Responses to this post...

1. Not much.

   Fanatic radicals are fanatic radicals.

   Pick a cause.

   Posted by average james
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

2. Alan, of course there’s no difference. What is the point, though? Is late-term abortion JUSTIFIED morally because some idiot kills a late-term abortionist?

   steve Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

   FLAP

   What Tiller was doing was legal even thou it is called abortion and the Army at the recuritment center was legal and we call it war. We call it murder by terrorist in the name of GOD.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

   There’s no moral equivalence between war and late-term abortion. None. You can make anecdotal cases where late-term abortion is justified but generally speaking it is absolutely morally repugnant. Why do only 3 clinics perform (or did perform) these barbaric procedures if it’s so damn mainstream?

   steve Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

   It all leads to death and the war in Iraq has equivalence for being imoral because that war is based on lies and to make anecdotal statements that come up a tad short for terrorist that killed Tiller.

   

   michael Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

   Agreed. Late term abortions should only be performed for maternal life reasons. I think it’s reasonable to have rape & incest exceptions too, but I think it’s reasonable to limit those to the first trimester of pregnancy.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

   I don’t think there are ever instances where maternal life reasons come into play, Michael. Limit abortions to first trimester and that encompasses rape and incest. Second and third trimester abortions if the baby has a condition incompatible with life outside the womb.

   That’s reasonable, but pro-abortion people are as a whole unreasonable since they refuse to recognize basic biology and human development. They use pep rally phrases and think abortion is an advancement of women’s rights.

   Women are supposed to be nurturers, not killers. Being a mother is the most important and most difficult job in the universe. It’s sad when women feel empowered by the right to kill. Why don’t men get the right to kill our children? It’s actually unfair.

   

   michael Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

   Second and third trimester abortions if the baby has a condition incompatible with life outside the womb.

   Forgot to mention that as a second exception. But why not a maternal life exemption? Again, this may be an academic argument about what human life is or is not. I don’t see a fetus as a full human being, period. That’s not to say that I approve of abortion unless absolutely necessary, but I do believe that when you weigh the life of a full human being, possibly a mother who has to take care of other children, with the potential life of a fetus, the life of the mother takes priority. It’s a tragic decision to have to make, but that’s just the way it is.

   

   crh3e Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

   One question I must ask Flap. What do we do when abortion is illegal and the unborn are still being “murdered?” Even if we take away a woman’s “right to kill,” the unborn will not be protected if that mother has the desire to terminate her fetus.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

   “It’s a tragic decision to have to make, but that’s just the way it is.”

   Sounds a little fatalistic. Anyway, I’m not saying it’s an easy issue. Abortion is not. You have one human life growing inside of a another. That outside human life essentially has biological control over the gestating life. Nevertheless, a fetus is not a potential life. An ovum and a spermatazoon are potential lives. Developmentally, there is very, very little difference between an early 3rd trimester fetus and an infant. All the organ systems are there and functional or prepared to function.

   Michael, a “full human being” could be translated to “adult human being” and we could consider children to be less-than-human. Heck, I’m sure some societies consider children to be less-than-human. We get into the business of weighing the value of human life based on age or location. That’s what I detest.

   Abortion will always be around. Abortion past the age of viability, though, should be either banned or codified in such a way in that it is extremely rare. Extremely.

   

   michael Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

   flap,

   Again, I generally agree with you. Ban late term abortions. But I stand by my support for a maternal life exemption.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

   What do we do when abortion is illegal and the unborn are still being “murdered?”

   By the way, abortion will never be completely illegal. Early-term abortions will always be around. So your question is moot in a way. I’m not for witch hunts. I’m just against the butchery of the unborn.

   What was done pre-1973? I wasn’t a fetus yet so I don’t know. I think abortions were done in secret and there was some stigma attached to them, as there should be. Abortion is a unique issue in one sense with a unique set of circumstances. Past the age of viability, should an unborn child be treated differently under the law based on location?

   

   michael Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

   As I understand it (This was 17 years before my fetus days), abortion was an issue left to the states at that time. Nearly all states banned abortion however, although I do believe that it was legal in some.

   As to your question about whether the rights of the unborn who are past the age of viability should vary based on location, the obvious answer is no. However, there’s not much that can be done to avoid that situation. I don’t like that women’s rights are not recognized in Saudi Arabia, but there’s not much I can do to change that. I can only hope that America sets the example for the world to follow in that department.

   Likewise, even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, abortion would once again be a state issue, and in reality it would probably make very little difference. Only states with low abortion rates would ban them, and the women who live in those states will either cross state lines to get an abortion or get them done illegally.

   Thus, cultural change is the real necessity here. Empty rhetoric and overturning Roe v. Wade aren’t going to get the job done.

   jasperjava Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

   Late-term abortions are not done on a whim. They are done for valid medical reasons.

   War is FAR less moral. You’re right: they’re not morally equivalent. Wars based on lies, fought for corporate profits, are even more morally repugnant.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm

   Actually, Michael, based on location I mean location of the human being…outside or inside of the womb. A little tongue-in-cheek.

   “They are done for valid medical reasons.” In many cases they are NOT done for valid medical reasons. Depends on what you mean by “valid.”

   The Iraq War aside, war is far more moral if it is fought for defense. Even Ron Paul (who is staunchly against war and abortion both) would acknowledge that. Ron Paul makes a lot of valid points.

   

   TDro319 Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

   “In many cases they are NOT done for valid medical reasons. Depends on what you mean by “valid.”

   How would you know? The medical records are supposed to be confidential.

   

   TDro319 Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

   “war is far more moral if it is fought for defense.”

   And abortions are moral if done to save the mother’s life.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

   “In many cases they are NOT done for valid medical reasons. Depends on what you mean by ‘valid.’”

   Think of this…how many people will be smoking marijuana for supposedly valid medical reasons? I have no problem with people smoking marijuana, but the point is medical reasons (especially psychiatric) can be trumped up or puffed or exaggerated. But, again, the only instance I see that late-term abortion might be warranted is if the baby has a condition that is incompatible with life…meaning the baby has a virtually 100% of death within minutes/hours of birth (like underdevelopment of the brain, etc.). That’s reasonable. Otherwise it’s infanticide.

   “And abortions are moral if done to save the mother’s life.”

   I agree with you, but I think it’s purely academic. I don’t think that ever comes into play. Deliver the baby. If the mother is at risk of dying, deliver the baby. If the baby dies, that’s unfortunate but unpreventable. I’ve never believed the mother’s life should be sacrificed in order to prevent abortion, but I don’t see as it being valid.

   Posted by flap
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

3. Anybody who will say this is not terrorism is certainly mistaken. I don’t agree with what Dr. Tiller did, but that doesn’t give me the right to kill him to make my point. It’s terrorism the same way that the guy who killed the army recruiter was a terrorist. Whether or not he agrees with what the army recruiter is doing is irrelevant. What makes him a terrorist is that fact that he used lethal violence to make his point.

   

   flap Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

   I agree, 100%.

   jasperjava Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

   I also agree. Violence to advance a political agenda is terrorism, period.

   In the coming years we will need to be vigilant about right-wing extremists, especially. Here’s a good article by a former conservative on the subject.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/dr-tiller-murder-domestic_b_212473.html

   Posted by michael
   June 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

4. Nope, no difference.
   Murderous religious fanatics both.

   Hugo Salas Reply:
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

   Amen brother!

   Posted by sky
   June 9th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

5. Sadly, the answer to Alan’s question is, “No.”

   Posted by otto
   June 10th, 2009 at 12:04 am

6. Sure there’s a difference.

   When a nut murders a doctor performing legal abortions all the radical rightwing republikkkan extremists say the SOB got exactly what he deserved and he should rot in hellfire for all eternity.

   When a nut murders an Army recruiter everyone on the left agrees it’s a terrible crime and they even sympathize with the guy’s family.

   

   Southern Girl Lib Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am

   Bingo.

   Posted by Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler
   June 10th, 2009 at 2:05 am

7. When a nut murders a doctor performing legal abortions all the radical rightwing republikkkan extremists say the SOB got exactly what he deserved and he should rot in hellfire for all eternity.

   Except no one thinks that murdering this guy was anything but a crime. Everyone I know thinks he should be tried, found guilty and sentenced.

   Nice one sided painting.

   Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
   June 11th, 2009 at 2:20 am

   “Except no one thinks that murdering this guy was anything but a crime.”

   Nice attempt at more radical rightwing denial.

   Posted by pino
   June 10th, 2009 at 9:27 am

8. So, speaking of differences. Here is one.

   What is the difference in holding War on Terror detainees in one tropical prison vs another tropical prison? And no, not fair to list the $200,000,000 price tag; that’s just silly.

   The remote Pacific island nation of Palau said Wednesday it has agreed to a U.S. request to temporarily resettle up to 17 Chinese Muslims now held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center on Cuba.

   msnbc.msn.com/id/31199972/

   [i expect props for providing the radical extreme hate filled leftist news outlet, msnbc. that as opposed to the more neutral, albeit right leaning foxnews.]

   

   TDro319 Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

   Maybe because the republican/conservative whiners are screaming “NIMBY”. They need to go somewhere. It seems Obama is trying to please the right wingers (which is a mistake in my book. Clinton tried the same thing and the repubs turned on him like mad dogs).

   

   Daddio Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

   Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!

   

   TDro319 Reply:
   June 10th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

   Now, Daddio, was that necessary? If you don’t like Alan’s subjects, don’t post here. Geeez.

   Posted by pino
   June 10th, 2009 at 9:35 am