Immorality of doctor's murder

What strikes me as odd about anti-abortion groups targeting Dr. Tiller:

Anti-abortion groups are indignant over abortions carried out on a routine basis and for those pregnancies considered an "inconvenience." Dr. Tiller was none of those things: he performed what were deemed abortions as a medical necessity; abortions that threatened the life of the mother, for severely deformed fetuses... I would think HIS work would seem less objectionable than doctors who routinely perform abortions as a matter of routine; at least, no more offensive. His work was the most difficult to consider -- from an ethical point of view, and an emotional point of view. But that he was TARGETED as a baby killer because the medical necessities were third-trimester is both ignorant and misguided.

It shows that people who even begin to defend his assassination are experiencing knee-jerk reactions to this issue... very passionate but with thoughts that are very shallow - like stones skipping off the surface of a pond.

Jeffrey Reel wrote:

What strikes me as odd about anti-abortion groups targeting Dr. Tiller:
Anti-abortion groups are indignant over abortions carried out on a routine basis and for those pregnancies considered an "inconvenience." Dr. Tiller was none of those things: he performed what were deemed abortions as a medical necessity; abortions that threatened the life of the mother, for severely deformed fetuses... I would think HIS work would seem less objectionable than doctors who routinely perform abortions as a matter of routine; at least, no more offensive. His work was the most difficult to consider -- from an ethical point of view, and an emotional point of view. But that he was TARGETED as a baby killer because the medical necessities were third-trimester is both ignorant and misguided.
It shows that people who even begin to defend his assassination are experiencing knee-jerk reactions to this issue... very passionate but with thoughts that are very shallow - like stones skipping off the surface of a pond.

Jeffrey

I was not aware that it had been firmly established that Tiller's procedures were all life-saving events or perfomed as medical necessities. Can you cite this assertion?

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Jeffrey
I was not aware that it had been firmly established that Tiller's procedures were all life-saving events or perfomed as medical necessities. Can you cite this assertion?

That info has been readily available in the press for years. The web -- at the touch of a button - can pull up that information for you. It was debated, legislated, supported by the judiciary. His work represents the most difficult and challenging situations for all involved.

His work was not representational of the 99% of abortion doctors who performed abortions "routinely" perhaps, at times, cavalierly. He should have been the LEAST of the targets. It goes to show how superficial some anti-abortionists can be, and how conservative "shock jocks" can so easily and superficially incite indignation to the point of igniting violence. It was totally illogical.

A murderer gets murdered for murdering. How lame is that?

Jeffrey Reel wrote:

<quoted text>
That info has been readily available in the press for years. The web -- at the touch of a button - can pull up that information for you. It was debated, legislated, supported by the judiciary. His work represents the most difficult and challenging situations for all involved.
His work was not representational of the 99% of abortion doctors who performed abortions "routinely" perhaps, at times, cavalierly. He should have been the LEAST of the targets. It goes to show how superficial some anti-abortionists can be, and how conservative "shock jocks" can so easily and superficially incite indignation to the point of igniting violence. It was totally illogical.

Hey Jeffrey,
Do want to say a couple of words about our soldier killed by left wing black Muslim terrorist in Arkansas?

Jeffrey Reel wrote:

<quoted text>
That info has been readily available in the press for years. The web -- at the touch of a button - can pull up that information for you. It was debated, legislated, supported by the judiciary. His work represents the most difficult and challenging situations for all involved.
His work was not representational of the 99% of abortion doctors who performed abortions "routinely" perhaps, at times, cavalierly. He should have been the LEAST of the targets. It goes to show how superficial some anti-abortionists can be, and how conservative "shock jocks" can so easily and superficially incite indignation to the point of igniting violence. It was totally illogical.

I know hat he did-I'm asking for some citation that indicates that all of his late term abortions were absolute nmedical necessities to preserve the life of the expectant mother. That is not available at the fingertips as far as I've seen.

The judiciary did not "support" him; he was acquitted, I believe, of some state charges in KS bit I don't recall any affirmations of his work from any judicial body.

I don't see late term abortions as being on the fringe of the pro-lifers radar; after all, in many cases, these children were killed past the post-uterine viability stage, yes?

proffy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Jeffrey,
Do want to say a couple of words about our soldier killed by left wing black Muslim terrorist in Arkansas?

He can't answer right now, He is busy making out a Happy Jihad card to the poor killer.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I know hat he did-I'm asking for some citation that indicates that all of his late term abortions were absolute nmedical necessities to preserve the life of the expectant mother. That is not available at the fingertips as far as I've seen.
The judiciary did not "support" him; he was acquitted, I believe, of some state charges in KS bit I don't recall any affirmations of his work from any judicial body.
I don't see late term abortions as being on the fringe of the pro-lifers radar; after all, in many cases, these children were killed past the post-uterine viability stage, yes?

"The judiciary did not "support" him; he was acquitted..."

That is how the judiciary works. That is how the judiciary re-affirmed his legal rights. That is judicial "support." "Affirmation" is implied in rulings.

"I know hat he did-I'm asking for some citation that indicates that all of his late term abortions..."

Correction regarding use of language: it's not "late term." That implies a point in time after the delivery date. The correct way to describe it is "third-term."

"I don't see late term abortions as being on the fringe of the pro-lifers radar."

It's not. It was so focused on third-term that shock jocks and anti-abortionists singled Dr. Tiller out as the most heinous of abortion doctors. In truth, no doctor could possibly perform third-term abortions anywhere in this country, legally, unless it was for specific medically-related reasons. Why do YOU believe he was legally allowed to perform abortions so late in a pregnancy?

It is ironic that he was targeted by anti-abortionists because, unlike other abortion doctors, his work was the most medically necessary, unlike virtually all other doctors who perform abortions. He was simply the easiest to demonize, and you all did a grand job with that.

What do you say now to those women experiencing life-threatening third trimester pregnancies? Go home and die?

proffy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Jeffrey,
Do want to say a couple of words about our soldier killed by left wing black Muslim terrorist in Arkansas?

Proffy represents older Americans, with old ideas... they have adopted an adversarial approach to life, and to most everyone they come into contact with. Their ideas will fade when they do. In the meantime, we have to suffer their insufferable threads. Here we are responding to a Letter to the Editor about the assassination of a doctor and he is "focused" on an unrelated murder in Arkansas.

Jim wrote:

A murderer gets murdered for murdering. How lame is that?

If the procedures were legal, when they were, then he was not a murderer in the first place. It is disingenuous to imply so, simply because you disagree with the law. If you do disagree with the law, then you should work to change it so that your statement might be accurate. To take the law into one's own hands, and to kill someone you disagree with is illegal, and it is murder.

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
I know hat he did-I'm asking for some citation that indicates that all of his late term abortions were absolute nmedical necessities to preserve the life of the expectant mother. That is not available at the fingertips as far as I've seen.
The judiciary did not "support" him; he was acquitted, I believe, of some state charges in KS bit I don't recall any affirmations of his work from any judicial body.
I don't see late term abortions as being on the fringe of the pro-lifers radar; after all, in many cases, these children were killed past the post-uterine viability stage, yes?

"...these children were killed past the post-uterine viability stage, yes?"

Of course they were. That's my point. Although I personally don't take much stock in the "viability" debate, it points to the fact that there were medically-related reasons that went into the always difficult and wrenching decision to terminate a third trimester abortion.

Swirling around this entire issue -- and going unspoken -- is the following:

1. Do you deny that there are third-trimester pregnancies that are life-threatening to some women?

2. Do you deny that those case-specific pregnancies need to be medically terminated to save the life of the woman?(Remember, we are talking about Dr. Tiller's work; not the work performed by other abortion doctors who perform routine abortions).

3. Do you deny that those cases would require a qualified doctor to safely terminate those pregnancies?

4. Do you deny that Dr. Tiller was one of those doctors?

5. Do you support the work of those doctors who terminate those pregnancies that are life-threatening to the woman?

6. Who will be the NEXT doctor you demonize who performs third-trimester medically-related abortions? Will you also murder him?

6. What is your explanation to those women who must terminate or die? Go home and die?

Your focus on Dr. Tiller was terribly misdirected and reveals such superficial, shallow and twisted thinking.

And yet another person Satan has deceived into thinking that abortion is okay because its not really a person. Biology 101: sperm fertilizes egg creating life. Science has confirmed it! And what do you mean that our law states it's not a human person because it yas not breathed in air? President Obama doesn't know when life starts and apparently this is a trend amongst liberals to justify their immoral support of the most evil act in our nation today. Of couse you won't admit it's a life because that would mean you support murder. And we have to cover-up this with fancy devilishg words like "pro-choice" to make everyone think it's good for socidety. But if it's so good, why do liberlas want to see it reduced? If you say that the unborn baby is not a person, then why do you say nobody is "pro-abortion." When you say nobody is pro-abortion, you say that because you realize that a killing takes place. Please don't allow the Devil to brainwash you into thinking that abortion is anything but what we all know it is...we all know what it really is in our hearts because God made the human heart to know when something is wrong. When we try to justify abortion, Satan has entered in and deceived the human heart!

A child born for even one minute will experience the loving gaze of its mother. That exchange of love will last a lifetime and how can you say insinuate that some lives aren't worth living? If God created that life (which He did) then life is good because God is all Good. You are you to judge what life is relevant and those which aren't? This is the same mentality that makes 90% of Americans abort babies with Down Syndrome. Any baby, no matter their phycial make-up or disabilty is a child of God. It does not belong to the mother as her property. It is the property of God and the mother is the vessel to bring that child's life to fullfillment! We need more Sarah Palins who say yes to life in any circumstance. We need more Bristol Palins who say yes to life even when society mocks her for having a child out of wedlock and giving birth instead of aborting. Palin in 2012!

Timothy3-15 wrote:

A child born for even one minute will experience the loving gaze of its mother. That exchange of love will last a lifetime and how can you say insinuate that some lives aren't worth living? If God created that life (which He did) then life is good because God is all Good. You are you to judge what life is relevant and those which aren't? This is the same mentality that makes 90% of Americans abort babies with Down Syndrome. Any baby, no matter their phycial make-up or disabilty is a child of God. It does not belong to the mother as her property. It is the property of God and the mother is the vessel to bring that child's life to fullfillment! We need more Sarah Palins who say yes to life in any circumstance. We need more Bristol Palins who say yes to life even when society mocks her for having a child out of wedlock and giving birth instead of aborting. Palin in 2012!

You are ALL ignoring the fact that some women will DIE IN PREGNANCY. THAT is what the death of Dr. Tiller is about. Stop throwing feints. Stops hiding behind Sarah Palin. This isn't about Sarah Palin's pregnancy. It wasn't life threatening, it wasn't about Dr. Tiller. You are all glazed over with denial. Don't quote chapter and verse. Answer the following questions, or simply answer: "I don't care if the mother and child die during pregnancy. It's ok with me."

1. Do you deny that there are third-trimester pregnancies that are life-threatening to some women?

2. Do you deny that those case-specific pregnancies need to be medically terminated to save the life of the woman?(Remember, we are talking about Dr. Tiller's work; not the work performed by other abortion doctors who perform routine abortions).

3. Do you deny that those cases would require a qualified doctor to safely terminate those pregnancies?

4. Do you deny that Dr. Tiller was one of those doctors?

5. Do you support the work of those doctors who terminate those pregnancies that are life-threatening to the woman?

6. Who will be the NEXT doctor you demonize who performs third-trimester medically-related abortions? Will you also murder him?

6. What is your explanation to those women who must terminate or die? Go home and die?

Your focus on Dr. Tiller was terribly misdirected and reveals such superficial, shallow and twisted thinking.

Timothy3-15 wrote:

A child born for even one minute will experience the loving gaze of its mother. That exchange of love will last a lifetime and how can you say insinuate that some lives aren't worth living? If God created that life (which He did) then life is good because God is all Good. You are you to judge what life is relevant and those which aren't? This is the same mentality that makes 90% of Americans abort babies with Down Syndrome. Any baby, no matter their phycial make-up or disabilty is a child of God. It does not belong to the mother as her property. It is the property of God and the mother is the vessel to bring that child's life to fullfillment! We need more Sarah Palins who say yes to life in any circumstance. We need more Bristol Palins who say yes to life even when society mocks her for having a child out of wedlock and giving birth instead of aborting. Palin in 2012!

If God is all good and if God is the creator of all where did hate come from?

If man is made in God's image why are so many of then stupid? Is God stupid and hateful? And why did God create abortion?

If you are talking life-threatening pregnancies in the third trimester, the baby is likely to be viable and the appropriate thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy with an early delivery. Can you cite an example of a life-threatening condition that requires the death of the child in addition to the termination of the pregnancy? I doubt you can.

The appropriate treatment is to try to save both. The baby may die, but that would be an unintended result of trying to save the mother.
That's alot different from killing the baby on purpose.

Life Matters wrote:

If you are talking life-threatening pregnancies in the third trimester, the baby is likely to be viable and the appropriate thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy with an early delivery. Can you cite an example of a life-threatening condition that requires the death of the child in addition to the termination of the pregnancy? I doubt you can.
The appropriate treatment is to try to save both. The baby may die, but that would be an unintended result of trying to save the mother.
That's alot different from killing the baby on purpose.

You are not understanding the question, or the work therefore of Dr. Tiller and others like him. There is no "saving" the mother or the baby in this regard. One or the other, or both, will die while the baby is in utero. Do you kill the doctor? Do you let the women die? THAT is what the death of Dr. Tiller is all about. You are referring to cases that never have to go to Dr. Tiller. Please answer the six questions, above. Don't pretend Dr. Tiller's work was anything other thann what it truly was.

Do you kill the doctor for saving the woman's life? For that is what you've done.

Life Matters wrote:

If you are talking life-threatening pregnancies in the third trimester, the baby is likely to be viable and the appropriate thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy with an early delivery. Can you cite an example of a life-threatening condition that requires the death of the child in addition to the termination of the pregnancy? I doubt you can.
The appropriate treatment is to try to save both. The baby may die, but that would be an unintended result of trying to save the mother.
That's alot different from killing the baby on purpose.

In cases where the baby is "likely to be viable" the baby is delivered. That happens regularly. This is not what Dr. Tiller's work was about. There are also babies with severe deformaties -- and we're not talking Down's Syndrome. We are talking severe "unviable" genetic deformitions.

In addition, there are cases where pregnancies are life-threatening prior to "viability" of the fetus. That is where the work of doctors like Dr. Tiller come in -- and targeted.

"Can you cite an example of a life-threatening condition that requires the death of the child in addition to the termination of the pregnancy?"

The question makes no sense to me. ANY termination prior to "viability = death of the fetus.

Jeffrey Reel wrote:

<quoted text>
"The judiciary did not "support" him; he was acquitted..."
That is how the judiciary works. That is how the judiciary re-affirmed his legal rights. That is judicial "support." "Affirmation" is implied in rulings.
"I know hat he did-I'm asking for some citation that indicates that all of his late term abortions..."
Correction regarding use of language: it's not "late term." That implies a point in time after the delivery date. The correct way to describe it is "third-term."
"I don't see late term abortions as being on the fringe of the pro-lifers radar."
It's not. It was so focused on third-term that shock jocks and anti-abortionists singled Dr. Tiller out as the most heinous of abortion doctors. In truth, no doctor could possibly perform third-term abortions anywhere in this country, legally, unless it was for specific medically-related reasons. Why do YOU believe he was legally allowed to perform abortions so late in a pregnancy?
It is ironic that he was targeted by anti-abortionists because, unlike other abortion doctors, his work was the most medically necessary, unlike virtually all other doctors who perform abortions. He was simply the easiest to demonize, and you all did a grand job with that.
What do you say now to those women experiencing life-threatening third trimester pregnancies? Go home and die?

Again, you state as fact that Tiller's patients were of situations that presented immediate threat to their life lest Tiller perform the abortion procedure. I've seen no hard facts surrounding this claim. You claim it as fact-on what basis do you make this claim?

Tiller alone could abort if the mother's life is endangered? No other medical doctor could perform this emergency surgery?

Tiller demonized himself. He took loads of money from women at their most desperate. He was no hero.