Monday, June 1, 2009

Murdering Anti-Abortion Nutballs Strike Again

Dr. George Tiller, 67, one of the few OB-GYNs in the country who performed late-term abortions despite ongoing threats to his safety, was fatally shot yesterday while attending a church service in Wichita, Kan. Scott Roeder, 51, has been detained for questioning.

Looks like another victim of christianity.


Ceroill said...

Saw this on other newsfeed and commentary pages. One of the details that's bringing out especially bad feeling on this one (compared to some attacks in the past) is that it happened in a church.

Lou said...

(Churckle)I saw where this guy blames O'Reilly for the murder. I suppose just reporting on something is Hate speech now. What a genius.

Amazing what the loony-left will resort to and the tactics they will take. Was it not possible to pull Rush, Hannity and Newt into the murder as well? Maybe Palin? Ha Ha)

csm said...

Amazing! Only a right-wing jackass would be able to chuckle at a murder.

And O'Reilly is free to say whatever he wants, but his speech regarding this doctor over the past years was incendiary and full of lies. Calling a doctor performing a "legal" procedure a killer or murderer is hateful - especially when there are right wing terrorists out there who will take it on themselves to terrorize.

And yes, this is a HATE CRIME. The intent is to terrorize other doctors to avoid doing their job when it consists of procedures that the terrorists don't like.

That said, I completely understand and empathize with folks who are against abortion. And many of them are not lunatics like the guy who killed Tiller and the other crazed people who laud the killer.

Of course, abortion should be safe and legal... and hopefully rare.

Lou said...

Their are HATE groups to the far left and to the far right. One side is not more innocent than the other. Guys like you ONLY see hate on one side.

I heard O'Reilly's comments and to hold him up as the source of the murder is pure stupidity. Anyone who believes such a things is an idiot.

Actually, a guy like the good doctor who perform such barbaric acts on a fetus that far a long is not so innocent himself. That is why a vast majority of the states don't allow it. A salary of 1 million a year has a way of easing the conscious. Paying off the governor also has a way of keeping it legal.

I wonder why only three doctors perform such ghastly services? If O'Reilly lied, then prove it and stop with the loony-left rhetoric.


Until the pro-lifers can explain away the hypocrisy in their capital punishment stance, I will not take them seriously. I always hear that the baby is an "innocent" life and the death row inmate is "guilty"(though not always, eh? DNA, anyone?) They want to save all life, whether unborn, unresponsive or unAmerican. The only exception is the death row sinner(aren't we all supposed to be sinners).

I believe a woman has the right to control her own uterus and I think with DNA evidence a heinous killer should be put to death. No discrepancy here!

csm said...

O'Reilly lied. He said that for $5000 Tiller will murder a baby. That is a lie. Tiller performed a medical procedure that terminates a fetus, not a baby. And that is not murder by any definition of the word.


Does that make O'Reilly complicit in the killing? I don't think so. It makes him a big pestilent pile of shit that only a fucking idiot would listen to... and it calls into question whether a television network should air such a fucking ridiculous opinion... but it doesn't make him guilty of murder... at least in my opinion.

csm said...

And where are the hate crimes from the far left, Lou? I am sincere in wanting to learn about them because I am against all hate crimes.

Lou said...

Oh, so because Billy thinks a fetus is a baby he is a lair. Oh well, your opinion is fact! Guys like you ALWAYS attack others with varying opinion. Bill did not contribute to the killing


But if you believe the far left is "reasonable" then you are one of them. Both extremes are dangerous and reasonable people realize as much.

Isn't ironic you have a problem with torture but sticking a shiv into a fetus at 50 weeks is OK in you world of moral supremacy. Well done CSM.

That's wrong and I don't car what Kansas law states.

Lou said...


Atheist groups support pro-life and capital punishment as well. Are you expecting a defense from them as well?

csm said...

To my recollection, Bawdy has never claimed to be a member of any atheist group.

And whether or not I have a problem with late-term abortion is not the issue here. It is that the doctor was practicing his profession legally. And he was assassinated by a right wing, christian asshole.

And Bill O'reilly is a pock-faced, whining liar. You can disagree with late-term abortion. But it ain't murder Louie! O'Reilly called out the right wing radical lunatics and the lunatics came out - at least one murdering lunatic, that is.


I am my own man, Lou. Csm, is correct, I am not affiliated with any atheist organization, I read none of the literature and I don't restrict myself to atheists. I just don't believe in any fucking God. My wife believes in some sort of higher being and I don't go around and belittling her all day long. I just don't believe in any fucking God, OK.

But you are right, I have heard of libertarian pro-lifers and some of these people go for capital punishment and some do not. You see, Lou, many people are complex; they don't fit into any kind of cookie cutter mold simple people like to put them in.

I notice you never argue with my basic point. This time it was the apparent hypocrisy in the pro-life pro-capital punishment dichotomy.

G said...


I don't see it as hypocrisy at all. Capital punishment is exactly that... punishment. The position is that every human being has a right to life until he/she forfeits that right through his/her criminal conduct (typically meaning the willful destruction of another human life). Every time a person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison, they forfeit some of their rights. Death is merely the ultimate punishment for the most heinous of crimes.

If you want hypocrisy, that would be the way it is legal to abort a fetus, but the destruction of that fetus outside the abortion clinic can bring a murder charge. How can someone face double-murder for killing a pregnant woman when it is perfectly legal to abort that same child?

csm said...

Finally, Lou, you make a point I can somewhat embrace. If abortion is to be legal (which I embrace), then I don't see how one can ever be accused of murder of a fetus. There should, in my opinion, be a separate law addressing the unlawful destruction of a woman's fetus. But not murder... that is, indeed, hypocrisy.

Lou said...

You are not a pro-lifer either Bawdyscot so why do you need the pro-lifers to being capital punishment into some sort of harmony with pro-life? That was my point.

Its much like csm with his protection of late term abortion and his belief in waterboarding as torture. They are out of harmony. And before you start csm, the vast majority of physicians (all but 5 last count) will not perform late term abortion because the fetus is life at that point.

I am pro-choice (not late term) and pro-capital punishment and they work in great harmony for me Bawdyscot.

The saddest thing about this whole thing was the American solder gunned down by a left wing radical Muslim. I heard a lot of grief for the late-term dr.but very little about an innocent soldier. The media is as bad as the politicians.

csm said...

Before I start? Hell, I've never finished!

Anyway, I am pro-choice (hate that term, but so be it) and anti-death penalty. And there is no problem with this in terms of Lou's "harmony" argument either. A fetus is not an independent human being until it is born. Once born, OK, then we should have laws protecting its life.

Do I understand people against late-term abortions? Sure, I understand people who are against all abortions! Hell, I'd never want to be involved with one myself, but I still think they should be legal and up to the individuals involved (that is, the independent, already born human beings).

Regarding torture, I never suggested waterboarding a fetus (could that even be done?) so what are you talking about, Lou?

OK, enough teasing, I see what you are trying to drone on about, Louie, but it is an idiotic argument. As soon as that fetus is born and becomes an independent human being, then I am against torturing him or her. Prior to that, it should be the pregnant woman's decision (with input from the man who impregnated her) what happens to "it."

csm said...

Oh, and lest you think I missed "American solder gunned down by a left wing radical Muslim"... I didn't.

You want me to take a stand on this? OK. I'm against it.

But here is a bit of information for you. Left wing and muslim don't go together. Well, except maybe in the head of lunatic christians. A muslim extremist is trying to push a different flavor of religious extremism than christian extermists. Same side of the street, different alley way. Only Fox News zealots and right wing mouth breathers are calling this murdered "left wing."


I second that motion; since when are Islamic extremists "left wing"? I have always heard and considered them extremist conservatives. Does anyone besides Lou think the Taliban are liberal? In Iran, the rulers fall into two categories, conservative and ultra-conservative. There are liberals in Iran, but you don't hear from them very much.

Lou said...

Actually CNN (and others)reported it as political and religious motivated attack. Since it is politically motivated as well, and realizing how the loony left portrayed Bush as a terrorist and a Nazi, that lead me to his political motivation as FAR left. Not a difficult conclusion and amazing how little coverage it got. We all know how places like San Fran feel about the military. Not a conservative haven. I have never read about a conservative killing, insulting or slandering any military personnel.

The far left seems to have a real motivation to protect the rights of terrorist but when it comes to children and babies they have no sympathy. A far left nutball in Oklahoma giving a child rapist 1 year for rape. Not the first time these lunatic judges have handed down such ridiculous sentences.

They protect such barbaric acts as partial birth abortion but not waterboarding???? Strange bedfellows indeed. In their world children have few rights. Four months is PLENTY of time for a mother to make a decision. At that point the baby should have rights. Just because you use the term "fetus" to describe a human being doesn't make it void of rights. If it can survive outside the mother, it has rights.

Ceroill said...

Lou, let me try this question out: At what point does the life of the unborn trump the life of the already born? Or in other words, when does the mother's life become disposable in order to save the fetus/baby? Or this one- Is it really preferable to deliver a baby that will only survive a few hours at most, even with the best support?

Because (unless what I've read is horribly mistaken) those are what late term abortions almost always come down to. They are a tiny tiny proportion of abortions in the first place, and ALWAYS a very serious medical matter, not a casual decision.

Lou said...

Ceroill I would like to answer you questions but in reality they rarely are ever the case. Check out the many MDs who contend that 3rd trimester abortions are RARELY ever needed. If they are truly needed for health reasons, I have no problem. You don't really believe he followed the letter of law did you? The Kansas abortion law is so easy to circumvent especially when 1M a year is on the line. You might ask yourself this question.

If the need is so great as you seem to assume, then why do only 5 MDs in the nation perform the service Tiller offered?

Ceroill said...

Lou, yes, I do think he followed the letter of the law. I'm one of these strange folk who like to give benefit of the doubt rather than assume unsavory things about someone. As to why there were only 5 doctors willing to do what Tiller did? Look what happened to him. That's why. I don't mean just the final event of his death, but the years of harassment and threats. How many people of any profession are going to keep going in the face of that kind of abuse? It could well be (again, I'm not making assumptions, just speculating)that he firmly believed that these incredibly rare procedures sometimes are truly necessary. Sometimes.

I'm sorry, but I just find it hard to believe in the idea that seems to be in the mind of some folks, of a woman who's been pregnant for 6 months or more suddenly saying to herself, "Gee, I'm just tired of this. I know! I'll go have a late term abortion! There's nothing to it!" And of course then her hypothetical husband nods over his morning paper, "Good idea, Honey. I'm behind you 100% on this." Or her mother or best friend, if she's not married for some reason or other.

But- Thankfully the two far ends of this issue are not the only places to be.

csm said...

Don't you know, Bob? To a right winger everything comes down to money. They just see dollar signs and then assume others will act like them and do anything to get the money.

Lou said...

True Cerolli the two ends of the issue are not the only place to be. That why I am pro-life with restrictions. Guys like CSM will support a live aborted baby being thrown on a meat wagon. Go figure.

iF you believe tiller followed the law then I would say you are incredibly naive. You probably believe everybody follows drug laws too or Obama will cut the defecit. MDs have repeatedly warned that this guy was aborting for reasons other than health. It is SO easy to do. Not only that, they claim abortion for mothers health is extremely rare.

As well, if you don't think many mothers would decided to abort at the last minute, you have not been paying much attention to American culture.

You know American police officers risk their life everyday for much less money than Tiller makes. No shortage there. You want me to believe only 3-4 MDs perform this because others they are afraid? I don't think so. 1M year makes you a little braver. You need to do some reading up on what other MDs have stated

Ceroill said...

Lou- He was AQUITTED on 19 charges by fully empaneled juries. Or are you convinced that there was a conspiracy that managed to influence multiple juries to vote as they did?

I admit to potentially being a bit naive in some cases. I'm not ashamed of giving the benefit of the doubt to most people most of the time. However, while I do know that early term abortions may be entered into casually by some (relatively few) women, I'm sorry but I just cannot agree with the idea that any sane woman would see such a major thing as a late term abortion as anything vaguely convenient.

I also agree that policemen are vastly underpaid. But I still don't think that the promise of wads of cash is going to make most people willing to carry on with the kinds of things that Tiller was subjected to for years. He was shot at before, you know, and wounded. He was no stranger to people being violent. From what I know of that kind of behavior, carrying on in that kind of situation usually only happens when the person honestly believes his actions are for the best.

Lou said...

Ceroill I never questioned he believed in what he did. I don't question the woman who come to him believe what they do is best. Many delusional people do barbaric things with dood intentions. I'm sure the man who murdered him was well intentioned. It doesn't make it right.

They are told all sorts of things that convince them to go for abortion. It maybe money, college or whatever. The fact remains, these are viable human beings and there are better ways such as adoption. I have seen interviews with nurses, MDs and patients that point to deception with tiller and places like Planned Parenthood. Many of these people push abortion like a dealer selling drugs. They are well intentioned as well but are to emotional about the whole debate.

Ceroill said...

Lou, so are you saying there are no medically necessary late term abortions? That all of them are either viable or of no danger to the mother's life? You know, it's also possible that the people providing abortions might not be the only ones not being completely honest. It could be that some of those who oppose it so loudly are not telling the truth either.
I suspect that, as often happens, the truth, whatever that may be, is somewhere between the extremes.

csm said...

Yes, right wingers are always concerned about the rule of law, unless, of course, it is a law they disagree with. So, you see, torture is legal (or it wasn't even torture at all) because the Bush administration legal team created memos to tell them that what they already did was legal, sure, no problem, and the right wingers lap it up without thinking. But Tiller, oh, he is a murderer of children, not a doctor acting legally under US law. It is just screaming, unalderated hypocrisy. Then they conflate a doctor dispensing medical care (albeit care they disagree with) with a murderer (see Lou's most recent post).

It is just sad, sad, sad...

Lou said...

I already noted that there are cases when the mother's life is in danger. As I mentioned previously, many medical practitioners have put this number at a very low percentage. I too suspect the truth is somewhere in between and that the good doctor was, on more than one occasion providing abortions to viable babies for other reasons than mothers health. I belive these babies have rights when they can live on their own.

If you don't it is your choice but I do find 75% of Americans believe as I do. It is the logical and humane viewpoint. I cannot find it in my heart to take a CSM viewpoint to life.


One of my biggest problems I have with the pro-life stance is how quickly these people get out of the picture once the little bugger is born.

I would venture that the number of "wanted" babies which get aborted has to me astronomically small, mainly for mother health reasons. This would lead me to believe that the vast majority of these potential humans are "unwanted" for whatever reason, legit or not. Since they are unwanted and our adoption infrastructure could in no way take in all these unwanted babies; I have challenged pro-lifers, when I talk to them, why they don't guarantee the happy life for these unwanted babies, every last fucking one of them. House them, feed them, clothe them, educate them through fucking college, love them, health insurance them, discipline them and take care of every other aspect of the little bugger's life.
I usually get in response adoption is good enough, but then why do so many barren couples go overseas to get their bundle of joy? Maybe adoption ain't so fucking easy or inexpensive for ALL these potential humans.

When pro-lifers can guarantee the welfare of all these children until adulthood, taking care of all of these children's needs, then maybe, maybe I would give my go ahead to have the state control the uterus of our female population, but probably not.

Lou said...

I/m glad I am pro-choice so I don't need to be responsible for the actions of the irresponsible. Sorry bawdy, one irresponsible action doesn't mean we should all pay. I guess with your stance the only one who really pays for the mistake is that baby who half way through the delivery process gets scissors jammed in its skull And no that isn't graphic, that is often what takes place.

I could care less about a mothers womb, I care about the life who deserves to live and was never given a voice.

Have a great week.


There again you don't argue my point, who takes care of the kid once it is born.

"Sorry bawdy, one irresponsible action doesn't mean we should all pay."

That is my fucking point, the kid is unwanted and whether you like it or not, we will all pay one way or another.

Lou said...

Hey, maybe we can just start whacking the elderly as well. We wouldn't them to provide an undue burden on their children. I mean if they are unwanted, pull the care! I feel certain we can define these people as obsolete and therefore not entitle to constitutional rights. That will probably fit in well with the new Obama Healthcare rationing plan.

The person who takes care of the kid is simple. The parents or the adopted parents. Hell, I though that was a given. Maybe we could give parents up to a year to decide if they want the child and just label the procedure post-term abortion. They may find it hinders their career, they maybe running low on cash and this new accessory is just too much to bear.

The modern mindset of responsibility knows no limits.


You obviously don't live in reality, Lou. The atrocities inflicted on children whose parents, who never should have had them to begin with, is mind boggling. I guess it is better in your eyes to have the child born into a home where it ceases to exist when the boyfriend shakes the shit out of it because he can't watch the ballgame because of it's incessant crying. That's ok though as we have prisons for people like that, no?

verification word: norbilly(a descriptive word for Lou?)

G said...

The contention that an unwanted pregnancy leads to an abused child is totally fallacious.

Lou said...

Wait, let me make sure this is correct. Abortion is leagal but people are still having kids they should not have had in the first place? Then abortion is not fixing the problem Bawdyscot. Crystal Balls are not fixing the problem either.

Bawdyscot no disrespect, but that is an excuse not an argument. With that argument we can take a shotgun in to 25% of the homes in America where some sort of abuse may/might/could take place. Why is it some folks believe taking a life or more regulation is the answer to every problem. 20 weeks to decided if you should have a kid in plenty. How did they get along before 1972; the year when abortion solved our domestic bliss!


The fact is none of the pro-life posters can tell me what we should do with all the unwanted babies you want to save. They are inherently unwanted.

I did go too far in my example as the situation should have been provided as a potential situation, but you cannot tell me this scenario doesn't happen and with some frequency.

Ceroill said...

Lou- very simple: They still had abortions, but since they were illegal, those women getting them (for whatever reason) had to resort to whatever they could find/afford. Back alleys. Unlicensed 'doctors' in unsanitary conditions. The kind of people willing to break the law for desperate women and girls. Or if you prefer, women and girls so psychologically twisted (or so pathetically naive) that they didn't care (or didn't know) about the dangers to themselves as long as they got it done.

G said...


The only non-politically-motivated study that has been conducted on the issue of abuse (E. Lenoski from USC, Heartbeat, Vol 3, #4, 12-1980) found that in his group of abused children, 91% were wanted, 80% came from homes with both parents. The single, overwhelming factor in cases of child abuse is a parent who was abused as a child.

What should be done with the kids? Isn't that pretty obvious?
a) The parent(s) raise them, or
b) They give them up for adoption.

Before Roe, we did not have a glut of unwanted babies filling up the welfare roles. And we did not have a glut of abused children. In fact, in the years since Roe, reported cases of abused children have increased ten-fold. While I'm sure a percentage of that increase is based on greater awareness, that awareness wouldn't account for such a dramatic increase.

People tend to adapt to unexpected changes in their life situations. It's a matter of personal responsibility for one's actions. If a person is unwilling to deal with the consequences of his/her actions, then he/she needs to refrain from those actions. But if we continue to send the message that there are no consequences to stupid mistakes and bad decisions (and not just with abortion), then the disincentive for maturity in one's decisions and actions will continue to grow.


But prohibition never works and there wasn't alot of reporting of alot of things back where social conservatives want to live. The man ruled the house and if he beat his kids or wife that was his business. Do we really know how many abortions were conducted each year before Roe? I'll bet we have some numbers, but are they accurate? That might account for some of the lack of kids on welfare, no? And don't you think that some of the awareness came from the fact women could open their mouths and have the same say as men; that my man is beating me or he is beating my children? When society becomes more transparent through freedom we also shine sunlight on the ugly underbelly.

I agree we need more personal responsibility and I agree it is better to keep the child instead of aborting the child, but I don't want to be the one to tell anybody how to run their lives and I don't want to have the government tell them either as I would be next in the sight line.

Lou said...

Ceroill I think the bottom line is this. Woman have all the rights and living babys have none. Too bad there is no balance. The fact mothers/fathers do despicable thing does not mean these babys who can live on their own deserve to die. To trivialize a life is quite sad. I used the elderly as an example and to this point the point has not been countered.

The key in life is balance and on this matter there is absolutely no balance it is all one sided. Woman have 10% of their rights and the baby is at the mercy of those rights. I fear we are moving more toward the Chinese mindset.

Word verification: THINK

G said...

Prohibition never works? You could say the same thing about murder, theft, child pornography, etc. Does that mean we should make them all legal? Of course not.

As I've mentioned before, the issue can be resolved quite simply. Either Congress or the Supreme Court (through some appellate case) needs to make an official determination of when life (and all the rights therein) begins. If it is at birth, then any abortion at any time for any reason should be legal. If it is considered to be a separate life at some point in the womb, then any abortion after that point would be murder.

Your position (that the govt has no business telling the mother what she can/can't do) is based on the belief that it is not a human life. Therefore, it has no rights.

To be honest, my view is that any argument other than whether it is a distinct human life deserving of rights is nothing more than a distraction. The only possible exception would be if the mother's life is significantly threatened by giving birth.

Lou said...


The pro-life/pro-choice labels are absolutely PC at the worst. It attempts to demonize one side or the other. So where do you put an individual who supports a woman's right to choose with regulations? That is the position of about 75% of Americans.


OK, for arguements sake, I believe a child is a child at birth. After birth a child only has the right not to be violated physically and emotionally. The rest of the rights of citizenry come when they are deemed an adult.

Lou, I don't like using labels either, but in this venue what are we to do?

Where we made the mistake is making this a federal issue. If federalism was the rule instead of the exception each state would make their own decision and then people could live where they wanted, get the services where they can and everyone would be able to feel superior to everyone else.

Ceroill said...

Lou, believe or not, I think we probably agree on most of this topic. I think most of where we differ is in how we see the majority of women who get these controversial procedures.

Lou said...

I didn’t doubt we had common ground but I disagree with the frequency trivial abortions take place. I watched an interview with the two MDs who pioneered late-term abortions. They stated that less than 9% of those particular abortions were for mother’s health or other critical matters. That fits well with Tiller proponents/patients accusations.

The sad thing is if this procedure was performed on puppies, Tiller and others would be locked up or fined. Unfortunately mothers are duped by counselors who push what they believe is best rather than providing a balanced view to abortion. Go to you local abortion clinic and ask to see a video of a partial-birth abortion. I’m very confident you will not get access to one through them. They won't expose girls to what really is going on. They are available and one of the most gruesome things you will ever witness. It is not a left/right issue as CSM and others like to paint it.

Ceroill said...

Lou, as I said, we disagree about the women who have this done. The evidence you've seen and have trust in point you to the position that it's a casual thing. While I do not find the evidence of that persuasive. If you like using shocking video and photographs, perhaps we should make it a rule that every single one is recorded and have those all assembled and find out once and for all how many are actually necessary or not.
Or, conversely, if they are not allowed at all, then the birthings should all be recorded to see how it impacts the mother's health.

But of course neither could ever happen. First there would have to be established an impartial authority that would be accepted by both pro and con factions. And I doubt that could be achieved. But if it was possible it would be one way to establish once and for all who's right.

Lou said...

My only point was this. If a woman is going to get a partial-birth abortion she should see via video what is being done to the baby. Many find out years later just how horrible it was and then live with guilt the rest of their lives. Shocking as it may be, you are not against giving a woman ALL the information are you?

Ceroill said...

No, Lou, I'm not. That also includes all the information of how it can be a life saver, and about the probable harassment she'll receive from those who don't think she should be able to have it done. However, I am against the gommint mandating to doctors what they have to tell or show a patient. I'm also against trying to make a woman feel guilty if she is just trying to get a genuinely necessary medical procedure. If the woman has discovered that it is really necessary, and has gone through all the legal hurdles already in place (such as having it verified by two independent doctors), if she's gone through all that, why try guilting her? And face it, that's the whole point of showing the grisly videos. Y'know, if anyone wanting or needing ANY kind of surgery was required to watch a video of it being done, I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of them would back out. Including the life-saving operations.

Lou said...

"if she's gone through all that, why try guilting her?

That is exactly what I am attempting to prevent. Listen to some of Tiller's patients and others. I'm sure they are on You Tube. Years of guilt AFTER they find out what really takes place. You are still in the mode of a woman whose life is in danger. I have already pointed out by men who pioneered the science that is less than 9%. Lets look at the others.

Just as importantly, turning our eyes from what is taking place does not make the reality go away. The baby doesn't get to look the other way. We shock our students in defensive driving schools and the ill effects of cigarette smoking everyday with videos. I think the brutality performed on the baby half way through the birth canal at minimum deserves the same consideration. This is big boy world and it isn't going away. This is what I mean when I say woman 100% or rights, baby 0%. Not being truthful has lessened the value of life

Ceroill said...

Yes, I am still in that mode. Do you have actual documentation about Tiller's patients, or is this supposition on your part? This kind of procedure is a tiny fraction of abortions as a whole, and then you claim that 9% of that fraction are valid medical necessities.

How about this account from one of Tiller's actual patients:
One woman who turned to him was Miriam Kleiman, of northern Virginia. Nine years ago, a routine sonogram revealed her 29-week-old fetus had major brain abnormalities that prevented the baby's heart and lungs from functioning properly.

Doctors told her the baby would die in utero or soon after birth. Kleiman's doctors told her a third trimester abortion was not possible.

Kleiman says she could not bear a two-month death watch. "There was a baby dying inside of me, and it wasn't if, but when," she says.

After desperate pleas, she says, a doctor scribbled Tiller's name on a scrap of paper. She and her husband flew to Wichita and drove through a gauntlet of protesters to the fortress-like clinic.

She remembers Tiller and his staff as kind and compassionate. She had the abortion and brought home her baby to be buried.

Kleiman, who now has two sons, says she cried when she heard of Tiller's death while watching her son's soccer game.

"I fear," she says, "that other people might not have this option in the future — to have a medical option that was safe, that was legal and allowed us to say goodbye with dignity."

I can provide the link to the news item that is from, if you like.

csm said...

Interesting discussion, Bob and Lou.

Lou said...

Once again Bob I never stated that some of the abortions are not legitimate. I keep making that point but you keep going back to the legitimate cases. I think we agree there. If he only killed one baby illegally that is enough. Evidence seems to point otherwise and Kansas has sealed his records so that they cannot be inspected. Financially, he has been very good to the governor which doesn't hurt.

My beliefs the man is breaking the law is from patients testimonials, many MDs who have spoken against him and the testimony of pioneers in the procedure. And again, its not just tiller. he is one among others.

You know, I have a personal story of a couple who were told their baby would die or suffer severe mental retardation at birth. He was just selected in the 1st round of the recent MLB draft. I guess the MDs just don't know it all and I suppose this woman who did not carry will never know for sure. I do understand her motivation and it certainly was not trivial.

Ceroill said...

Ok,Lou, that may be my bad, if I misunderstood you. But, as I see it, you also keep going back to he MAY have done at least one illegal procedure. Well, the fact is he was taken to court on 19 counts, and it took less than an hour for the jury to acquit him on all of them. Why? Well, it could be that they didn't understand the evidence. It could be that they or the judge were bribed, in which case I would expect an investigation of that. Or it could be a wider conspiracy with the judge, the jury, the defense attorney, and who knows who else involved just to get the man off. Or, it might be that the jury saw how he was being unmercifully harassed, threatened, even shot at, his business vandalized, and therefore may have used that in their decisions. Or, it could even be, maybe just, that they actually found the evidence to be inadequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The man was performing legal medical procedures in a legally approved manner, within the legal proscriptions and rules.

But it doesn't really matter any more, does it? Because he's dead, and that would be wrong regardless of what he did for a living, whether or not he broke the law, or anything else. But I think we agree on that.

Should abortion be a common thing? Of course not. Should there be allowances for medical reasons? I think we agree there as well.

*Scratching head*
So what were we arguing about, again?
Have a good day, Lou. Nice to have you around here.

Lou said...

I agree, when vigilantes take the law into their own hands nothing good comes of it. Unfortunately as well, for the babies involved many continued to be killed because a horrible law stands in our books. Lawful is a very open ended word.

When you have that many MDs and that many patients pointing out the horrible acts of another MD there in no doubt something to it. The far left doesn't even argue that point. In other words, where there is smoke there is fire.

Good chatting with you as well ceroill

csm said...

Caveat after caveat when the right doesn't agree with a law... when they do, such as the assertion that waterboarding was legal, then no caveats at all, just leave it alone, it was legal... sheesh.