fails. :huh:

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

I know. I know... Was fixing it for those that read it. My sarcasm fails.

As does my sarcasm detector.

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

Wow.
So, debate on an issue constitutes morality?

I'm not sure I follow...especially based on what you enboldened. If you meant to highlight the last part of my statement, you'll notice a few posts up that I didn't like the way that was worded and clarified my belief.

In essence what I'm saying is that morality is subjective...varying from person to person...and that the laws that prohibit acts such as murder, rape, assult ect are as a whole in no way subjective...and furthermore that their existance is not based on morality, but rather as a function of society. The moral issues that accompany such laws do so more by chance than cause.

This was my response to the question posed to me when I stated that while perhaps Obama does have a moral objection to abortion he does not push a pro-life agenda b/c he does not, and in my mind correctly, feel it is his place to set legislation based on morality. A law against abortion would be a law based on the morality of one person/group of people/government...I stated that the debate itself on abortion proves that there are those unlike yourself who don't believe that the practice of abortion is morally wrong. I don't believe it is proper to govern morality.

That is certainly not to say there is some couple out there right now, making the sweetest of sweet love, praying for a missed period so that pregnancy test will show a plus sign...just so they can then go get an abortion. Thats absurd...it is not a decision anyone takes lightly...and it is something that every party involved in has to reconsile for the rest of their life. But in the end, there are plenty of people who, for innumberable reasons, are able to reconsile this act with their own morality and realize it is the best move for them.

I hope that elucidates things...if not, I'm confident you'll jump to some other conclussion based on something written in this post and go off with an even more disgusted view of that hippie in the Northeast, probably with a bad haircut, stoned 24/7 and reading Emerson...ignorant of the real world. Fortunantly...I'm comfortable with that.

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

The only reason there is a debate is because there is no clear definition of when life begins.
Is it geography? In the womb, not alive, out of the womb, alive? Is it viability? Can the fetus survive on its own? If so, it's a life, if not it's not a life. Is it a question of genetics? When that first strand of DNA forms is it a separate human life, worthy of protection? If so, then life begins at conception and all abortion is murder.
This is why there is debate, and why it is focused around a woman's right. The moment the public argument seriously turns towards the definition of human life, the abortion industry is doomed.

I don't see a situation where the answer to "when does life begin" ever will be anything but subjective.

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

I don't see a situation where the answer to "when does life begin" ever will be anything but subjective.

Most legal arguments are.

When a baby is born, it is a life. Right now there is a clear definition, but if we are to apply it to anything pre-birth, I think the most reasonable criteria would be viability.

Like I said, I am pro-choice but I think there needs to be some limits. The idea of partial birth abortion is abhorrent. Any doctor that can take a baby almost entirely from the womb and while it is kicking in his hands crush it's skull and vacuum out its brains is a monster. Seriously, that really bothers me and I am grateful that the Supreme Court upheld the ban. If you can't decide to have an abortion by the 5th month, tough.

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

Most legal arguments are.
When a baby is born, it is a life. Right now there is a clear definition, but if we are to apply it to anything pre-birth, I think the most reasonable criteria would be viability.
Like I said, I am pro-choice but I think there needs to be some limits. The idea of partial birth abortion is abhorrent. Any doctor that can take a baby almost entirely from the womb and while it is kicking in his hands crush it's skull and vacuum out its brains is a monster. Seriously, that really bothers me and I am grateful that the Supreme Court upheld the ban. If you can't decide to have an abortion by the 5th month, tough.

I meant pre-birth with my statement, of course. With the viability arguement, though, my point was I don't think even science will be able to say with certainty that "yes...here...7 months, 3 weeks, 2 days and 13 hours after conception this kid can survive outside of the womb." It will always vary...thus any mandate would be (my second favorite word of the night) subjective.

I tend to agree with the last paragraph...though if the choice comes down to the woman or the baby, I feel the woman has the right to decide, even 8 months in, that she can prioritize her own welfare.

June 3, 2009

... If you can't decide to have an abortion by the 5th month, tough.

But there are certain illnesses, dysfunctions, impairments, etc.. that don't show their ugly faces until after the 20th week. Then again, you can't win the "a life is a life" argument. Like the Terry Shiavo (sp?). There was a fairly sizable (at least vocal) population that didn't care if she was brain dead and couldn't live on her own, they wanted her to stay "alive."

I don't have the answer, but that is the point. I leave it to smarter people than myself. I absolutely trust a doctor on medical advice or a preacher. Similar if I am looking for after life advice, I wouldn't go to the doctor.

And the visceral reaction to partial birth abortion just muddies the already muddy water. It is sounds terrible. I can't imagine having it done or doing it. However, only 400 abortions in the US are after the 22nd week last year. That is less than 1/400 of 1 percent of abortions, or there about.