2009.06.02
Discuss Tuesday's editorials
'Pro-life' murder
Tone down the rhetoric after the cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller.
"Tiller the baby killer" is what many anti-abortion Web sites called him. Even after his murder Sunday, commenters on The RoundTable, our editorial page blog, were likening Dr. George Tiller to Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler and other murderers. Many anti-abortion groups denounced Sunday's murder of the most vilified abortion provider in the nation, though Operation Rescue's Randall Terry managed to begin his denunciation of the murder with this phrase: "George Tiller was a mass-murderer."
Read more.
Prioritizing city's projects
So many projects, not enough money.
Roanoke City Council in the past year has gathered proposals and plans for more capital projects than it can possibly afford. Now, it must set priorities. Council on Monday began planning which capital projects to fund during the next five years. Many of the debt categories -- those for Roanoke River flood control, curbs and gutters, bridge renovation and school roofs for the coming year -- are already set.
Read more.
RSS feed 
An Army recruiter was killed by a Muslim terrorist yesterday in Arkansas. No doubt this was a direct result of the anti-war rhetoric that we have endured for years. The demonization of our military made it easy for some misguided soul to conclude that killing the recruiter was justified.
The recruiter's murder doesn't tarnish the entire anti-war movement. But it should give that movement's leaders cause to reflect seriously on Obama's call for a more civil tone
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 9:01 am
No doubt Henry, there could not be any other reason a Muslim would kill an American could there? I am sure he will confess to listening to hours of Olbermann, Garafalo, and Maddow (those nasty hate radicals) and he will no doubt have the book "I Hate George Bush" in his possession. He probably studied at the mosque of 'one American at a time' too. Nice try but no cigar.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 9:20 am
It's astounding that an editorial on Dr. Tiller would fail to mention his specialty, late-term abortion, nor acknowlege the views of the vast majority who feel PBA is wrong.
For all of Obama's talk about finding common ground on abortion, he's not about to give an inch on this hideous destruction of fully-formed babies. The rhetoric the left accuses the right of using in no way matches the vileness of destroying human life this way.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:51 am
Excellent post, Henry. But there won't be any media outcry against Olbermann and others creating a climate of hatred. That only applies to conservatives who rightly protest the destruction of little human beings.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:11 am
DT: "It's astounding that an editorial on Dr. Tiller would fail to mention his specialty, late-term abortion..."
It might be astounding if it were true. The editorial did mention that he was "one of the few physicians in the nation who specialized in late-term abortions."
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 10:22 am
OK, I missed it. You did mention Tiller performed late-term abortions. But the larger point that remains is you failed to recognize the views of the substantial majority of American that oppose LTA's, and that is grossly unfair.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:28 am
DT: "But the larger point that remains is you failed to recognize the views of the substantial majority of American that oppose LTA's, and that is grossly unfair."
I don't see where that point has any bearing whatsoever on the man's murder. It certainly doesn't justify it.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 10:35 am
The RT was writing an article about a murder victim. The so-called "views of a "substantial majority" of Americans" aren't relevant to the article.
How should Dick Cheney's obit read? That by the end of his term as VP he was slightly less popular than jock itch?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:36 am
The guy who shot the recruiters was from Tennessee. I guess all people from Tennessee are now suspect.
His given name was Carlos Bledsoe. Not terribly Arab sounding.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:37 am
"Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, of Little Rock, was charged in Monday's death of Pvt. William Long, 23, of Conway outside an Army-Navy Career Center in a west Little Rock shopping center. "
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQACNshVFYt6M9CDykHq6DKqPhiwD98IJCJ80
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 10:41 am
I don't see where that point has any bearing whatsoever on the man's murder. It certainly doesn't justify it.
But it does justify those who speak out vehemently against Tiller's actions. You act like it's inciteful hate speech to call they guy out on the atrocities he's perpetrated. He was a mass-killer. There's no getting around it. Tiller killed thousands of fully-formed human beings. How is it hateful to point that out? It's the truth.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Kristen,
The point is, you liberals try to pretend, and you've actually said, those who dare to oppose late-term abortion are a fringe minority "right wing nutjobs". That's a lie. The reality is only the most extreme LEFTwingers believe late-term abortion is fine, and it sounds like we have a good percentage of them right here in this forum.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I find it interesting that when push comes to shove, those who call for moderation and compromise on issues like abortion still cling to the most vile and extreme abortion practices that the vast majority oppose. They have no intention of compromise. They only want YOU to compromise.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Did you read the editorial, DT? It addressed that as well:
Tiller, one of the few physicians in the nation who specialized in late-term abortions, didn't see himself as a baby killer. He saw himself as a physician helping women forced into awful decisions late in their pregnancies.
The moral certitude that leads to blanket statements such as those by Terry makes it easy to demonize someone like Tiller and impossible to even attempt to see his perspective. And that, sadly, appears to have made it easy for some misguided soul to conclude, with the same moral certitude, that killing Tiller was both just and justified.
Tiller -- who had been shot before and had his clinic bombed -- knew the risks of what he did. Even now some will say he proceeded despite those risks because he was a monster who liked to kill babies, or he was in it for money. Either scenario seems as unlikely to us as the notion that significant numbers of women don't decide until the eighth month of their pregnancy that they want a purely elective abortion.
Do you truly believe that there are many women who wait until the seventh, eighth or ninth month to have an abortion just for the hell of it? Do you not understand that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, and are usually done to protect the health or save the life of the mother?
If Tiller was just doing these late-term abortions for the hell of it, he was a monster, and the women who went to him had no business being mothers. But there's more to the story - even if your moral certitude won't allow you to even begin to recognize that.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Well DT, Henry (as he is known to do) has just provided you with your answer. BOTH of these statements are the truth:
"The guy who shot the recruiters was from Tennessee"
"Abdulhakim Muhammad, 23, of Little Rock, was charged in Monday's death of Pvt. William Long, 23,"
Which one could be spiteful or inciting to a maniac pray tell? And mind you this is not an example of hate speech, it is simply the TRUTH. Is is how the "truth" is delivered, how is is phrased and nuanced and beaten to a fare thee well that makes it hate. If you add in exaggeration and ad hominem attacks as is often done by folks like O'Reilly, you get hate. Again, if you do not recognize it except when it is aimed at you then that is your selective hearing, it does not mean that it is not hate.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Excuse me DT, but where exactly in your ghoulish and insulting rhetoric have you offered any moderation or compromise whatsoever? You cannot blame others for failing to do what you also will not do. No one here has advocated that late term abortions are good for anyone, but rational people realize that they are the extreme minority of abortions done in the extreme minority of cases under extremely rigorous criterion NOT on some damn whim and you only further insult the women who have felt they had to make such an awful soul tearing choice with your insane drivel. You walk in those shoes and THEN you come in here as a judge of others. Till then, you are blowing smoke and yelling fire where there is none. You want honest debate, then offer it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:14 am
"Do you truly believe that there are many women who wait until the seventh, eighth or ninth month to have an abortion just for the hell of it?"
Uhhh...yeah. The baby could survive the birth. What's the point of aborting it? Just birth it and leave it at the hospital if you don't want it. Why pay someone to kill it just to keep it from seeing the light of day?
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 11:17 am
DT...I've never called for "compromise". Why would I? I see no reason to engage in negotiations with people who throw around the term "mass murderer".
Obviously nothing justifies killing that recruiter. However, I'd also say nothing justified shooting Tiller. At least I'm consistent.
Someone referred to "Muslims invading" in reference to the Little Rock shooter. Unless coming out of Tennessee can be considered an "invasion", that characterization would be inaccurate.
The pilots who dropped atomic weapons on Japan also destroyed 'fully formed humans". I'm interested to see how you reconcile that with your feeling on late-term abortion.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 11:19 am
No one here has advocated that killing an abortionist is good for anyone, but rational people realize that they are the extreme minority of murders done in the extreme minority of cases under extremely rigorous criterion NOT on some damn whim and you only further insult the men who have felt they had to make such an awful soul tearing choice with your insane drivel.
Seems to fit the reasoning.
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Since we know that a 6 or 7 month baby can in fact live outside the womb, why dont they just change the legal age for being 'born' to 5 years old? That way, in addition to being able to kill humans that are not born from a womb yet, pro-choicers could also feel perfectly fine with taking the lives of humans that are under schoolage still? That way the whole born and not yet born arguement would be out the door.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Henry: "What's the point of aborting it? Just birth it and leave it at the hospital if you don't want it. Why pay someone to kill it just to keep it from seeing the light of day?"
In Kansas, where Tiller practiced, abortions on viable fetuses are only allowed if the delivery would put the woman at risk of irreparable harm. Some women have late-term abortions because something is very wrong with the fetus and waiting until it is delivered could risk their ability to try to get pregnant again.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Right Kristen, the pilots decided that they themselves were just not ready for the resposibility of being a parent to all the Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima so they decided to just get rid of them...
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Henry, why is it the RTEB's job to research the "why"? If you want to know about partial birth abortion or late term abortion and why it is done, how the decision is made and what is allowed in the few extremely rare cases when it is done, do your own research. I would gladly discuss the issue with a rational person from the opposing view point, but so far none have presented themselves and I do not see the need to subject myself to the insults and judgment of those who see fit to do either on this issue.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Those of you who think George Tiller was nothing but a baby-killing monster might be interested to know that, according to Kansas law, every late-term abortion performed by Tiller was first independently evauluated by another physician who confirms that the proceedure is medically necessary for either the health of the woman or the viability of the fetus (in terms of severe birth defects, etc.). In addition, the "baby-killing" rhetoric obscures the fact the proceedures performed by doctors like George Tiller actually saved the lives of women. The fact that the contours of this debate revolves around a non-living "potential" reveals yet another way that we devalue the lives of women.
Comment by Paul — June 2, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Except, Henry #19, they did: "He got what was coming to him.
I guess God sent someone, like he sent Joshua into Jericho."
Comment by herb krebs — May 31, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Dan
Go look up the term "inducing labor". I don't have a problem with abortions to save the life or health of the mother. I have a problem with abortions designed to kill a handicapped child before it is born to avoid a legal problem. Honestly, isn't is safer to birth the baby and then kill it rather than jamming a sharp instrument into a woman's uterus?
Oh wait. If it is born and you kill it, that is murder. But if you kill it just before it is born, you can make money doing that. I see the justification now.
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 11:37 am
As long as you have Christian Right-Wingers spewing rhetoric and justifying the murder of physician who was providing a valuable need to the community then, I am afraid these murders from domestic terrorists will not stop. Can you just imagine Stem-Cell research scientist being murdered for the same reason or politicians being murdered for supporting reproductive rights? When will it end! As far as I am concerned, these people are no different than the Muslim extremists who murder people who do not follow their views or will not embrace their religious life-style.
There is a reason why secularism is the fasting growing group in America. Religious Extremism of any sort is a turn-off to the normal populace.
Comment by My_Two_Cents — June 2, 2009 @ 11:50 am
I realize that discussing an issue that affects between 0.08% and 1.4% of all abortions is a hot topic that will ave millions of babies and needs to be settled but unless the unrealistic view of the why is considered the argument is useless. I have come to realize the cold bloodiness of my fellow man in very stark terms in the last 8 years and I understand that those who do not value life feel that a woman makes this decision like choosing what shoes to wear, but without some rational valid reason to condemn her, I will always choose not to do so and your post is yet another example of why we should not. I value the life of the mother and I defer to her choice. That does not mean I do not value the life of an unborn fetus. There is as yet, no way to separate the two. It is not my choice but it must remain a choice. If you support the efforts we have discussed to lessen the need and thereby the numbers of abortion, great! If you think the need and occurrence of all abortions or even the rare late tern abortions will end, Good Luck!
General question to all of you anti-abortionists (and scenario loving posters): If your wife (daughter, sister) was 8 months pregnant and some awful medical emergency came up what would be your choice if you could not save both? Not your wife's (sister's or daughter's) choice mind you because you do not believe it is her choice remember?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Interesting irony in the "Joshua into Jericho" comment above because, according to the Old Testament, Joshua went into Jericho with orders to kill every living thing: man, woman, and child. If you want to paint late-term abortion providers as committing genocide, Joshua is not a good model to invoke because the entire Old Testament book of Joshua is a study in genocide.
Comment by Paul — June 2, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Here's a bigger conundrum: Should the murderer of Dr. Tiller get the death penalty if convicted?
Comment by Fernando — June 2, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Is there actual evidence of the scene you posit in #26 Henry. I trust you have some knowledge of such an event or proof that it happened and no one did anything about it? I would appreciate an unbiased source but I doubt you have one so any will do if they actually have proof.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
I think the original post by Henry engaged in the same rhetorical hyperbole as the RTEB in linking the actions of an extremist murderer to the cause they seemingly represented. While the RTEB tried to moderate their implication at the end of the editorial, the headline belies the apparent point of the editorial, to link the perfectly defensable Pro-Life point of view to the murderer who killed Dr. Tiller (in his 200th tri-mester). Likewise, Henry attempted to link Pvt. Long's murderer to the larger group who hold the perfectly defensable belief that the war(s) in which we are engaged are and were the wrong policies.
The difference is that Henry is a private poster on a message board. I expect more from the RTEB.
Comment by Mike W. — June 2, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
How exactly does the scenario in #26 happen in the U.S.?
"The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the act pertains to a procedure that is medically called intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
I don't think the people that vilify Dr. Tiller bother to find out what he did or why. They simply swallow home-grown-terrorist talking points and inspired one of these terrorists to go to the Doctor's church and murder him.
What did Dr. Tiller really do? He saved women's lives - women that would have died from late-term pregnancy complications. He helped women through excruciating circumstances, when they found their fetuses were horribly deformed, suffering, with no chance at survival. He helped 11 and 12 year-old rape victims who didn't even understand they were pregnant until late in the pregnancy. But the terrorists don't care about women's or girls' lives and futures or the suffering of their fetuses. They only care about keeping a literal death grip on women's right to control their own bodies. They don't give a damn if the mother dies or if a child is born so deformed that they only have a brief life of intense suffering. They only care about causing fear and terror and more suffering.
See this article on salon.com for more info on what Dr. Tiller really did:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/01/late_term_abortion/index.html
Comment by ps — June 2, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Henry what "rigorous criterion" would be imposed before determining that shooting a guy down in church is the appropriate way to go?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
ps, thanks for that link, I was crying before I was half way down the page. This is a national tragedy and those who do not see it are a shame.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
MyTwoCents...as someone around here pointed out earlier....terrorism has indeed struck here in the "homeland", as many solemnly predicted it would in the aftermath of President Obama's election.
To take their "theory" (using the word loosely)....presumeably this terrorist acted because he assumed that, in a nation with a democrat president, that law enforcment would be "soft on crime". In fact, this terrorist was "emboldened to act".
I guess the justice system will just have to prove him wrong. We're not soft on terrorism in this country, and Tiller's shooter will get to discover that for himself.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Thanks for the Biblical info Paul. I appreciate the knowledge.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Dan,
"Do you truly believe that there are many women who wait until the seventh, eighth or ninth month to have an abortion just for the hell of it? Do you not understand that late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, and are usually done to protect the health or save the life of the mother?
If Tiller was just doing these late-term abortions for the hell of it, he was a monster, and the women who went to him had no business being mothers. But there's more to the story - even if your moral certitude won't allow you to even begin to recognize that."
Late-term abortion is defined as those which take place in the 20th week or after, so that's five months and later. Tiller's own website stated he in late-term abortions and performed elective abortions in the second and third trimesters. In his 2001 video, he said he offered elective late-term abortions for women because of "occupations reasons" or "financial reasons".
We also know that late term abortions "to protect the life of the mother" are almost nonexistent. No abortions were performed in Kansas for that reason last year according to records in Kansas.
So I guess you'll have to conclude that Tiller was a monster who performed late-term abortions for the hell of it (plus several thousand dollars a pop).
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
What about abortions to prevent irreparable harm to the mother. All late-term abortions in Kansas were performed for that reason, according to Kansas state law.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
"Excuse me DT, but where exactly in your ghoulish and insulting rhetoric have you offered any moderation or compromise whatsoever? You cannot blame others for failing to do what you also will not do."
I've always said the notion of compromise on abortion is a ridiculous idea that can't be done. It's Obama, Dan, other liberals who have given lip service to that idea, and who, as we've seen, have no intention changing any beliefs of theirs.
And if my rhetoric seems ghoulish, it's only because I am holding up a mirror to the left's ghoulish advocacy of abortion, particularly late-term abortion.
"No one here has advocated that late term abortions are good for anyone, but rational people realize that they are the extreme minority of abortions done in the extreme minority of cases"
Unfortunately, Dr. Tiller specialized in this 'minority' of abortions.
"under extremely rigorous criterion NOT on some damn whim and you only further insult the women who have felt they had to make such an awful soul tearing choice with your insane drivel."
You need to take a look at Dr. Tiller's own website. Apparently it's his insane drivel; not mine. Sounds like he peformed late-term abortions for anybody who wanted one.
"You walk in those shoes and THEN you come in here as a judge of others. Till then, you are blowing smoke and yelling fire where there is none. "
Oh, we're back to that. "If you're a man, you can't comment on abortion". Have you ever fought in a war, been in the 39% tax bracket, or been robbed by an illegal immigrant? No? Then you can't comment on any of those issues.
"You want honest debate, then offer it."
That's what I'm doing. Feel free to join me.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
DT--Will you post the link to this website?
Comment by Paul — June 2, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
"What about abortions to prevent irreparable harm to the mother. All late-term abortions in Kansas were performed for that reason, according to Kansas state law."
Think about it. It was the doctors filling out these questionnaires for all abortions past 22 weeks -- the egregious late term abortions. If the doctor doesn't check the box that it was either "because the woman's life was in jeopardy" or "to prevent irreparable harm", then the doctor admits he's committing a crime.
Tiller's own website put the lie to that theory.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
Kansas law also states that a second, independent physician must certify the health ramifications for the woman. Tiller, as I'm sure you know, was acquitted on 19 charges that the physician he used wasn't actually independent.
Conveniently for you, Dr. Tiller's Web site is no longer accessible, so no one else can check what it said.
But the fact remains that Tiller was found to be complying with Kansas' strict law regulating late-term abortions.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
"Unfortunately, Dr. Tiller specialized in this 'minority' of abortions".
Why is this "unfortunate"? When you have a medical procedure done, do you want someone who does 2 or 3 a year? Or do you want someone with plenty of practice and experience to draw on?
This "past 22 weeks" number is extremely arbitrary. Can fetuses delivered at 22 weeks be perhaps kept alive? Maybe...medical science advances at a fast enough pace that no doubt in a few years a loaf of Wonder bread could be kept "alive". Is that in anyone's benefit? To put it a different way...does God WANT a fetus that is born at 22 weeks to survive? Clearly it's not happening without major medical intervention.
The point of "viability" will keep changing based on better and better medical intervention available.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
"Henry what "rigorous criterion" would be imposed before determining that shooting a guy down in church is the appropriate way to go?"
The same rigorous criterion that would imposed to determine whether to kill an innocent child.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel today.
Let's cut to the chase. Everyone knows abortion is wrong. That's why pro-choicers usually don't debate the topic with pro-lifers. It's hard to reconcile that one child has rights and another does not solely based on some other person's desire (see slavery). It's also hard for women to logically disconnect the child they carried and loved to another woman's child that gets tossed in the trash. If you carried a child then she carried a child and that has to be reconciled in some way. You can't say a child deserves to die because it isn't wanted. That's just evil. Yet we do say it. Just like we say it is better to kill it than put it up for adoption.
Abortion is just like slavery. It's an evil that we justify as necessary. The slave owners couldn't understand why the North couldn't see the need for slavery. The North couldn't understand why the South needed slaves. And no one asked the slaves for their opinion because they were irrelevant. One day our children will look back at us like we looked at our slave owning ancesstors.
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
From the 'heartbreaking' link referenced in #34:
"We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy,..."
Last time I checked most parents would die for their children to live, not the other way around.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
"Henry what "rigorous criterion" would be imposed before determining that shooting a guy down in church is the appropriate way to go?"
The same rigorous criterion that would imposed to determine whether to kill an innocent child.
Ah...so....the killer was wrestling with whether or not to give birth to Dr. Tiller at some point?
Fish in a barrel indeed.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
"Kansas law also states that a second, independent physician must certify the health ramifications for the woman. Tiller, as I'm sure you know, was acquitted on 19 charges that the physician he used wasn't actually independent."
Whoever said there aren't at least two ghoulish doctors in Kansas who are happy to share in a clinic that raked in tens of millions a year?
"Conveniently for you, Dr. Tiller's Web site is no longer accessible, so no one else can check what it said."
It's still out there. You're a journalist. You can find it like I did.
"But the fact remains that Tiller was found to be complying with Kansas' strict law regulating late-term abortions."
Again, the questionnaire was only as honest as the guy filling it out. If a doctor is immoral enough to kill little human beings, what's fudging a checkmark or two (or 20,000)?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
"Last time I checked most parents would die for their children to live, not the other way around."
Yes and if you have other children that would be left motherless, that would be a supremely selfish act.
Again...easy for a man to speak so cavalierly about a woman being willing to die of cancer out of sacrifice to....something, I have no idea.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Post #22 Kristen,... fish in a barrel.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
"Unfortunately, Dr. Tiller specialized in this 'minority' of abortions".
Why is this "unfortunate"? When you have a medical procedure done, do you want someone who does 2 or 3 a year? Or do you want someone with plenty of practice and experience to draw on?
Criminy. You just don't get it, do you? There's a holocaust going on and some of you think it's only about you. This isn't a nice neat sanitized "procedure". It's a gruesome bloody violent destruction of a human being.
"This "past 22 weeks" number is extremely arbitrary."
You're right. Any marker for determining "life" other than conception is arbitrary.
"The point of "viability" will keep changing based on better and better medical intervention available."
What does fetal viablity have to do with anything? The Kansas state records show abortion doctors proceed even with viable fetuses. Since Tiller performed the lions' share, one can only assume he had no problem with fetal viability.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
DT: "Whoever said there aren't at least two ghoulish doctors in Kansas who are happy to share in a clinic that raked in tens of millions a year? ... Again, the questionnaire was only as honest as the guy filling it out. If a doctor is immoral enough to kill little human beings, what's fudging a checkmark or two (or 20,000)?"
A Kansas court of law found Tiller not guilty of what you are alleging. The burden of proof is on you.
Though I guess the pro-life murderer of Dr. Tiller kind of made the point moot. Though that murder doesn't mean your slander of the late doctor should go unanswered.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
One of the reasons this debate will never be resolved is because pro-life advocates insist on calling the embryo and the fetus a child, all the while not recognizing the fact that what constitutes a "child" has varied from culture to culture and from historical period to historical period. However, the embryo and the fetus is something qualitatively different than a child. Just like an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, none of us would say the acorn IS an oak tree. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a child, but the fetus itself is not a child.
Comment by Paul — June 2, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
"Last time I checked most parents would die for their children to live, not the other way around."
Yes and if you have other children that would be left motherless, that would be a supremely selfish act. - Kristen
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts Kristen, we could feed the world.
We dont know based on that article whether the women that sacrificed their childs lives because they themselves had cancer actually had any other kids or not.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
"A Kansas court of law found Tiller not guilty of what you are alleging. The burden of proof is on you."
This legal thing with Tiller is small potatoes compared to his real problems. I never alleged the other doctor didn't do enough to satisfy a court. I'm just saying the law could be skirted in so many ways, why would a guy like Tiller have any compunction about cheating when he does his far more hideous acts without a second thought?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
"One of the reasons this debate will never be resolved is because pro-life advocates insist on calling the embryo and the fetus a child, all the while not recognizing the fact that what constitutes a "child" has varied from culture to culture and from historical period to historical period. However, the embryo and the fetus is something qualitatively different than a child. Just like an acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, none of us would say the acorn IS an oak tree. Likewise, a fetus has the potential to become a child, but the fetus itself is not a child."
It's immaterial what you call it. The fact remains a human life is irrefutably created at conception. Any attempt to say otherwise is just plain unscientific and wishful thinking.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
@ Dan # 53:
A Kansas court of law found Tiller not guilty of what you are alleging. The burden of proof is on you.
So OJ is not an acquitted murderer?
I think there is a legitimate case to be made that Dr. Tiller and the doctor who countersigned the forms were not meeting the standards required-or that they were at least stretching them beyond recognition. Dr. Tiller as much as admitted this in the video clip linked above. Let's not pretend that a criminal acquittal equals innocence.
That said, the man who killed Dr. Tiller should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but Let's not pretend that he represents the pro-life movement anymore than Bill Ayers represents Pres. Obama or the Democratic Party. They are both domestic terrorists on the fringe of their repsective groups.
Comment by Mike W. — June 2, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Henry...
With regard to your post#46 and I quote "Let's cut to the chase. Everyone knows abortion is wrong. That's why pro-choicers usually don't debate the topic with pro-lifers. It's hard to reconcile that one child has rights and another does not solely based on some other person's desire (see slavery). It's also hard for women to logically disconnect the child they carried and loved to another woman's child that gets tossed in the trash. If you carried a child then she carried a child and that has to be reconciled in some way. You can't say a child deserves to die because it isn't wanted. That's just evil. Yet we do say it. Just like we say it is better to kill it than put it up for adoption."
I beg to differ with respect to the second sentence in your paragraph. I don't believe that EVERYONE knows abortion is wrong nor do I believe that it is wrong. There are many instances where I believe and I think a good number of others believe that abortion is a medical necessity with regard to the continued life of the mother and fetus, the continued life of the mother or the continued life of the fetus.
By the same tokin, the fetus is allowed to mature and is born. I haven't been able to find any statistics that describe the economic situation of the mother and the financial capability that she and presumably the father have to care for the child. The child then has to grow up a ward of the welfare system in the United States. Can we still afford to pay for the welfare? It's a debate that seems to rage through the halls of Congress regularly.
On this topic, I'm woefully ill prepared, as I believe most men are, to rationally discuss what goes on behind the scenes between a woman, the biological father and her/their doctor when such decisions are made.
I think if I ever did find myself having to make the choice, I would choose the living mother first.
Abortion is not nor will it ever be an easy topic. The utopic solution is to either prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies or to be able to put unwanted infants in loving/caring/nurturing homes (and yes, I believe that gay couples are just as capable at raising a healthy normal well adjusted child as straight couples are). I would love it if there was a loving couple willing, ready and able to take an unwanted child at birth and bring it into a loving home. Does that happen? How many children are waiting to be adopted today?
But the more serious debate (at least in my eyes) is the ramifications that come as a result of inflammatory speech and rhetoric concerning those that we disagree with. I listened last evening to a gentleman who actually offered up an open apology to the nation for the inflammatory speech that he, his father and the rest of a very radical pro-life movement had espoused over the past 20 to 30 years.
He was most eloquent in articulating the fact that words do, in fact, have a major impact on people and how they view the world and specific issues. Those that are easily swayed can in fact be pushed to do things that are just as wrong as the issues they perceive to be wrong. While you indeed have the right to disagree with abortion at any stage, neither you nor I have the right to kill each other over the position that either of us hold.
Some web sites are holding the accused killer of Dr. Tiller and other convicted killers of doctors who provided legal abortions as heros. That's simply not right and should not be tolerated by what we want to call a civilized society.
Comment by Will — June 2, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
"So OJ is not an acquitted murderer?"
Actually I think that once someone's acquitted in court, you're not allowed to call him "murderer" anymore...they're no more a murderer than anyone else walking around.
Allowed is maybe not the right word...certainly anyone can call anyone whatever they want. But there's a reason we have jury trials, and just because we don't like the outcome of them doesn't render their judgement moot.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
The PROCESS of a human life starts at conception. There are myriad things that can and do happen to disrupt that process before fruition. Whether that process is interrupted by Grace, by accident or by choice is quite simply none of your business unless it is your embryo. The hubris that you feel gives you the right to condemn others is palpable but nonetheless wrong. If you believe in God, we will all answer for our choices in this life and I choose not to judge or condemn a woman who makes the choice to end her pregnancy, nor the doctor who helps her, nor the laws that allow it. Your choice in the matter is for you to answer to.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Sandi,
So by your logic, you can't condemn Tiller's murderer.
Let's dispense with the nonsense that a fetus is a woman's personal property for her to do with as she pleases. And let's dispense with the notion that someone's desire for convenience even approaches another's right to life.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
"So OJ is not an acquitted murderer?"
@ Kristen #60
"Actually I think that once someone's acquitted in court, you're not allowed to call him "murderer" anymore...they're no more a murderer than anyone else walking around.
Allowed is maybe not the right word...certainly anyone can call anyone whatever they want. But there's a reason we have jury trials, and just because we don't like the outcome of them doesn't render their judgement moot."
Perhaps we disagree, Kristen, but I believe juries sometimes do make mistakes. If you believe in the perfection of all jury verdicts, then more power to you.
Part of my concern about the death penalty is that juries can reach incorrect conclusions. It sounds like you have no such doubt about their wisdom.
Comment by Mike W. — June 2, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
DT...
Are you willing to assume complete and total responsibility for every fetus/child that's born regardless of the parent(s)? That's the next logical step in the progression of your argument with regard to a woman's body and the functions contained therein.
Comment by Will — June 2, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
"Perhaps we disagree, Kristen, but I believe juries sometimes do make mistakes. If you believe in the perfection of all jury verdicts, then more power to you."
I do not believe in the "perfection" of anything. I DO however believe in the system of justice that we all live under. According to some...if a defendent settles, he's guilty. If he's convicted, he's guilty. If he's acquitted, he's guilty...and on one memorable day, guilty for nothing other than "looking" (sight-unseen) guilty.
We get our day in court, and the result of that day is what determines our status.
I don't believe in the death penalty under any conditions, but I doubt that will be a surprise to anyone.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
DT, since I did not espouse the nonsense you want to dispense with I will not stop you or anyone else from doing so.
Mike W. there are those on this site who do indeed feel that an acquittal equals innocence if it involves a cause, issue or person they support. Your post #58 actually answers itself. A legitimate case was brought against Dr. Tiller and he was acquitted, perhaps not to your satisfaction but there appear to be people who not only supported what he was legally doing but many were grateful for his help through what must have been an awful time. Just as the people who constantly tried to conflate the relationship between President Obama and Mr. Ayers with 'paling around with terrorists' during the campaign, they still do and it was/is just as wrong as the conflation of Dr. Tiller and the Nazi's/ mass murderers and any other buzz words guaranteed to ring for a disturbed individual if delivered often enough. Why else say such things? Because you know that for some people, the charge (right or wrong) will stick. Such an emotional and important discussion deserves better from both sides but being the proud owner of a uterus, I will be just petty enough to respond to ugly with ugly every time.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
The vast majority of Roanoke residents will never have a fetus they have created aborted. Everyone in the Roanoke Valley, including those in the localities surrounding the city, will be affected by Roanoke's capital spending priorities. Isn't it time to stop debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and focus on issues that will have an impact on all of our lives every day?
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 2, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
"Are you willing to assume complete and total responsibility for every fetus/child that's born regardless of the parent(s)? That's the next logical step in the progression of your argument with regard to a woman's body and the functions contained therein."
Why do I have to deal with this silly non sequitur every time? Although I have personally adopted, why does someone have to be willing to 'adopt all the babies spared from abortion" in order to believe that abortion is the immoral destruction of a human being?
Let me give you an equally silly question, Will:
Do you believe the Forest Service should rescue lost hikers? Yes? Then are you willing to take in all these hikers and their families, and feed and clothe them? No? Then who are you to say the Forest Service should be rescuing these people?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
DT, are you afraid to post the link for that site.
Comment by allen bunch — June 2, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Not at all, Allen. Why? Can't you find it on your own?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
I think it's interesting everyone is blasting Operation Rescue for scrubbing their site, but not a peep about Tiller's people closing his down. They don't want his own incriminating words getting out, I guess. Something about 'elective late-term abortions'.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
DT...
It seems to me that there's a certain hollowness to your argument. If you have adopted, I'm very pleased and proud of you.
However, my question is not silly in light of the context in which it was asked (and apparently answered). Using your argument, society has every moral obligation to save a fetus from an abortion; yet, once the child is born society's responsibility stops regardless of the conditions into which that child is born.
I have a problem with your argument if you're (and I'm not necessarily pointing to the singular you) not willing to step up to the plate and do what is necessary to ensure the newborn has the care that it needs to survive until such time as it becomes an adult.
I'm not sure what the difference is in aborting an unborn child versus allowing the child to fall into squalor and starvation/neglect/abuse/disease/etc., etc., etc.
I believe there's just as much blood on those hands as there may be on the providers of the abortions.
Comment by Will — June 2, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Like he would admit to breaking the law on his Web site. I guess for an evil genius, he must have been pretty stupid. But now that he's dead, yeah, I'm sure that getting rid of his incriminating words was everyone's first thought.
That makes complete sense. Admit to breaking the law on your Web site while you're alive and at risk of prosecution from an over-zealous pro-life prosecutor, but take those words down immediately once you are beyond earthly prosecution.
Either that or the pro-life Web sites that you found quoting his Web site made it up or misunderstood what the site actually said.
Which makes the most sense to you, DT?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
I just noticed on Tiller's website he had a chaplain on staff. Jeez. Talk about convoluted. A chaplain making his living in an abortion mill.
Among other services, this so-called chaplain offered "blessings for aborted fetuses".
I thought it was just a clump of cells. Why would these leftwingers bother with a blessing?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Wow, was Operation Rescue murdered too?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
I'm not talking about legal incrimination, Dan. I'm talking about political spin control. The mission now is to paint the majority oppose abortion as zealots. They can't have it right out in the open that this guy advertised "specializing in late term abortions" right on his own site. That might cause people to look up from MSNBC for a moment and said "Hey, what the hell is this?"
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Will, you're keeping at this false premise for some reason that those who oppose abortion automatically don't care for born children. That makes no sense. I don't know for sure, but I would bet the majority that adopt are also pro-life, based on people I know who have done so.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
DT,
Tiller was in the news long before he was murdered, and he was a target of prosecution long before he was murdered.
You don't think legal incrimination might have been a bit more important than political spin control before his death?
And no one disputes that Tiller specialized in late-term abortions. That is, after all, the reason he was targeted for murder.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
DT how do you feel about WIC? AFDC?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
I suppose a lot of questions could be answered if we just had the list, that no doubt lengthy list, of all the women Tiller turned away from his "services", so he could stay in compliance with Kansas law ?
Comment by John Kemp — June 2, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Dan, But now the general voting public knows who Tiller is. It's no longer just the activists. And the general public overwhelmingly finds late-term abortion repulsive. So the leftwing spin machine has GOT to keep the spotlight on what's-his-name and NOT on Tiller. They have to keep Tiller's horrible vocation as low-key as possible. They don't want competing storylines here.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
"And the general public overwhelmingly finds late-term abortion repulsive. "
Yeah...the general public is WAY more positive about murder.
Tiller is well known. This is hardly the first time his name has been in the news. As for the so-called "pro life" movement...this is probably the first time they've been in the news since Eric Robert Rudoph blew up a few planned parenthood clinics. Pattern much?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
DT, you are simply a genius! I am sure that no one watches the O'Reilly show and none of his viewers ever heard of Dr. Tiller or that O'Reilly said he would like to get his hands on him among other things...Only activists watch that show and the FOX network? Who knew? thanks. And boy did you bust us, of course we can tell the story of this murder without saying why on earth this dear dear man would go to a doctor's church and murder him cause we are just that good. The vast majority by your own expert polling find late term abortion appalling, but we can bring them around. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Well gosh, John Kemp, just put it on the news, I am sure that the people who sought Dr. Tiller's services will be coming out of the woodwork now. Wouldn't you if your doctor had been murdered for wanting to help you?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Sure I would, if he had been trying to "help" me. I think you have answered the question Sandi.
Comment by John Kemp — June 2, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
Kristen,
"DT how do you feel about WIC? AFDC?"
I'm not big on wasteful liberal programs designed more to buy votes than help kids. Sorry.
"I suppose a lot of questions could be answered if we just had the list, that no doubt lengthy list, of all the women Tiller turned away from his "services", so he could stay in compliance with Kansas law ?"
Good one, John Kemp. That list would probably fit on a grain of salt. Let's face it. The guy offed kids for whoever wanted it. He was a butcher for hire.
Kristen:
"And the general public overwhelmingly finds late-term abortion repulsive. "
Yeah...the general public is WAY more positive about murder."
But how would they view one killing versus, say, 50,000?
Sandi,
Prior to Sunday, what percent of adults in America do you think knew who Dr. Tiller was? One-tenth of one percent? Now how many know?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
DT: "But how would they view one killing versus, say, 50,000?"
No. The pro-life crowd would NEVER attempt to justify murder.
Ever.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 3, 2009 @ 6:50 am
Kristen,
"DT how do you feel about WIC? AFDC?"
I'm not big on wasteful liberal programs designed more to buy votes than help kids. Sorry.
Color me shocked!!
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 7:31 am
So basically DT...you're completely typical.
You're not pro-child, or even "pro life". What you are "pro" is imposing your will on other people...."other people" in this case meaning especially poor women young women without means. Not the men involved....just the women.
Once these "precious young lives" come into the world, you couldn't care less if they starve. After all the blue-hairs at your church are too busy packing sack lunches for your little bus rides to Washington for your "marches".
Thanks for clarifying.
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Speaking of scoring political points DT, WIC and AFDC help more children than Operation Rescue will ever dream of helping and Dr. Tiller was used as a regular whipping boy to score points for Bill OReilly on Conservative's favorite network: Fixed News. You want honesty from others and yet feel no such compunction for your posts, how very telling.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 8:06 am
DT...
With regard to your post#77, how many anti-abortionists are also adoptive parents? I can't say that I've seen any statistics on the topic.
Are the anti-abortionists supporters of government funding for the prevention of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the first place? Do they support government funding of programs to remove children/infants from unsafe environments?
In theory, I would hope they do but the argument I've heard most often is that it's the responsibility of the natural parents to care for the child. The reality is that doesn't always happen...and in the meantime while we're trying to convince the parents to do the right thing, the child is suffering.
Is that right?
Comment by Will — June 3, 2009 @ 9:15 am
Tone down the rhetoric, you say? DailyKos and Democratic Underground say it is free speech.
DailyKos folks wish death on Michelle Malkin
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/06/03/kos-kids-back-it-wishing-death-upon-michelle-malkin
Comment by Henry — June 3, 2009 @ 10:02 am
How should Dick Cheney's obit read? That by the end of his term as VP he was slightly less popular than jock itch?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:36 am
Kristen,
I rarely agree with anything you have to say but that statement had me laughling like crazy. I've been in Poland for several weeks now by myself and needed the laugh. Thanks.
Comment by Jim W. — June 3, 2009 @ 10:07 am
The man did not deserve to be murdered. But women's rights aside for a moment, what state of mind would you have to put yourself in to perform a late term abotion procedure? Consider it seriously for a moment and be honest. Imagine yourself actually performing the procedure. How would you feel about it?
Comment by Jim W. — June 3, 2009 @ 10:13 am
Jim...I'm so dying to get out of town that I'm actually jealous of a few weeks in Poland.
Glad to oblige on the humor.
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Since I am not a doctor, I cannot fathom touching a stranger much less cutting into them or any of the other things involved in delivering a baby or performing an abortion. I cannot imagine 'getting' myself into either state of mind, murder or surgery. I do not think a doctor would take such a task lightly anymore than I think a woman would. That would an awful situation to be in as a woman or as a doctor. Compassion from your doctor is important when you are delivering a baby so I would think it would be even more important when you are not.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am