A liberal finally admits: abortion is murder!

[JimJimmyJames]

DR. TILLER'S MURDER: TRAGIC, NOT SENSELESS

By Ted Rall

How Pro-Choicers Should Learn to Talk to Pro-Lifers


NEW YORK--All too often in American politics opposing sides talk past one another, firing off arguments loaded with language that stands no chance of persuading those who hold other views.

The debate over what to do about 9/11 was such a moment, one that initiated the current era of polarization. When liberals recoiled at torture and GOP attacks on civil liberties, conservatives accused them of being anti-American traitors. When Republicans supported preemptive warfare against Iraq, liberals called them fascists and warmongers.

If we had the chance for a do-over, it would probably happen just the same way. The attacks in New York and Washington exposed a fault line in Americans' views of what makes our country great: liberals treasure the U.S. for the Bill of Rights whereas conservatives value living at the center of a wealthy and powerful empire. The kill-'em-all-let-God-sort-'em-out crowd doesn't live in the same universe as those of us who would have used diplomacy and international law to apprehend the murderers of September 2001.

The murder of doctor George Tiller at his Kansas church has again exposed the fault line over abortion. Both sides talk past one another. The pro-choice contingent snaps that pro-lifers, more often than not right of center, care only about human life between conception and birth. For their part, many pro-lifers fail to concede some obvious points, like the fact that forcing a girl to bear a child that results from rape or incest is obscene.

I am militantly pro-choice on practical grounds. You can't tie a woman down for nine months and force her to bear a child. And also on moral ones: women must be able to control their bodies. Nevertheless, I am disgusted by much of my fellow pro-choicers' rhetoric in the aftermath of the shooting of Dr. Tiller.

Reveling in the same kind of smug self-righteousness that characterized Bush and his supporters after 9/11 (did they really think questioning liberals' patriotism would convince them to support invading Iraq?), my fellow pro-choicers are attempting to marginalize pro-life Americans as out of touch and possibly insane.

"It's senseless," said the director of an abortion clinic in Portland, Oregon. Even President Obama weighed in: "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," said a White House statement.

If you're intellectually honest, however, murdering an abortionist isn't inherently "senseless." If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then the first cellular division after a sperm fertilizes the ovum represents human life every bit as much as you and me. The standard feminist claim that a baby isn't alive until it' "viable" outside the womb is ridiculous. I know 25-year-olds who aren't fully viable.

Abortion is murder. In my view women have--and ought to continue to have--the right to murder their unborn babies. Each abortion is a tragedy, some necessary and others not, and all of them are murder. It's not a position that I'm comfortable with. But as sad and horrible as abortion is, I can't see telling a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term that she has to do so.

For those who choose to prioritize the fetus over the mother, on the other hand, it is a simple straightforward leap to the next assumption. Since murder is wrong and mass murder is even worse, than it becomes morally incumbent upon people of good will to do whatever it takes to stop it. President Obama says abortion "cannot be resolved by...violence," but he's too cute by half. With abortion the law of the land since 1973, a Democratic-majority Congress and Obama about to see his (pro-choice) pick seated on the Supreme Court, there is nothing anyone can do within the existing legal and political system to put an end to what pro-lifers view as the annual murder of millions of Americans. What are they supposed to do? Write a blog?

"According to God's laws," wrote Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry after the shooting, "and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands."

Tiller wasn't just any doctor. His practice's focus on third-trimester abortions--60,000 in all, according to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, but exact numbers aren't available--had already prompted an anti-abortion activist to shoot him. "Dr. Tiller was well-known for providing abortions for women who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects," reports The Wall Street Journal. "He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses. Some of his patients, he said, were drug addicted and some were as young as nine years old." Complexity is so damned complicated. He aborted healthy late-term babies? Sick! But who wants a nine-year-old girl to become a mom? Not me.

For those who oppose abortion, the question is: Would you kill Adolf Hitler?

As liberal talking heads have been saying repeatedly, abortion is legal. But that's not much of an argument. So was slavery. So was denying women the right to vote. As Randall Terry points out, so was killing Jews in Nazi Germany. If obeying the law was always the right thing to do, we would teach our kids that George Washington was a terrorist. And no one would drive faster than 55.
True, many pro-lifers are right-wingers with their own problems with hypocrisy--I'd love to see the stats on "pro-lifers" who voted for Bush in 2004, after he'd murdered more than a hundred thousand Afghans and Iraqis. But liberals don't do themselves or the pro-choice movement any favors by glibly dismissing every fetus as a soulless lump of protoplasm or calling those who resort to violence to try to save them psychotic terrorists.

http://www.uexpress.com/printable/pr...02&uc_comic=ru

Whatever your take on abortion is, I wish we would be honest to exactly what it is. I learned long ago in college biology that when you abort a fetus you are ending a human life, period. That is where the debate should then be centered; is it permissable to end human life under certain circumstances?

I am personally against abortion. But would I be in all circumstances? Probably not.

One thing I know is that abortion is not a right granted by the constitution. If it were allowed to be voted on in each state, I feel a lot of the acrimony involved in the abortion debate would subside if people had the right to decide if their communities want to allow abortion or not.

[soberups]

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be legal and available on demand, no appointment required, anywhere that tires or car parts were sold. Getting an abortion would be as quick and easy as getting an oil change.

Abortions are bad. Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy is worse. It is truly a lesser-of-two evils situation.

No woman should ever have to go before some unaccountable authority and "beg" for permission to abort an unwanted pregnancy, or be forced to justify her decision on the basis of rape or life-threatening medical complications. It should be between the woman, her doctor and God.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that most of the anti-choice crowd are also the same people who oppose sex education in the schools, or easy access to contraception. Their entire "strategy" seems to be to lecture teenagers on the merits of abstinence in the hopes that they will not have sex until they are married. An admirable goal, but one that is not attainable in the real world.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by soberups

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be legal and available on demand, no appointment required, anywhere that tires or car parts were sold. Getting an abortion would be as quick and easy as getting an oil change.

Abortions are bad. Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy is worse. It is truly a lesser-of-two evils situation.

No woman should ever have to go before some unaccountable authority and "beg" for permission to abort an unwanted pregnancy, or be forced to justify her decision on the basis of rape or life-threatening medical complications. It should be between the woman, her doctor and God.

I have always been fascinated by the fact that most of the anti-choice crowd are also the same people who oppose sex education in the schools, or easy access to contraception. Their entire "strategy" seems to be to lecture teenagers on the merits of abstinence in the hopes that they will not have sex until they are married. An admirable goal, but one that is not attainable in the real world.

I don't know that the anti-choice crowd has ever been opposed to educaton on abstinence. When you speak against unwanted pregnancies you should at the same time bless yourself and thank god that you yourself were not determined to be an unwanted pregnancy.

[UpstateNYUPSer]

I consider myself to be pro-choice but do not think that abortion should be considered as simply another birth control choice.

[soberups]

Originally Posted by tieguy

I don't know that the anti-choice crowd has ever been opposed to educaton on abstinence. When you speak against unwanted pregnancies you should at the same time bless yourself and thank god that you yourself were not determined to be an unwanted pregnancy.

The anti-choice crowd typically opposes contraception and sexual education being available in schools. They believe that the only thing that a teenager needs to be taught is to wait to have sex until marriage.

I'm not going to argue the point that abstinence until marriage is the best choice. Unfortunately, that is not the choice that most teenagers are going to make. This is the real world, not some right-wing fantasy land.

I believe that using abortion as simply another birth-control method is morally wrong. However, I am not the one who is going to carry the child to term and give birth to it....so my personal opinion should have no bearing.

There are no "good" answers here. The best of the bad choices available to us is to make sure that abortions are safe, legal and rare.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by JimJimmyJames

http://www.uexpress.com/printable/pr...02&uc_comic=ru

Whatever your take on abortion is, I wish we would be honest to exactly what it is. I learned long ago in college biology that when you abort a fetus you are ending a human life, period. That is where the debate should then be centered; is it permissable to end human life under certain circumstances?

I am personally against abortion. But would I be in all circumstances? Probably not.

One thing I know is that abortion is not a right granted by the constitution. If it were allowed to be voted on in each state, I feel a lot of the acrimony involved in the abortion debate would subside if people had the right to decide if their communities want to allow abortion or not.

I noticed they referred to Tillers death as murder but not his actions in performing late term abortions. I find myself wondering what he was doing in church when he recieved his abortion. Did he think attending church would absolve him of his sins. Did he silently pray for forgiveness for performing this butchery? Will his heat setting in his new place be put on maximum or do they break him in with a lesser heat for the first zillion years or so.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by tieguy

I find myself wondering what he was doing in church when he received his abortion. Did he think attending church would absolve him of his sins.

I believe he was a Christian and therefore it was his acceptance of Christ as his savior that would absolve him of his sins. ... just like you or I, assuming you are a Christian.

[stevetheupsguy]

This is definitely a "HOT TOPIC". I'm just adding my 2¢ so that I can have it listed in my subscriptions. Like any car accident, you just can't seem not to look.

[browndevil]

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Sober's post. That being said, let me ask the qestion this way. If the tables were turned and it was us guys who could get pregnant would we want a choice?

[soberups]

Originally Posted by browndevil

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Sober's post. That being said, let me ask the qestion this way. If the tables were turned and it was us guys who could get pregnant would we want a choice?

If us guys could get pregnant there would be abortion clinics in sports bars and we could get one while drinking a beer and watching a game. Or, we could pull our car in to the shop to get a lube oil and filter and get an abortion at the same time.

Abortion laws have always been about maintaining control over women.

[tourists24]

Originally Posted by browndevil

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Sober's post. That being said, let me ask the qestion this way. If the tables were turned and it was us guys who could get pregnant would we want a choice?

What does it matter if the man gets pregnant or not....? abortion is abortion, it is murdering a baby. You have other options than murder. You want to get rid of the baby because you are inconvenienced? That the baby MAY have a rough life? Take away it's suffering by killing it?.... Nah, I'll stick to anti abortion side

[soberups]

Originally Posted by tourists24

What does it matter if the man gets pregnant or not....? abortion is abortion, it is murdering a baby. You have other options than murder. You want to get rid of the baby because you are inconvenienced? That the baby MAY have a rough life. Take away it's suffering by killing it?.... Nah, I'll stick to anti abortion side

So do you believe that a woman who was raped should be forced to carry the child to term and give birth to it?

Do you believe that a woman whose life or health is endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term should be forced to do so anyway?

What about the 13 yr old girl who is molested and impregnated by a relative?

If you believe that exceptions should be made for such situations then you are, by your own standards, condoning murder....in situations where your morality deems it to be acceptable.

Such exceptions would, by definition, require the woman to get "permission" from some higher authority. The woman would have to somehow prove she was raped, or pay several doctors to testify that her health would be at risk.

To whom do we as a society grant this authority to? And what rights should we grant the woman to appeal if her "request" is denied?

A woman (or child) who has come to the difficult decision that an abortion is her best choice is already dealing with enough problems. We dont need to make the situation worse by requiring her to beg for permission and justify her reasons for wanting to end her pregnancy to some unaccountable bureacratic committee.

One last thing to remember; outlawing abortions will not stop them from occuring. Those with enough money will simply drive or fly up to Canada to have them done. Those who lack the money will have to resort to coat hangers or unlicensed, unsafe back alley abortionists. The wealthy will skirt the law while the poor will be victimized by it.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by soberups

What about the 13 yr old girl who is molested and impregnated by a relative?

You mean like David Letterman?
And I think Willow is 14.

[browndevil]

Originally Posted by tourists24

What does it matter if the man gets pregnant or not....? abortion is abortion, it is murdering a baby. You have other options than murder. You want to get rid of the baby because you are inconvenienced? That the baby MAY have a rough life? Take away it's suffering by killing it?.... Nah, I'll stick to anti abortion side

I think you and I have been down this road a while back. I respect your opinion and believe you will do what is right for your family. The reason why I said "us guys" is to mean what if the shoe was on the other foot and we were in situations that Sober has layed out what options would "we" want available to "us"?

Keep it safe and hopefully rare and keep the conversation open and honest with our kids

[tourists24]

Originally Posted by soberups

So do you believe that a woman who was raped should be forced to carry the child to term and give birth to it?

Do you believe that a woman whose life or health is endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term should be forced to do so anyway?

What about the 13 yr old girl who is molested and impregnated by a relative?

If you believe that exceptions should be made for such situations then you are, by your own standards, condoning murder....in situations where your morality deems it to be acceptable.

Such exceptions would, by definition, require the woman to get "permission" from some higher authority. The woman would have to somehow prove she was raped, or pay several doctors to testify that her health would be at risk.

To whom do we as a society grant this authority to? And what rights should we grant the woman to appeal if her "request" is denied?

A woman (or child) who has come to the difficult decision that an abortion is her best choice is already dealing with enough problems. We dont need to make the situation worse by requiring her to beg for permission and justify her reasons for wanting to end her pregnancy to some unaccountable bureacratic committee.

One last thing to remember; outlawing abortions will not stop them from occuring. Those with enough money will simply drive or fly up to Canada to have them done. Those who lack the money will have to resort to coat hangers or unlicensed, unsafe back alley abortionists. The wealthy will skirt the law while the poor will be victimized by it.

You bring up tough scenarios to try and make your point. I dont condone abortion in any situation. It is still MURDER. Yes it puts the woman in a difficult situation; understood. (The only situation to look at may be if the mother's life is TRULY in danger. That I do struggle with). All I can say in response to that without getting into an essay is that the baby is still a human and didnt ask for it to happen either. Murdering it is still done for the inconvience of the woman.

Where is the authority given? The same authority for laws against any murder. Just because you cant physically see the baby doesnt mean it isnt as human as any of us. Asking "permission" to murder? Nah, not buying that.

As far as a woman getting an abortion anyway. Well then that is something she will have to decide on her own. If she is hellbent on killing the baby, then that is Canada's burden to bear. Murders still happen everyday. It is against the law to kill someone, but the law is still there.

I dont like government interference any more than you do, but they do have a term for a lawless society, and that is not good either.

[soberups]

Originally Posted by tourists24

You bring up tough scenarios to try and make your point. I dont condone abortion in any situation. It is still MURDER. Yes it puts the woman in a difficult situation; understood. (The only situation to look at may be if the mother's life is TRULY in danger. That I do struggle with). All I can say in response to that without getting into an essay is that the baby is still a human and didnt ask for it to happen either. Murdering it is still done for the inconvience of the woman.

To a woman who has been raped and is facing the prospect of spending the next 19 years of her life bearing, birthing and caring for the offspring of her rapist....its a bit more than an "inconvenience".

I dont fault you one bit for having your opinion. Its just one of those situations where your opinion should necessarily take a back seat to the rights of the woman who is actually dealing with it.

[UPSNewbie]

Sober brought up abstinence vs. sex education. Just two years out of high school, I can tell you abstinence did jack s*** for the majority of people in my school. I love to learn, so yes, I did look up the the details of sexuality and how to have and have had sex, safely. Many others have not.

Example: I was a junior when a freshmen girl got in an argument with me about how condoms increase the chance of pregnancy. Admittedly, she was as stupid as they come, but what if she learned information about safe sex from a teacher? Most likely, she would keep that information--the correct information.

A study shows that 46% of teenagers (15-19) have had sex at least once. If half of the teenage populace are having sex, wouldn't it be ridiculously smart to at least teach them how to have safe sex, therefor lowering the amount of abortions, therefor making everyone happy?

Keep neglecting the teachings of important stuff.

*Protip=teens don't listen to "sex is bad, mmk"*

[tourists24]

To a woman who has been raped and is facing the prospect of spending the next 19 years of her life bearing, birthing and caring for the offspring of her rapist....its a bit more than an "inconvenience".

One, there are other options to spending 19 years of her life dealing with this unwanted child. What you mention may be a very very rough inconvenience for the woman, but aborting is still just an excuse for killing that innocent child.

I dont fault you one bit for having your opinion. Its just one of those situations where your opinion should necessarily take a back seat to the rights of the woman who is actually dealing with it.

What about the rights of the baby? Do THEY have any rights? I guess not if it puts a woman in a stressful and unwanted situation. On the other side of the coin, what if your parent develops alzheimers? Should you be able to kill them early on because you will be inconvenienced with the possibility of a long stressful road ultimately ending in death anyway? Of course not.

I know that this is a sensitive issue, but hey it was put up for debate here on the BC. I guess we just look at it from different angles. You look at it from the viewpoint of the woman, I look at it from the angle of the baby.

[Jones]

Speaking just for myself, I do not consider a blastocyst to be a baby, much less the equivalent of a human being with all the same rights and protections. A blastocyst is a potential human being however, and once again speaking just for myself, I would never make the decision to have an abortion simply for the sake of convenience. But if you've ever worked in an abortion clinic, or know someone who has, you realize that the vast majority of women who make that decision truly agonize over it. It's rarely, if ever, an easy choice to make and I agree with Sober that it should be entirely the decision of the woman involved. One dick = no vote.

[moreluck]

Most couples say or think, "Let's make a baby".......not "Let's make a blastocyst"

I still believe life begins at conception and abortion is the killing of a human. JMO

[over9five]

Originally Posted by moreluck

Most couples say or think, "Let's make a baby".......not "Let's make a blastocyst"

I still believe life begins at conception and abortion is the killing of a human. JMO

Me too. And I don't believe in any exceptions.

No matter what happened to the poor woman, she is "inconvenienced" for 9 months only. Then she can give the baby up for adoption, and never see it again. No need to give the death penalty to the yet unborn child.

Murder avoided.

It is illegal to kill a one day old child. We make those laws (even those of us with dicks). There is no difference between murdering a one day old child and abortion.

[tourists24]

Originally Posted by Jones

Speaking just for myself, I do not consider a blastocyst to be a baby, much less the equivalent of a human being with all the same rights and protections. A blastocyst is a potential human being however, and once again speaking just for myself, I would never make the decision to have an abortion simply for the sake of convenience. But if you've ever worked in an abortion clinic, or know someone who has, you realize that the vast majority of women who make that decision truly agonize over it. It's rarely, if ever, an easy choice to make and I agree with Sober that it should be entirely the decision of the woman involved. One dick = no vote.

Isnt a blastocyst considered to be early on? Very early isnt it? Even if it wasnt human at this point, at exactly what second does it become human?

You do bring up a good point in this Jones about women in the abortion clinics: If it is not a human being, then why would a woman agonize over it? If it isnt a baby, then it should be easy to get rid of it as easy as having a wart removed. It would be a relief to be rid of.

One dick=no vote? lol.... ok that's funny. Does bring a good twist though to be brought up in another thread.

[Hoaxster]

Originally Posted by Jones

Speaking just for myself ...

Finally, someone with the wisdom to know that's all they can do.

[Jones]

Originally Posted by tourists24

Isnt a blastocyst considered to be early on? Very early isnt it? Even if it wasnt human at this point, at exactly what second does it become human?

You do bring up a good point in this Jones about women in the abortion clinics: If it is not a human being, then why would a woman agonize over it? If it isnt a baby, then it should be easy to get rid of it as easy as having a wart removed. It would be a relief to be rid of.

One dick=no vote? lol.... ok that's funny. Does bring a good twist though to be brought up in another thread.

For what it's worth, I think that's the right question to ask.

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by Jones

Speaking just for myself, I do not consider a blastocyst to be a baby, much less the equivalent of a human being with all the same rights and protections. A blastocyst is a potential human being however, and once again speaking just for myself, I would never make the decision to have an abortion simply for the sake of convenience. But if you've ever worked in an abortion clinic, or know someone who has, you realize that the vast majority of women who make that decision truly agonize over it. It's rarely, if ever, an easy choice to make and I agree with Sober that it should be entirely the decision of the woman involved. One dick = no vote.

This is the very reason I chose not to engage in The Abortion debate.....if we can't get passed the first issue of what to call or consider the contents of the women's womb then whats the purpose of continuing a dialog with those individuals. This only cements the arguement of sustaining the seperation of the church and state. Just another wrench thrown into the gears of the scientific community vs the religious far right.
For the record, I too don't believe in abortion, but I feel the option available for women under dire circumstances.....and lets not get started with the hypocrisies of fertility drugs .....and lets not get started with cutting baby mamma's welfare check after encouraging her to bring children into their poverty stricken world......

Originally Posted by over9five

No matter what happened to the poor woman, she is "inconvenienced" for 9 months only. Then she can give the baby up for adoption, and never see it again. No need to give the death penalty to the yet unborn child.

Murder avoided.

It is illegal to kill a one day old child. We make those laws (even those of us with dicks). There is no difference between murdering a one day old child and abortion.

Over9five, don't expect an inconvienced mom to just sever ties with the natural bond developed between mother and baby as if their puppies up for adoption....thats something (us with d!cks) will never begin to comprehend.