Pro life murder

Manic Moran · 02-06-2009 01:07PM

In a mirror case, 'political and religious' motives are being cited for the shooting death of a soldier in Little Rock, Arkansas yesterday. Not getting quite as much news.

NTM

metaoblivia · 02-06-2009 02:19PM

This is an excellent article I found regarding the murder of Dr. Tiller, the kind of cases he took on, etc.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/index.html

thebman · 02-06-2009 03:15PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed he wasn't. That doesn't mean that every Obama supporter was pro-choice either. Infact he didn't mention his policy on it until rather late into his campaign.

That pretty much means it wasn't an election issue so people don't care one way or the other.

If people actually thought abortion was murder, they'd be on the streets protesting it.

If the state said okay you can shoot anyone you want without going to jail, people would be protesting in the streets.

You can make up all the reasons you want why they aren't but the reality is they must not mind all that much if they don't express how much it bothers them.

pts · 02-06-2009 04:30PM

Another interesting article as it gives some background on clients of Dr. Tiller.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/us-doctor-tiller-killing-abortions

I found this particular part very interesting as there seems to be a perception that abortions are only done by promiscuous liberal teenagers.

Sarah Coe was one of the 250 to 300 women with late-stage pregnancies who seek help every year at Tiller's fortress-clinic. Coe, who talked to the Guardian using a pseudonym, had an abortion in Wichita two years ago this week. The confluence of the anniversary of her baby's and Tiller's death was, she said, very hard to bear.

At 22 weeks of gestation it was discovered through ultrasound and other tests that the foetus of her first child had hydrocephalus – an excess of fluid on the brain. Its head was enlarged, and Coe and her husband were told that it would be born without brain function and would have no conscious life.

"We made a difficult decision that that wasn't the life we wanted for our child," she said. No doctor on the entire east coast of the US would accept her as the baby was beyond the 20 weeks needed for a foetus generally to become viable outside the womb. They were referred to Wichita and to Tiller.

She says the care they received at the clinic was exceptional. There was counselling and support. "We were able to see our little boy after he was delivered, no longer alive, and to touch him and say goodbye. They handled the cremation for us and we have his ashes in our home. It was the worst experience in our lives and they made it so much easier to bear."

The process took four days. During that time Coe and her husband ran the gauntlet of anti-abortion protesters. "We were mobbed. They were banging on our car window. My husband wanted to explain and tried to talk to them but quickly backed off. Just by winding down the car window he was putting himself at jeopardy."

philologos · 02-06-2009 04:46PM

thebman wrote: »

That pretty much means it wasn't an election issue so people don't care one way or the other.

In America it's much more of an election issue than in Ireland.

thebman wrote: »

If people actually thought abortion was murder, they'd be on the streets protesting it.

People do go out on the streets to protest it in several countries. Luckily in Ireland it's still illegal to have an abortion.

thebman wrote: »

If the state said okay you can shoot anyone you want without going to jail, people would be protesting in the streets.

People would. However many people have been desensitised to the notion by pro-choice word games over the last few decades.

thebman wrote: »

You can make up all the reasons you want why they aren't but the reality is they must not mind all that much if they don't express how much it bothers them.

People are vocal on pro-life issues all over the world. So I don't see where you get this notion that people aren't bothered by it.

thebman · 02-06-2009 04:55PM

Jakkass wrote: »

In America it's much more of an election issue than in Ireland.

Yet Obama didn't feel the need to comment on it until late in his campaign and presumably wasn't asked or pressurised to come forward with his stance.

Sounds like it isn't a major election issue except with a minority of people.

People do go out on the streets to protest it in several countries. Luckily in Ireland it's still illegal to have an abortion.

Yes a small minority of people go out and protest.

People would. However many people have been desensitised to the notion by pro-choice word games over the last few decades.

Of course they have, it couldn't be that they don't consider it murder or don't have an opinion or don't care. It is murdre and they have been desensitised by pro-choice people. That is almost a conspiracy theory TBH. Are they brain washing them using TV and subliminal messages?

People are vocal on pro-life issues all over the world. So I don't see where you get this notion that people aren't bothered by it.

Yes again only a small minority of people. If most people really did consider it to be murder, there would be many more people protesting.

02-06-2009 05:00PM

Reg'stoy wrote: »

As to the justification or not in the killing of the American doctor, I again personally believe that it was wrong and no reason would justify it. I as of yet do not fully know the background of the killer but like most patsy's they were probably duped into believing that they were saving lives. Why not simply cut the power to these clinics daily or disrupt there running. What makes this death doublely tragic is that both sides of the agrument will now use it to make press for their cause.

I am constanly amazed that we as a society recoil in horror at the idea that a parent could somehow allow their child to die by refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, yet some of us would have defended that same women if she had decided that the 'time had not been right' for her to have that same child.

I think it's been well established on the thread that the abortions carried out by this man were in medical necessities and not at the whim of a woman changing her mind last minute. Unfortunately too many people see red and lose reason at the word "abortion" and seem to forget there are distinct differences.
I'm a little taken aback at this thread - everyone's happy to condemn the murder but it's still gone off on an elective-abortion debate which is not what this doctor did. Rants about murdering children have no place here, unless the people concerned prefer that children are born never-conscious with hydrocephaly, or women die carrying to term, or 11 year old girls, etc etc.

philologos · 02-06-2009 05:13PM

thebman wrote: »

Yet Obama didn't feel the need to comment on it until late in his campaign and presumably wasn't asked or pressurised to come forward with his stance.

This isn't the case. McCain was asked throughout his campaign on the issue. As were Huckabee, Romney and other candidates who were going up for election. It's a huge election issue in America with polls now showing that a majority of Americans are pro-life, like in Ireland, but an anti-democratic Supreme Court enforced a ruling on abortion on every state even when states had already decided to make it illegal.

51% in America are now pro-life, and 42% are now pro-choice, which represents a difference from 1995 where it was 56% pro-choice to 33% pro-life. People have always been rather vocal on the issue. Obama seemed to employ a policy of deception to try and keep as many pro-lifers on his side as possible.

thebman wrote: »

Sounds like it isn't a major election issue except with a minority of people.

In the US it's a majority of people.

thebman wrote: »

Yes a small minority of people go out and protest.

Plenty do. There were thousands of pro-life voters at a protest following the anniversary of Roe vs Wade out to demonstrate their concern about it in Washington earlier this year.

thebman wrote: »

Of course they have, it couldn't be that they don't consider it murder or don't have an opinion or don't care. It is murdre and they have been desensitised by pro-choice people. That is almost a conspiracy theory TBH. Are they brain washing them using TV and subliminal messages?

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Language such as pre-embryo is being used to actually refer to an embryo by pro-choicers in academic journals to deceive others. They are changing the terms for what is involved in embryology and add confusion to the debate to allow for enough ambiguity to justify their position. It isn't a conspiracy theory if one can actually show proof that it has taken place.

Check out page 10 of this PDF in particular.

thebman wrote: »

Yes again only a small minority of people. If most people really did consider it to be murder, there would be many more people protesting.

A lot of people to consider it to be murder. I don't get what your point is, even if I showed you thousands at a pro-life demonstration it wouldn't be enough for you.

Overheal · 02-06-2009 06:36PM

I am constanly amazed that we as a society recoil in horror at the idea that a parent could somehow allow their child to die by refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds, yet some of us would have defended that same women if she had decided that the 'time had not been right' for her to have that same child.

Yeah, I would have defended her if the time wasn't right: considering many of the patients he treated were reportedly 11 and 12 year old rape victims. So yes.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/index.html

@walshb: the answer to that thing we were discussing a couple pages earlier:

Hill last spoke to Dr. Tiller two weeks ago, not long after the Women's Health Center was vandalized, and she asked the 67-year-old why he didn't retire in the face of increasing harassment, after already having been shot in both arms and seen his clinic bombed. "Because I can't leave these women," he told her. "Those are the words I'm always going to remember from him. He just believed that when he left, they wouldn't get any kind of care." Unfortunately, it seems he may have been right. I asked Hill where women who need late-term abortions can go now, and her response was bleak. "There's Warren Hern, out in Boulder, Colorado, but he doesn't go as far as Dr. Tiller went." When it comes to those "really tragic cases," Hill said the harsh truth is, "We don't know where we're going to send them."

Uncle Arthur · 02-06-2009 06:42PM

thebman wrote: »

Yet Obama didn't feel the need to comment on it until late in his campaign and presumably wasn't asked or pressurised to come forward with his stance.

Sounds like it isn't a major election issue except with a minority of people.

Yes a small minority of people go out and protest.

Of course they have, it couldn't be that they don't consider it murder or don't have an opinion or don't care. It is murdre and they have been desensitised by pro-choice people. That is almost a conspiracy theory TBH. Are they brain washing them using TV and subliminal messages?

Yes again only a small minority of people. If most people really did consider it to be murder, there would be many more people protesting.

everyone in this country is giving out about the state of the economy but only a "small minority" have actually gone out and protested. that doesnt mean its not an issue or isnt important just because people arent bothered marching about it

genericguy · 02-06-2009 06:47PM

Min wrote: »

Two wrongs never made a right.

Nope, three lefts makes a right.

dlofnep · 02-06-2009 06:48PM

Are we really to believe that they were all warranted? My guess is probably not.

thebman · 02-06-2009 06:56PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the case. McCain was asked throughout his campaign on the issue. As were Huckabee, Romney and other candidates who were going up for election. It's a huge election issue in America with polls now showing that a majority of Americans are pro-life, like in Ireland, but an anti-democratic Supreme Court enforced a ruling on abortion on every state even when states had already decided to make it illegal.

The supreme court is not undemocratic? It is a major part of the US justice system. They seem to be protecting the rights of the individuals to decide which isn't really undemocratic.

Outlawing abortion and saying we don't think people support it would be authoritarian. Its strange that you claim the supreme court is undemocratic and yet you'd think it was fine and dandy if it had ruled abortion to be illegal across the USA.

51% in America are now pro-life, and 42% are now pro-choice, which represents a difference from 1995 where it was 56% pro-choice to 33% pro-life. People have always been rather vocal on the issue. Obama seemed to employ a policy of deception to try and keep as many pro-lifers on his side as possible.

51%, proof please. Proof of Obama being deceptive please.

In the US it's a majority of people.

The majority are protesting about it. I don't think so. If they consider it murder, they wouldn't be sitting on their arses and only replying to sample surveys. It really depends on who does the survey too as they could be biased.

Plenty do. There were thousands of pro-life voters at a protest following the anniversary of Roe vs Wade out to demonstrate their concern about it in Washington earlier this year.

So that is a small number of people compared to the number in the state so.

It isn't a conspiracy theory. Language such as pre-embryo is being used to actually refer to an embryo by pro-choicers in academic journals to deceive others. They are changing the terms for what is involved in embryology and add confusion to the debate to allow for enough ambiguity to justify their position. It isn't a conspiracy theory if one can actually show proof that it has taken place.

Check out page 10 of this PDF in particular.

Lots of conspiracy theorists have given what they view to be proof. It rarely turns out to be proof. I can show you lots of pictures of UFO's from another world. Or evidence that the moon landing was faked etc...

That paper is a stem cell research paper not a pro-choice abortion paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proembryo

The wiki page also shows that are many pro stem cell people that don't use the term so I don't see how it is an intention deception by pro-choice. It seems to be limited to a subset of people so to label it as pro-choice deception is as inaccurate as saying all pro-life people support killing abortion doctors.

It simply isn't the case. That is deception on your part as I see it.

A lot of people to consider it to be murder. I don't get what your point is, even if I showed you thousands at a pro-life demonstration it wouldn't be enough for you.

No because the majority don't protest. I'm sorry but if mass murder was being conducted legally in Ireland, the majority would be on the streets protesting. They aren't in America and I have to assume that is because they don't think it is murder or don't have any opinion.

If I believed abortion was murder and it was legal in Ireland, I'd be protesting outside the dail, writing to politicians and posting online every day until the law was changed. I imagine most people that really cared would so the conclusion I come to is most people don't really care and don't mind having abortion being legal and leaving it up to the individual to decide if they believe it is right or wrong for them.

thebman · 02-06-2009 06:57PM

Uncle Arthur wrote: »

everyone in this country is giving out about the state of the economy but only a "small minority" have actually gone out and protested. that doesnt mean its not an issue or isnt important just because people arent bothered marching about it

The economy isn't mass murder (also people get unemployment benefit which you can be sure prevents protests. If people were starving and there was no welfare, you'd probably see protests).

If you claim they believe it is mass murder they should be on the streets. How fooking laid back about mass murder are those people?

They must be sick if they believe it is mass murder and are too lazy to get up off their holes IMO.

Terry · 02-06-2009 07:08PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

In a mirror case, 'political and religious' motives are being cited for the shooting death of a soldier in Little Rock, Arkansas yesterday. Not getting quite as much news.

NTM

Link?

Jakkass wrote: »

People do go out on the streets to protest it in several countries. Luckily in Ireland it's still illegal to have an abortion.

Yes, luckily in Ireland it's only those who provide information on abortion who are harassed.

People would. However many people have been desensitised to the notion by pro-choice word games over the last few decades.

Indeed.
Pro-choice words like Termination, Safety of the mother and not wanting to carry a child that's just going to die anyway to full term.
Then you have the pro-life spin doctors with their words like Murder, slaughter, Doctor of death and so forth.
Spin works both ways, as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

People are vocal on pro-life issues all over the world. So I don't see where you get this notion that people aren't bothered by it.

Radicals and fundamentalists are the ones who make the most noise and target the vulnerable in order to get their messages across.

dlofnep wrote: »

60,000 abortions. Are we really to believe that they were all warranted? My guess is probably not.

Only one was warranted.
50,000 were split between 100 of Satan's minions, but they were carrying girls and he wanted a boy.
9,999 were just slutty chicks who don't like taking precautions.

Of course they were not all warranted. One or two are bound to slip through when you are talking about numbers that high, but the guy was only human and humans make mistakes.

Should we ban every medical procedure just in case a mistake is made?

philologos · 02-06-2009 07:21PM

thebman wrote: »

The supreme court is not undemocratic? It is a major part of the US justice system. They seem to be protecting the rights of the individuals to decide which isn't really undemocratic.

The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in protecting the rights of the unborn. Individuals having a right to decide what to do with other peoples lives isn't a right and should never be.

thebman wrote: »

Outlawing abortion and saying we don't think people support it would be authoritarian. Its strange that you claim the supreme court is undemocratic and yet you'd think it was fine and dandy if it had ruled abortion to be illegal across the USA.

I think it's completely undemocratic to have abortion legalised where the majority of people simply don't want it to be.

thebman wrote: »

51%, proof please. Proof of Obama being deceptive please.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-poll16-2009may16,0,3897855.story

For more articles just look at the google results:
http://www.google.ie/search?q=51%25+pro-life+USA

As for Obama being deceptive, considering that he left the abortion issue off his website until very very late in his campaign that would suggest to me that he was trying to get as many pro-lifers as possible to support him before he had to say what he needed to say.

thebman wrote: »

The majority are protesting about it. I don't think so. If they consider it murder, they wouldn't be sitting on their arses and only replying to sample surveys. It really depends on who does the survey too as they could be biased.

See Uncle Arthurs previous post on this, it's rather adequate.

thebman wrote: »

So that is a small number of people compared to the number in the state so.

So? I'm still failing to see your point. People can oppose something without necessarily showing up at every protest.

thebman wrote: »

Lots of conspiracy theorists have given what they view to be proof. It rarely turns out to be proof. I can show you lots of pictures of UFO's from another world. Or evidence that the moon landing was faked etc...

It isn't a conspiracy theory if there is evidence for it.

thebman wrote: »

That paper is a stem cell research paper not a pro-choice abortion paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proembryo

It has good points on how people have been changing the terms that apply to embryos to make it more convenient for themselves. If you want to hear the main points the guy was actually making, heres the audio.

It's blatently obvious that an embryo is biologically a human lifeform. However people like to make excuses to justify their behaviour a lot of the time. Word games are an effective way to make excuses.

thebman wrote: »

The wiki page also shows that are many pro stem cell people that don't use the term so I don't see how it is an intention deception by pro-choice. It seems to be limited to a subset of people so to label it as pro-choice deception is as inaccurate as saying all pro-life people support killing abortion doctors.

If it was a single case. I might agree with you. However even the term "termination" which is commonly used to refer to abortion is merely another word game. Termination is the same thing as killing.

thebman wrote: »

No because the majority don't protest. I'm sorry but if mass murder was being conducted legally in Ireland, the majority would be on the streets protesting. They aren't in America and I have to assume that is because they don't think it is murder or don't have any opinion.

Would they?

thebman wrote: »

If I believed abortion was murder and it was legal in Ireland, I'd be protesting outside the dail, writing to politicians and posting online every day until the law was changed. I imagine most people that really cared would so the conclusion I come to is most people don't really care and don't mind having abortion being legal and leaving it up to the individual to decide if they believe it is right or wrong for them.

I don't feel a need to protest against abortion since I find the current law in Ireland to be favourable.

thebman · 02-06-2009 07:37PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in protecting the rights of the unborn. Individuals having a right to decide what to do with other peoples lives isn't a right and should never be.

Why would they, the unborn aren't born, don't have birth certs, aren't citizens and so have no or little rights under law. The mother carrying the child has rights since it is forming in her body.

I think it's completely undemocratic to have abortion legalised where the majority of people simply don't want it to be.

You've yet to show that is the case.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-poll16-2009may16,0,3897855.story

For more articles just look at the google results:
http://www.google.ie/search?q=51%25+pro-life+USA

strange that I ran into this though:

The Gallup poll released Friday also marks a massive shift from one year ago, when 50 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice, and just 44 percent said they were pro-life. Today 42 percent say they are pro-choice, by far the lowest level of support for abortion ever measured by the Gallup poll.

Despite that change in opinion, most Americans still believe that abortion should remain legal. Yet Gallup reports that the new numbers come in stark contrast with the last four years, when polls found a strong tilt of public opinion in favor of unrestricted abortions, which is now declining.

Fifty-three percent say abortions should remain legal under certain circumstances, and nearly equal numbers take hard-line views -- 23 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances, and 22 percent say it should be legal no matter what.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/15/poll-americans-pro-life-pro-choice-time/

Kind of makes it look like they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but don't want to force their opinion on others from reading that. Makes it seem like they don't want to be associated with pro-choice groups but are in fact pro-choice.

Again it seems to be just people reading what they want from statistics from a random poll of people though. I'm not against giving the American people a vote on it anyway. I'm just against making it illegal based on one poll.

As for Obama being deceptive, considering that he left the abortion issue off his website until very very late in his campaign that would suggest to me that he was trying to get as many pro-lifers as possible to support him before he had to say what he needed to say.

Maybe he forgot, maybe he didn't think people thought it was relevant. That isn't evidence that he was trying to deceive people. I'm sure pro-life people aren't stupid and can do the same as you and see late on what his opinions on the matter are and then vote accordingly.

See Uncle Arthurs previous post on this, it's rather adequate.

No it isn't, that was the economy. Your saying most people believe mass murder is being committed and want abortion outlawed. There is a massive difference.

So? I'm still failing to see your point. People can oppose something without necessarily showing up at every protest.

To be perfectly honest if they do that about what they believe to be mass murderers they are part-timers and half hearted to the cause and don't really give a flying fook in which case they aren't really pro-life are they? They mostly don't care. If there was a vote would they even turn up?

It isn't a conspiracy theory if there is evidence for it.
It's blatently obvious that an embryo is biologically a human lifeform. However people like to make excuses to justify their behaviour a lot of the time. Word games are an effective way to make excuses.

Just read Terry's post on it. Two way street. A few people don't represent a group that don't associate themselves with those people.

I don't feel a need to protest against abortion since I find the current law in Ireland to be favourable.

Great, good for you. I think the people should be asked though. Don't you think it is undemocratic. No, kind of hypocritical I would have thought.

philologos · 02-06-2009 07:49PM

thebman wrote: »

Why would they, the unborn aren't born, don't have birth certs, aren't citizens and so have no or little rights under law. The mother carrying the child has rights since it is forming in her body.

The unborn are alive humans. Hence they should be afforded the same human rights as anyone else. As such I think we need to find a compromise between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother to be fair. The compromise is promoting adoption as a means to give a chance at life to the unborn and give the mother the option not to keep the child.

The mother has no such right to deny the unborn their rights in my opinion.

BTW, citizenship is irrelevant, there are millions of people in the world without nationality. Yet we don't slaughter them off.

thebman wrote: »

You've yet to show that is the case.

Most of the people who don't want abortion to be completely illegal are referring to life endangerment to the mother. Most people would agree that that is acceptable, because neither the child or the mother is likely to live. Applying a bit of moral utilitarianism is a good idea.

thebman wrote: »

Kind of makes it look like they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but don't want to force their opinion on others from reading that. Makes it seem like they don't want to be associated with pro-choice groups but are in fact pro-choice.

No they aren't pro-choice. These are people who think that abortion should be legal in restricted circumstances, these generally only refer to life endangerment and rape. I personally don't agree that abortion should be legal in the case of rape however.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

thebman wrote: »

Again it seems to be just people reading what they want from statistics from a random poll of people though. I'm not against giving the American people a vote on it anyway. I'm just against making it illegal based on one poll.

Most defined themselves with the term pro-life.

The rates of women were slightly lower at 49% pro-life, 44% pro-choice, men were at 54% pro-life, 39% pro-choice.

thebman wrote: »

Maybe he forgot, maybe he didn't think people thought it was relevant. That isn't evidence that he was trying to deceive people. I'm sure pro-life people aren't stupid and can do the same as you and see late on what his opinions on the matter are and then vote accordingly.

In a campaign where abortion was a key issue, it isn't just a matter of forgetting. It was a sneaky move not to make himself clear like the McCain / Palin camp did on it.

thebman wrote: »

To be perfectly honest if they do that about what they believe to be mass murderers they are part-timers and half hearted to the cause and don't really give a flying fook in which case they aren't really pro-life are they? They mostly don't care. If there was a vote would they even turn up?

I'm pretty sure they would given past referendums.

thebman wrote: »

Great, good for you. I think the people should be asked though. Don't you think it is undemocratic. No, kind of hypocritical I would have thought.

I don't mind if the Government have a vote on pro-life currently. Most people in Ireland (51%) oppose it in a January 2009 poll.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0515/1224246568320.html

thebman · 02-06-2009 08:04PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The unborn are alive humans. Hence they should be afforded the same human rights as anyone else. As such I think we need to find a compromise between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother to be fair. The compromise is promoting adoption as a means to give a chance at life to the unborn and give the mother the option not to keep the child.

I'm not going down that no end road with you. I presume you know where I stand and can see why it wouldn't actually be a debate but a yelling contest that would result in thread lock.

The mother has no such right to deny the unborn their rights in my opinion.

BTW, citizenship is irrelevant, there are millions of people in the world without nationality. Yet we don't slaughter them off.

When your talking about rights in a country, citizenship and nationality are a factor. The government may not want to rule in the case of the unborn because it would have many consequences such as an illegal immigrant that is pregnant coming to the country. Does the unborn child have the right to remain in the nation but the mother not and if the child is unborn, should the mother be allowed remain until birth and then forced to leave the country. This isn't a question but an example, I don't expect a response. There are other cases that could occur I'm sure.

Most of the people who don't want abortion to be completely illegal are referring to life endangerment to the mother. Most people would agree that that is acceptable, because neither the child or the mother is likely to live. Applying a bit of moral utilitarianism is a good idea.

No they aren't pro-choice. These are people who think that abortion should be legal in restricted circumstances, these generally only refer to life endangerment and rape. I personally don't agree that abortion should be legal in the case of rape however.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

If they are for abortion in some circumstances but think it is murder then they cannot be pro-life IMO. That is basically condoning murder.

In a campaign where abortion was a key issue, it isn't just a matter of forgetting. It was a sneaky move not to make himself clear like the McCain / Palin camp did on it.

Abortion was key? I thought the economy was the key issue. Never once did I hear abortion mentioned. I think maybe it was key only to those that are really interested in it and were listening for it to be mentioned. It was not a major factor in the election as it was not featured in most debates as far as I can remember. That would make it a minor issue.

I'm pretty sure they would given past referendums.

I don't mind if the Government have a vote on pro-life currently. Most people in Ireland (51%) oppose it in a January 2009 poll.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0515/1224246568320.html

lol so as long as it goes the way you want you'd be for a referendum? What if the opinion was the other way, would you be against a referendum?

Terry · 02-06-2009 08:13PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in protecting the rights of the unborn. Individuals having a right to decide what to do with other peoples lives isn't a right and should never be.

A Christian says what?

Seriously. I really did crack up laughing when I read that.
The irony of a Christian, a person who lives their life according to words written by a handful of biased people between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago, re-written over the years to fit the moods of certain religious and political leaders and monarchs and still interpreted to fit the whims of religious and political leaders today, saying that the decisions of a handful of people is not right.

i really don't mean that as a personal attack. I'm talking about all Christians here. You just happen to be the one to say something that I found ironically funny.

I think it's completely undemocratic to have abortion legalised where the majority of people simply don't want it to be.

I completely agree.
it's just a pity that the majority of people who don't care about abortions (neither pro-choice or pro-life) don't care to vote.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-poll16-2009may16,0,3897855.story

For more articles just look at the google results:
http://www.google.ie/search?q=51%25+pro-life+USA

As for Obama being deceptive, considering that he left the abortion issue off his website until very very late in his campaign that would suggest to me that he was trying to get as many pro-lifers as possible to support him before he had to say what he needed to say.

I know they have the whole college of electorate system over there and I did understand how it works when I read up on it one day. I just can't remember now though.
However, I'm fairly certain that it's still one vote per person and they all vote on the same day.

Let's say that this Friday's election was a general election and FF turned around and said that they would legalise abortion if they were elected (note to self. Spread this as a rumour in the run up to the next general election) that they would lose an awful lot of votes.

Claiming that Obama only got elected because he held off on his abortion stance for so long is a bit silly.

It has good points on how people have been changing the terms that apply to embryos to make it more convenient for themselves. If you want to hear the main points the guy was actually making, heres the audio.

It's blatently obvious that an embryo is biologically a human lifeform. However people like to make excuses to justify their behaviour a lot of the time. Word games are an effective way to make excuses.

Dr. Death must really have fell for those word games.

As for that link. It's a Christian site. It's inherently biased.

If it was a single case. I might agree with you. However even the term "termination" which is commonly used to refer to abortion is merely another word game. Termination is the same thing as killing.

If it was a single case of Christian nutball kills someone who does something which is against his beliefs, then I'd probably withdraw my comment about the pro-choice people preying on the vulnerable.

I don't feel a need to protest against abortion since I find the current law in Ireland to be favourable.

How do you feel about those who freely distribute information on abortion?

thebman wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/15/poll-americans-pro-life-pro-choice-time/

Kind of makes it look like they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but don't want to force their opinion on others from reading that. Makes it seem like they don't want to be associated with pro-choice groups but are in fact pro-choice.

Fox news, dude.
I wouldn't believe a word they say.

KeyLimePie · 02-06-2009 08:17PM

maybe he had it in this mind that by killing this person he'd have saved many children ?

dlofnep · 02-06-2009 08:19PM

Agreed on Fox News. It's just a comedy channel really.. Hideously poor comedy.

As for abortion - Personally, I'm against it. Especially late-stage abortion.

philologos · 02-06-2009 08:19PM

thebman wrote: »

I'm not going down that no end road with you. I presume you know where I stand and can see why it wouldn't actually be a debate but a yelling contest that would result in thread lock.

I only aim to be civil.

thebman wrote: »

When your talking about rights in a country, citizenship and nationality are a factor. The government may not want to rule in the case of the unborn because it would have many consequences such as an illegal immigrant that is pregnant coming to the country. Does the unborn child have the right to remain in the nation but the mother not and if the child is unborn, should the mother be allowed remain until birth and then forced to leave the country. This isn't a question but an example, I don't expect a response. There are other cases that could occur I'm sure.

No it isn't. Human rights are universal. The unborn is a human life, and human life is something that falls under these conditions. Infact the international community recognised this pretty much until 1967 when the World Medical Organisation took out a line protecting the unborn from the 1949 Geneva Declaration.

I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity :

I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;

I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;

The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;

I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;

I will maintain by all means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;

My colleagues will be my brothers

I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;

I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Interestingly it was recognised as a law of humanity.

Nationality and citizenship have nothing to do with the right to life which was codified by the UN, and other organisations. A Palestinian living in Lebanon although without nationality in a refugee camp is still afforded the right to life.

thebman wrote: »

If they are for abortion in some circumstances but think it is murder then they cannot be pro-life IMO. That is basically condoning murder.

If the mothers life is in danger and both are going to die. It makes sense to save the life of one than kill both.

thebman wrote: »

Abortion was key? I thought the economy was the key issue. Never once did I hear abortion mentioned. I think maybe it was key only to those that are really interested in it and were listening for it to be mentioned. It was not a major factor in the election as it was not featured in most debates as far as I can remember. That would make it a minor issue.

It was a key issue and it was discussed by the McCain / Palin campaign quite extensively. It even came up as a topic in the third presidential debate.

thebman wrote: »

lol so as long as it goes the way you want you'd be for a referendum? What if the opinion was the other way, would you be against a referendum?

I'm for democracy in general. People should vote if there is enough demand. I do think that abortion should be illegal though and I will advocate any vote I am given for a pro-life position.

philologos · 02-06-2009 08:31PM

Terry wrote: »

The irony of a Christian, a person who lives their life according to words written by a handful of biased people between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago, re-written over the years to fit the moods of certain religious and political leaders and monarchs and still interpreted to fit the whims of religious and political leaders today, saying that the decisions of a handful of people is not right.

Well Terry it's rather simple:

The unborn, and the mother are separate individuals.

Nobody should decide what happens to someone elses life. Especially concerning life or death. I don't see what the irony is at all.

Terry wrote: »

i really don't mean that as a personal attack. I'm talking about all Christians here. You just happen to be the one to say something that I found ironically funny.

I have yet to see the irony. I disagree with the act of this killer, and I disagree with the act of killing the unborn. Both decided what to do with anothers life and that is wrong.

Terry wrote: »

Claiming that Obama only got elected because he held off on his abortion stance for so long is a bit silly.

I never said purely, but it was certainly a clever topic. I do think Obama's policy is better than McCains on a few issues, but over all during the entire campaign I supported McCain.

Terry wrote: »

As for that link. It's a Christian site. It's inherently biased.

Irrelevant. The guy is sufficiently qualified in discussing what he is talking about given that he has a phD in the field of ethics. The other speakers have qualifications in biological fields. Even if it is biased I'd like to think that people are intelligent enough to decide for themselves.

Terry wrote: »

How do you feel about those who freely distribute information on abortion?

It's good as long as they provide the full story. Pro-choicers don't do this. I personally think it should be a part of sex-ed for people to see exactly what happens in different types of abortions. I assume you aren't as pro-information as you make yourself out to be?

Terry · 02-06-2009 08:44PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The unborn are alive humans. Hence they should be afforded the same human rights as anyone else. As such I think we need to find a compromise between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother to be fair. The compromise is promoting adoption as a means to give a chance at life to the unborn and give the mother the option not to keep the child.

I disagree.
I beleive it's just a foetus until it comes out of the womb and starts breathing.

The mother has no such right to deny the unborn their rights in my opinion.

Once again i disagree.
a woman should have the right to do what she pleases with her own body.
Although if I had a daughter, I' probably wouldn't be too happy if she had needless cosmetic surgery.

Most of the people who don't want abortion to be completely illegal are referring to life endangerment to the mother. Most people would agree that that is acceptable, because neither the child or the mother is likely to live. Applying a bit of moral utilitarianism is a good idea.

So if an abortion would save the life of the mother, you would still be against it?

In a campaign where abortion was a key issue, it isn't just a matter of forgetting. It was a sneaky move not to make himself clear like the McCain / Palin camp did on it.

Palin shot herself in the foot with the whole daughter being pregnant and the shotgun wedding thing.
McCain just shot someone else.

I don't mind if the Government have a vote on pro-life currently. Most people in Ireland (51%) oppose it in a January 2009 poll.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0515/1224246568320.html

But you would be against it if the poll results were reversed?

KeyLimePie wrote: »

maybe he had it in this mind that by killing this person he'd have saved many children ?

Most likely.
That still doesn't make it right.
That's just the logic of an insane person.

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. Human rights are universal. The unborn is a human life, and human life is something that falls under these conditions. Infact the international community recognised this pretty much until 1967 when the World Medical Organisation took out a line protecting the unborn from the 1949 Geneva Declaration.

Interestingly it was recognised as a law of humanity.

Yeah. The Americans have been following that thing to the letter ever since it was written.

[cough]Gitmo[/cough]

If the mothers life is in danger and both are going to die. It makes sense to save the life of one than kill both.

Yes. The life of the mother.

It was a key issue and it was discussed by the McCain / Palin campaign quite extensively. It even came up as a topic in the third presidential debate.

Only because they were trying to get the Christians, the rednecks and the lunatic fringe to vote for them.

I'm for democracy in general. People should vote if there is enough demand. I do think that abortion should be illegal though and I will advocate any vote I am given for a pro-life position.

And that is your democratic right.
As a pro-choice person, I wouldn't like for any government to come along and suddenly declare abortion legal.
I might come across as a bit flippant on the subject, but I do take it seriously and am always willing to hear the opinions of the opposition. That's why I engaged you on this in the first place.

I'm probably as adamant about giving women a choice as you are about allowing the unborn to live, but I wouldn't like to see either side ignored.

thebman · 02-06-2009 08:46PM

Terry wrote: »

Fox news, dude.
I wouldn't believe a word they say.

Lol, I imagine if anything they'd be biased toward pro-life TBH.

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. Human rights are universal. The unborn is a human life, and human life is something that falls under these conditions. Infact the international community recognised this pretty much until 1967 when the World Medical Organisation took out a line protecting the unborn from the 1949 Geneva Declaration.

There was probably a reason it was removed like science developed and learned more about the human development cycle. I thought they took it out because they thought killing unborn babies would be good craic.

Nationality and citizenship have nothing to do with the right to life which was codified by the UN, and other organisations. A Palestinian living in Lebanon although without nationality in a refugee camp is still afforded the right to life.

I think if a country wants to find a way to ignore that they will so in reality it carries no weight, its just a nice theory.

If the mothers life is in danger and both are going to die. It makes sense to save the life of one than kill both.

It becomes an impossible question given your stance if one has to die, who do you save given both have equal right to life in your eyes? and why should that
Person get preferential treatment?

It was a key issue and it was discussed by the McCain / Palin campaign quite extensively. It even came up as a topic in the third presidential debate.

I never heard anything about it and I was following the election TBH. I heard more about the economy and legalising marijuana.

I'm for democracy in general. People should vote if there is enough demand. I do think that abortion should be illegal though and I will advocate any vote I am given for a pro-life position.

I'll be brutally honest here, I think many pro lifers are for democracy to get their way and against it if they think they won't get the outcome they want. It is a logical position but to pretend that they are for democracy when they only want it if it'll help them get their way is something I find distasteful.

philologos · 02-06-2009 09:05PM

Terry wrote: »

I disagree.
I beleive it's just a foetus until it comes out of the womb and starts breathing.

Just a foetus is meaningless though. Biologically it has been shown to be a human life. A foetus is to be expected of a human life of that age and stage of development.

Terry wrote: »

Once again i disagree.
a woman should have the right to do what she pleases with her own body.
Although if I had a daughter, I' probably wouldn't be too happy if she had needless cosmetic surgery.

If it was just her body and her life she was dealing with, I'd be fine with that. It isn't just her body and her life. Hence why I have a problem with other people mistreating other human life like this.

Terry wrote: »

So if an abortion would save the life of the mother, you would still be against it?

If it saves the life of the mother it is important, as otherwise both lives would die. If I am truly pro-life I value life. I don't want two dead rather than just one. That's the only exception I make.

Terry wrote: »

Palin shot herself in the foot with the whole daughter being pregnant and the shotgun wedding thing.
McCain just shot someone else.

Her daughter made a mistake and realised it. At least she brought the child into the world.

Terry wrote: »

But you would be against it if the poll results were reversed?

I support democracy in all circumstances. I'd be against abortion law were it to pass however.

Terry wrote: »

Yeah. The Americans have been following that thing to the letter ever since it was written.

[cough]Gitmo[/cough]

If I was blindly pro-American that might apply to me. I consider torture to be unacceptable also.

Terry wrote: »

Only because they were trying to get the Christians, the rednecks and the lunatic fringe to vote for them.

Wow. You do realise that atheists and agnostics are also pro-life. Pro-life isn't a "lunatic fringe" type thing. It's basically that you respect the rights of the unborn. It's a civil rights issue.

Terry wrote: »

And that is your democratic right.
As a pro-choice person, I wouldn't like for any government to come along and suddenly declare abortion legal.
I might come across as a bit flippant on the subject, but I do take it seriously and am always willing to hear the opinions of the opposition. That's why I engaged you on this in the first place.

I wouldn't support that either. If anything like that which is morally contentious is to be outlawed it must be by majority support. We currently have that here, and they currently have it in the USA.

Terry wrote: »

I'm probably as adamant about giving women a choice as you are about allowing the unborn to live, but I wouldn't like to see either side ignored.

There are many things I will tolerate. Abortion isn't one of them. It sickens me to the core that people can justify such a barbaric practice in the 21st century.

philologos · 02-06-2009 09:16PM

thebman wrote: »

There was probably a reason it was removed like science developed and learned more about the human development cycle. I thought they took it out because they thought killing unborn babies would be good craic.

Nonsense. There is no science that refutes the notion that a foetus is alive in the womb. None. If you can show me anything that argues against this viewpoint then I will admit that you are right, but only then.

thebman wrote: »

I think if a country wants to find a way to ignore that they will so in reality it carries no weight, its just a nice theory.

Oh right. So we can just ignore human rights and carry on with our lives? I'm personally someone who believes that all should have the same rights that I am endowed in a free society. That applies both to refugees in Lebanon as much as it applies to the unborn.

thebman wrote: »

It becomes an impossible question given your stance if one has to die, who do you save given both have equal right to life in your eyes? and why should that
Person get preferential treatment?

It's not preferred treatment. The foetus cannot survive without the mother. The mother can survive without the foetus. In a critical situation like that it is obvious which is the best. I however, do not under any circumstances believe that this should be a choice for anyone. In a life or death scenario if I truly value life, I will prefer one alive than two dead.

thebman wrote: »

I never heard anything about it and I was following the election TBH. I heard more about the economy and legalising marijuana.

Well it was in the Third Presidential Debate coming up to the election in 2008.

thebman wrote: »

I'll be brutally honest here, I think many pro lifers are for democracy to get their way and against it if they think they won't get the outcome they want. It is a logical position but to pretend that they are for democracy when they only want it if it'll help them get their way is something I find distasteful.

I'm pro-democracy any way. I will not like the result if it comes out against. However, that is why we should be campaigning for full education about abortions and exactly what happens with an abortion and allow for people to decide for themselves. By full education, I don't mean some biased pro-choice leaflet telling people where to get it done. I mean going through what exactly happens during a suction abortion by video if necessary or through the various other types of abortions that are avaliable.

thebman · 02-06-2009 09:17PM

Jakkass wrote: »

If it was just her body and her life she was dealing with, I'd be fine with that. It isn't just her body and her life. Hence why I have a problem with other people mistreating other human life like this.

It is her body and her life. The developing child is merely developing within the mother. It cannot survive without the mother therefore it must have less of a right to life than the mother as if the mother dies so would the child. They don't have equal right to life. The mother is choosing to carry the child.

That is one of the reasons why I believe the woman should be entitled to not carry the child if she wishes. Once the child could survive outside the womb, it is its own being and should not be aborted IMO.

As for claiming that a developing child will eventually become a child that just means it has the potential to become a child which is not the same as having the right to become a child. Any sperm and egg combined has the potential to become a child and many don't.

If it saves the life of the mother it is important, as otherwise both lives would die. If I am truly pro-life I value life. I don't want two dead rather than just one. That's the only exception I make.

So if you have to choose one to save (both not being an option as they'll both die but you can save one), which one do you choose out of interest?

Her daughter made a mistake and realised it. At least she brought the child into the world.

With the pressure on her from the media, her parents and the republican party, I don't think anyone can possibly claim she made a choice. With the pressure on her it would be nearly impossible for her to say she wanted an abortion.

I'd like to know what she honestly believes behind the PR.

philologos · 02-06-2009 09:25PM

thebman wrote: »

It is her body and her life. The developing child is merely developing within the mother. It cannot survive without the mother therefore it must have less of a right to life than the mother as if the mother dies so would the child. They don't have equal right to life. The mother is choosing to carry the child.

It is biologically a separate entity, and it is another life. As such that is a null and void argument in my eyes. Your reasoning is terrible. A child cannot survive without it's parents after it is born! Should parents have the right to kill their child? No. Of course not, I'd ring the police if I found out that happened. Yes, they do have an equal right to life. It's ridiculous as any clause you give me, I can give you outside of the womb. Why is the womb a separate juristiction to outside? There is no reason if you support abortion based on dependance, you must also support infanticide based on dependance.

thebman wrote: »

That is one of the reasons why I believe the woman should be entitled to not carry the child if she wishes. Once the child could survive outside the womb, it is its own being and should not be aborted IMO.

See above.

thebman wrote: »

As for claiming that a developing child will eventually become a child that just means it has the potential to become a child which is not the same as having the right to become a child. Any sperm and egg combined has the potential to become a child and many don't.

It's a living human right now. I don't need to claim that it will develop. It has the attribute of growth, and it is formed through the life prerequisites of a sperm and an ova to form a zygote. It is a human, and that is expected for a human life of that stage.

thebman wrote: »

So if you have to choose one to save (both not being an option as they'll both die but you can save one), which one do you choose out of interest?

You know as well as I do that there isn't a choice. The unborn in a critical case like that cannot survive without the mother, but the mother can survive without the foetus. It's a horrible situation, but if I truly value life, I cannot let both die.

thebman wrote: »

With the pressure on her from the media, her parents and the republican party, I don't think anyone can possibly claim she made a choice. With the pressure on her it would be nearly impossible for her to say she wanted an abortion.

Luckily she herself has dismissed this claim in interviews. She and Levi decided between them that they wanted to keep it.

thebman wrote: »

I'd like to know what she honestly believes behind the PR.

I think she is pro-life if she endured that term. She could have got one secretly before the press started to know about it.

Pro life murder

Comments