Abortion Doctor George Tiller Reportedly Killed at Church, page 3

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:18 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheory
[...] Why would a woman who does not want a child allow herself to get pregnant only to abort the baby. [...] The majority of abortions are done because the woman could not keep her legs closed or was to drunk or drugged to know any better. [...]

First of all, could you please link your statistics, we are on ATS you know

Secondly, have you got a daughter?
Imagine she got a spiked drink (i.e. drunk and drugged) and then abused, i.e. raped.
Pro-choice or pro control?

Slightly offtopic:
If someone happens to be bored I'ld love to know what these radical anti-choice activists say on other threads about governmental control... ... ...

WhatTheory

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:20 PM

link

Originally posted by Sonya610
Takes TWO to make a baby. What about the guy that couldn't help sticking it inbetween those legs KNOWING that the woman probably did not want to have a baby???

What about him? Oh wait, men have nothing to do with this whole pregnancy thing. I forgot.

Of course the man should be responsible but if the woman does not want to have a baby then all she has to do is say no and keep her legs shut. The woman is the one who gets pregnant so the buck stop with her. If she is not willing to have a baby, them keep them legs shut. Unless you are talking about rape, you really don't have a point.

Monger

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:23 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Monger
The hypocrisy of the so-called 'pro-life' movement astounds and disgusts me to my core.
....

Again, another knee-jerk reactionist who spews talking points instead of thinking for themselves.

What is actual hypocrisy is the so-called 'pro-choice' movement who does not have a problem killing an unborn innocent defensless baby yet will scream and whine like a little girl protesting the death penalty or innocent civilian deaths in war.
Now that is astounding and disgusting!

You could figure all that about me out from a single post? Speaking of knee jerk reactions, you couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, I don't belong so any sort of 'movement' - pro choice or otherwise. I just happen to be an individual who fully support's a woman's right to choose whether to abort a fetus or to give birth to it.

Secondly, I fully support the death penalty under the right circumstances.

And who, exactly, SUPPORTS innocent civilian deaths during a war? You truly are skewed.

Epic Wolf

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:24 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Another knee-jerk reactionist.

You would know.

I am not judging anyone's morals. This is your twisted logic attempting to justify the murder of innocent little defensless babies.

You seem to have confused a fetus with a baby.

All I am saying is that IMO, killing innocent babies is wrong.

I agree. Killing babies is wrong. However, a developing fetus is not a baby. Also, stop adding "innocent" in front of things. It's annoying, and usually wrongly attributed.

Why would a woman who does not want a child allow herself to get pregnant only to abort the baby.

Don't act like you know or understand the circumstances of every abortion ever. You don't.

Don't start spewing your talking points about the health of the baby or mother because those are a tiny portion of abortions.

Wrong. Reality disagrees.

The majority of abortions are done because the woman could not keep her legs closed or was to drunk or drugged to know any better.

I didn't know you knew that was the circumstance for the "majority" of abortions. Care to prove this claim? I'm willing to bet your "omniscient" claim is wrong. Even if your situation is the case, the woman has every right to her own womb. Nothing has the "right" to live inside another.

A womans inability to make a sound decision is no reason to murder a innocent little defenseless baby.

I agree. Again, fetuses are not babies, and stop adding on "innocent". It's still annoying and redundant.

As to your other lame point, I am not a religious person. While I was raised as a Catholic, I unfortunately don't currently practice the religion and reluctantly only go to church on a rare occassion when forced by my wife. So again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you for being the perfect example how atheists/non-religious/agnostic are not all the same stripe, and have different views on things, and that we're not all the same. Especially views that are fundamentally inaccurate.

gimme_some_truth

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:25 PM

link

Originally posted by seagull
If it turns out that this doctor was killed by a "prolife" advocate, it raises the level of hypocrisy to new heights.

My question is this: What does this solve? Death to prevent death? All this'll do is harden opinions even more, resulting in more deaths.

But it may turn out that this murder isn't even related to his profession.

But no matter who, it is and will remain a murder. Unjustifiable by any measure.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Absolutley. I was just thinking that. If this guy was killed by a pro lifer that will be such a hugely hypocritical act. Apparently it is not ok for others to "kill" but it is ok for them?

Give me a break. If this turns out to be an action performed by a pro lifer ( I bet it will) this will be yet another huge stain on the already highly tarnished reputation of the pro-life movement.

Not all pro-lifers are bad, do not get me wrong, but there have been numerous occasions in which pro lifers have crossed the line into unacceptable behavior.

Stalking people, breaking into their homes, vandalizing it attacking them etc.... Now possibly going against their own beliefs and killing!

Such hypocracy...

I can just imagine the argument this killer will have.... " Well one life to save a bunch is ok...." Not it is not you hypocrite! If you are pro life than no life is to be taken! Period. Such hypocracy

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

WhatTheory

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:27 PM

link

Originally posted by Aldolas
First of all, could you please link your statistics, we are on ATS you know

Give me a break. Unless you believe the majority of abortions are done because of rape then you don't have a point. It's like saying provide a link that the sky is blue.

Secondly, have you got a daughter?
Imagine she got a spiked drink (i.e. drunk and drugged) and then abused, i.e. raped.
Pro-choice or pro control?

Yes, I do have a daughter and your option is pro-murder or pro-life. I choose pro-life. Again, it's funny how you and those who think like you always point to some tiny minority specific case instead of the big picture regarding that the majority of abortions have nothing to with your point.

Slightly offtopic:
If someone happens to be bored I'ld love to know what these radical anti-choice activists say on other threads about governmental control... ... ...

eradown

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:27 PM

link

reply to post by secretagent woooman

No one forced Tiller to do what he was doing. It was bussiness. Most Jewish Doctors do what they have to do to get through medical and then they never desecrate dead bodies again. He had no moral objections against abortion or he would not have made it his bussiness. He may on the other hand have regarded people who did not go to church on Sundays as dead beats. Country club churches where status and money are important but behavior out side of church is not important are unpleasant places.

WhatTheory

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:28 PM

link

Another point:
Most here always seem to inject religion into the abortion issue. You don't have to be religious to believe that the murder of innocent babies is wrong.

ravenshadow13

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:30 PM

link

Mom just was telling me about some of the abortion clinic bombings where not only did the doctors die, but so did the secretaries and patients.

Perfectly fine. No, really. Murder is okay if it protects bunches of cells and tissue.

EDIT- It's not a BABY. It can't even survive on it's own! Chances are it could even miscarry anyway, or be born with a disease, or die as a child. These arguments are so ridiculous.

Oh, and of course as this is an abortion thread, let me insert my template:

"I, Ravenshadow13 (/realnamehere), have agreed to leave the country of the United States of America if the Supreme Court rules that abortion should be illegal, for it impinges on my rights as a woman and a human being."

[edit on 5/31/2009 by ravenshadow13]

Sonya610

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:30 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheoryOf course the man should be responsible but if the woman does not want to have a baby then all she has to do is say no and keep her legs shut. The woman is the one who gets pregnant so the buck stop with her. If she is not willing to have a baby, them keep them legs shut. Unless you are talking about rape, you really don't have a point.

No, not at all. If the roles were reversed and I KNEW I could impregnant a guy, and he would abort the kid, and I had a problem with that I would make sure NOT to impregnant those that would "kill" my offspring.

By willingly allowing myself to impregnant a person that did NOT want kids I willfully allowed my genes to create offspring that will be killed. Very simple.

If the MEN took responsibility and only risked impregnanting those that they KNEW would have the baby then abortion would be a non-issue! The men could put a stop to it right now!

Aldolas

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:45 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Aldolas
First of all, could you please link your statistics, we are on ATS you know

Give me a break. Unless you believe the majority of abortions are done because of rape then you don't have a point. It's like saying provide a link that the sky is blue.

Whoa there!
I asked for the statistics because you said 'the majority'.
And the sky is not only blue, (here in the UK relatively seldom blue....) it can be red, purple and different shades of grey going into black.

I am pro-choice, because there are circumstances, for example rape or incest or sickness of fetus etc. where the choice must be given.
The sky is not always blue and a mother-to-be does not always want to abort due to not 'keeping her legs crossed'.

p.s. (Oh and BTW, what year do we live in, that we still use the phrase 'keeping legs shut'? Shouldn't it be called 'to daft to use contraception'? Or could that then suddenly be the fault of the parents of the young mother-to-be and that would be politically incorrect?!?)

EDIT to ADD: I rephrased the p.s. so often, that I have to clarify. The parents fault due to miseducating their sons and daughters

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Aldolas]

ravenshadow13

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:49 PM

link

reply to post by Aldolas

I support abortion for cases of failed contraception. If for some reason someone is on the pill, taking it correctly, but due to hormonal imbalance or small chance becomes pregnant, they should also have the choice. Just because it's not like they weren't being safe. Most pills are 99% effective, but if I'm in that 1%, I'm going to want an abortion.

Monger

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:49 PM

link

It seems that Dr. Tiller has long been the target of a number of websites and smear campaigns, which seem to have been organized by a group calling itself 'Operation Resue'.

There are a number of blogs and other assorted sites devoted solely to this one abortion doctor. It seems that he was seen within the 'pro-life' community as a particularly nefarious individual.

Operation Rescue was, interestingly enough, the first 'pro-life' group to put out a media statement condemning this cowardly deed.

This leaves little doubt in my mind that some crazed zealot no doubt on a mission from the almighty himself murdered this man in cold blood.

Interestingly enough, they all seem to have been removed rather hastily no doubt in an effort to save face. Google cache wins again.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Monger]

Night Watchman

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:58 PM

link

Originally posted by WhatTheory

All I am saying is that IMO, killing innocent babies is wrong.

I notice you didn't respond to the portion of my post that required some thought. Not surprising.

So, now that you've established that you are against killing babies (bold stance!) I'd like you to further clarify your stance.

At what point does a fetus become a baby?

At that point, should the "baby," be granted full human rights?

If not, explain how that can be?

If so, are you also in favor of performing autopsies in all cases of miscarriages?

Would you charge expectant mothers with neglect should they drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes during pregnancy?

In the case of a miscarriage caused by a car accident, should the driver at fault be charged with vehicular homicide?

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Night Watchman]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Night Watchman]

Aldolas

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:12 PM

link

reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm absolutely your opinion, although I think we can both agree, that under those circumstances it should be done as early as noticed and not 8 months down the line. But that is a different discussion altogether.

Point is: Pro-choice and against government control!

eradown

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:23 PM

link

Originally posted by Monger
It seems that Dr. Tiller has long been the target of a number of websites and smear campaigns, which seem to have been organized by a group calling itself 'Operation Resue'.

There are a number of blogs and other assorted sites devoted solely to this one abortion doctor. It seems that he was seen within the 'pro-life' community as a particularly nefarious individual.

Operation Rescue was, interestingly enough, the first 'pro-life' group to put out a media statement condemning this cowardly deed.

This leaves little doubt in my mind that some crazed zealot no doubt on a mission from the almighty himself murdered this man in cold blood.

Interestingly enough, they all seem to have been removed rather hastily no doubt in an effort to save face. Google cache wins again.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Monger]

Not all murders are committed by crazed people on a mission from god. The police should be allowed to investigate. No one speculating really knows who committed murder. It would be a terrible thing to be accused of a murder one did not commit.

theknuckler

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:26 PM

link

Click here for more information.

seagull

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:28 PM

link

reply to post by Monger

This leaves little doubt in my mind that some crazed zealot no doubt on a mission from the almighty himself murdered this man in cold blood

There is, as yet, absolutely no evidence of that. Let's let the police investigate. Making unfounded accusations only inflame the situation further.

Night Watchman

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:40 PM

link

Originally posted by seagull

There is, as yet, absolutely no evidence of that. Let's let the police investigate. Making unfounded accusations only inflame the situation further.

There is every reason to suspect that a pro-life nutbag was responsible for this. Presumption of innocence is a critical component of our legal system but we are not in the legal system. We are on a message board and expression of opinions is why message boards exist.

Tentickles

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:40 PM

link

reply to post by seagull

RR, your opinions leave me rattled so deeply that when I open your threads and read your comments I actually lose respect for humanity as a whole.

Now to Seagull's response. If it indeed was an anti-abortionist, your question is a valid one.

In my humble opinion the murderer, remember if he/she is an anti-abortionist, is worse than the doctor. The doctor has saved the women from a uncertain future. Often filled with regret and mistreatment of said aborted fetus. It can be argued that the fetus would live a life of mistreatment and neglect if abortion were not on the table.