It’s my understanding that they value the fetus more. Woman as vessel, IOW. The only “being” with rights in the case of a pregnancy is the fetus- no matter the circumstances of the conception (rape, incest) or the course of the pregnancy. If I follow their logic correctly, the fetus is innocent (it didn’t “ask” to be made/born).
Of course there are people on the “pro-life” (the quotation marks are required, IMO) who are not against ALL abortions. Their voice is never heard in the debate, just as those in the pro-choice (no quotation marks needed) camp who do not support all types of AB are never heard either. IMO, the “pro-life” camp has polarized the debate to such an extent that there is no middle ground anymore.
Frankly, I have no trouble demonizing the “pro-life” side, since they have no trouble demonizing the women who have to make this difficult choice. In this thread alone, Martin Hyde has referred to these women as “wretches”. I’ve never been characterized as a wretch before. I guess it’s a step up from slut/welfare mom using AB as birth control etc. Then again, since I had my abortion while married with children, slut/welfare mom etc is kind of ruled out as well… IME (and there were protesters at the clinic I used the day I had my AB), they don’t see the women as individuals at all. They only see dead baby. It doesn’t make much sense to me, but they’re entitled to their opinion.
Produce a cite for what you claimed, or shut your lying mouth.
And leave those goal posts where they are. You have claimed that pro-lifers generally support the killing of abortionists. Produce a cite demonstrating this, or shut your fucking pie hole.
I’m not the poster in question, but I’ll confirm for you that the number of pro-lifers that support the killing of abortion providers is vanishingly small. I mean, I’m sure there are a few, but they represent a tiny, insignificant number.
And now a question for you, if you please:
I think though, Shodan, that there are quite a few people who do not want harm to come to doctors, but DO support the shutting down of any and all procedures that Dr. Tiller performed, or his very few remaining colleagues currently perform. There are quite a lot (obviously not all, as Hamlet has pointed out) in the anti-abortion movement who really, really want to eliminate any third trimester abortions - would you agree?
That being said, my question is… Why do they want this procedure eliminated?
Am I totally off base here, and there are actually vanishingly small numbers of people who are against the procedures that Dr. Tiller did before he was murdered? ie is this just a very tiny, insignificant fringe of the anti-abortion movement?
Are they unaware that it is used for women who wanted to carry a baby to term, but are in distress and/or the fetus is non-viable? ie Do they literally think that all women undergoing late term abortion are simply killing a healthy baby for their own convenience?
Do they think that the numbers of the women who are having the procedure for reasons of life-threatening conditions are very small/non existent? (ie “I think abortions are OK in the case of life-threatening conditions, but this is not the case for any third trimester abortions”) Or… “Only a very few women will die without this procedure, and that is an acceptable price to pay”
Are they afraid of a slippery slope? eg. if you allow late term abortions to save a mothers life, then abortions will become allowed anywhere, for any reason.
Do they believe in the “woman as vessel” theory as covered by eleanorigby? ie The rights of an “innocent” fetus outweigh the health concerns of the mother.
Do they think that chance dying in pregnancy is the price one pays for being pregnant in the first place, and we should not interfere with God’s will in the case of pregnancy?
Oh, I am perfectly well aware that Der Trihs is a liar. I am trying to shame him into not making these irresponsible, hateful accusations.
Der Trihs is no different than this guy who shot the doctor - just more cowardly, and lacking the courage of his convictions.
I am quite sure than they would oppose the abortion of a viable, third-trimester fetus.
I rather doubt you could produce a single member of the anti-abortion movement who opposes D&C of a dead fetus. This is another of Der Trihs’ lies.
I haven’t read all the cites closely, but I am not aware that it was shown that these were the only circumstances under which this doctor did late-term abortions. I do remember an unfortunate instance back during the debate over partial-birth abortion in which pro-PBA sideflat-out lied about the number of times the procedure was performed.
So I suspect the pro-life movement does not believe that the only time this doctor performed third-trimester abortions, it was to remove an already dead fetus. And also that if he said that was the only time he did, he was not being truthful. And also that he performed abortions on viable fetuses for reasons with which they would not agree (that the mother was depressed or fifteen years old or similar).
I am pro-choice myself, but it seems that some of thge thinking in this thread is based on the same kind of deliberately chosen misconceptions that are Der Trihs’ stock in trade.
You seem to have twisted my statements around here (I"m sure inadvertently).
I most emphatically did NOT say that the ONLY time a doctor performed late term abortions, that it was to remove an already dead fetus. In fact, I"m sure that that is not the ONLY time this procedure is used. That’s why I DID NOT SAY THAT. I’m sure it is used in other circumstances. Have I made this clear now? Also, I tried to avoid the term “dead fetus” entirely in my post to you, but did use the term “non-viable”.
The question was how the anti-abortion movement felt about the times when the doctor DID perform a late term abortion on an non-viable fetus.
are you saying that this does not happen? That doctors lie about it, and there are NO TIMES, EVER that a non-viable fetus is aborted to save the life of the mother? That EVERY SINGLE TIME a late term abortion is done, the fetus is healthy and it is only done for the convenience of the mother?
I’m sure you would not say this.
So why does the anti-abortion movement want to shut this procedure down? Do they feel there are NO TIMES, EVER that the health of the mother is in danger from a non-viable fetus, and these procedures are done, simply for convenience EVERY SINGLE TIME?
Their evident determination to reduce to zero the number of surgeons competent to perform the procedure would tend to render that fact irrelevant, though, no?
A cite for what? They oppose the procedure being done at all, and kill the doctors that do so when they can.
Where is your cite for the logically impossible claim that they oppose the procedure being done, but don’t oppose it? You are incoherent.
That’s just ridiculous. There’s a national network of these people. And such behavior is the direct, logical consequence of their constant ranting about how abortion is murder. And its not like they’ve shown any concern for human life, here or worldwide.
There is every reason to think that most support it, not just a “vanishingly small” number? Why would they oppose it? It’s OK to use women as incubators, to condemn women to death when a pregnancy goes bad, but not to kill someone you have explicitly compared to the Nazis during the Holocaust? Please.
You did not say “it is often used” or “it is **most commonly **used” - just the blank assertion that this is why it is used. .
I answered that one. I don’t think they would object to a D&C of a non-viable (if you prefer that term) fetus either.
No, I don’t think they believe there are no times, ever, that a late-term abortion is performed on a non-viable fetus, or to save the life of the mother.
What they object to and want to stop is what I have mentioned a couple of times - aborting a viable fetus. That is why the doctor was shot - not to prevent him from performing abortions on non-viable fetuses, but to prevent him from aborting viable ones.
And much of this is based on a not-altogether-unreasonable belief that abortion providers will lie about the circumstances and frequency of the abortions that they perform. As I mentioned, Dr. James McMahon testified before Congress that he did, in fact, perform abortions on healthy fetuses, as well as the Fitzsimmons quote about the circumstances under which PBAs were performed.
I have seen no evidence of any such determination - as I said, nobody in the anti-abortion movement wants to reduce to zero the number of surgeons qualified to perform a D&C to remove a dead fetus.
Again, if you have a cite to demonstrate that some significant portion of the anti-abortion movement opposes the removal of a dead fetus, by all means let’s see it.
You badly misinterpreted what I wrote then (again, I’m sure unintentionally). To be clearer, I should have written “it is ONE of the reasons why it is used.” I did not realize that someone would insert the words (the only) into my statement.
But in addition to aborting viable fetuses, this doctor UNDOUBTEDLY also, in addition to, as well… Saved women who had non-viable fetuses, and who were in medical distress. Without doctors like him, these women may in fact, die. Were the anti-abortionists choosing the lesser of two evils? Do they think that there are not many women in danger of death - that this is overstated? That abortion providers lie? They honestly think that there are NO CASES where a late term abortion is done on a non-viable fetus, and the life of the mother is saved? If they shut down ALL SUCH PROCEDURES, do they think that no women will die?
Perhaps not, but this will undeniably be the actual, real-world result if they shut down every clinic that does the procedure, under the misguided belief that all abortion providers lie, and there is NEVER a time when a women’s health is at stake and the fetus non-viable.
I don’t have a cite, and it’s not a problem, since I’ve never claimed this. I’m sure nobody in the movement would say this. The point is, and I"ll make it again… If the anti-abortion movement removes all doctors and clinics who do this procedure, there will be NOBODY ABLE TO DO IT, when there is a mother in medical distress and a non-viable fetus. Therefore, as kaylasdad99 says, it becomes a moot point at that time.
I think you overestimate the extent to which abortion opponents are willing to accept the abortion of a non-viable fetus. AFAICT, for many abortion opponents, killing a fetus that cannot possibly survive (e.g., in an ectopic pregnancy) but happens to be alive at the moment is just as immoral as killing a living healthy fetus in a normal pregnancy. As one Catholic viewpoint expresses it,
So while there are few (I would think probably no) abortion opponents who object on moral grounds to an abortion procedure to remove an already dead fetus, it seems there are a significant number of them who object to permitting abortion to remove a living fetus that cannot possibly survive till birth or post-birth. For them, it’s not just about preventing the abortion of viable fetuses.
This is a false dilemma - I would have thought that was obvious.
Suppose the anti-abortion side of the debate gets its way, and abortion is outlawed of a viable fetus. This has no effect on doctors removing a dead or non-viable fetus from a failed pregnancy. Abortion protesters are not protesting a D&C on a failed pregnancy. I believe I pointed this out already.
Your point is pretty clearly wrong. An abortion on a non-viable fetus is not significantly different in terms of technique or difficulty than one on a viable one. It would be perfectly possible to outlaw the second and allow the first. Because, as has been mentioned several times, anti-abortion folks have no objection to aborting a non-viable fetus. It might even be easier to get an abortion of a non-viable fetus, since protests against doctors who abort viable ones would go away. And not even the person who is the subject of the OP is going to shoot at a doctor for a D&C on a failed pregnancy - they don’t care about that.
I think I pointed that out already too.
Then you recognize that this is a false dilemma. Since nobody in the anti-abortion movement objects to those kind of abortions, they would not press to have them outlawed, and your notion that you can’t outlaw abortion of a viable fetus without outlawing that of a non-viable one becomes clearly mistaken.
It’s like arguing that we cannot outlaw lethal injection because then there would be no doctors to start an IV.
Given my anecdotal experience of dealing with small-town rural Christian teenagers, it’s probably significantly more likely to imply that no one realized how pregnant the mother was during the first six months of her pregnancy. In a town of 250, I’ve personally seen two young women who were able to conceal a pregnancy for 4-5 months (and do, in both cases, some level of harm to the fetus through malnutrition as a result).
My very Catholic, anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty, pro-birth-control, pro-sex-ed, anti-war father, who said he hoped that murdering idiot Roeder repents so he doesn’t go to hell…yeah, he’d like a word with you, seeing as how you don’t think he exists.
Oh, yeah, since someone else mentioned it, last time we talked he thought the Catholic position on living but non-viable fetuses such as ectopic pregnancies was “pretty damn foolish” too.
First, thank you for acknowledging that “dead” and “non-viable” are not synonymous .
It seems that your argument rests on the supposition that there is nobody of consequence in the anti-abortion movement that protests the removal of a living, but non-viable fetus using the procedure known as abortion, which then kills the still living (but non-viable) fetus. Kimstu’s cite seems at odds with this premise. I think there may be others - of course, they might not be true anti-abortionists.
Also, does this mean when protesters are outside of a clinic, shouting epithets at the women entering, do they know the reason 100% of them are entering the clinic? If a woman is carrying a microcephalic fetus, do these protesters ease off on her when she enters?
ETA Your IV comparison is flawed. There are plenty of other times to practice IV placement other that during the death penalty. Removal of a non-viable fetus is quite a specialized procedure.
Obviously not - there would be no way they could know. On the other hand, since abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, or physical health problems with the fetus or mother constitute much more than 90% of all abortions (cite) this kind of reason is very much the exception.
Of course, *abortion *is very much the exception at “abortion clinics”. The vast majority of the women going in there are just there for a freakin’ pap smear, but the crazies spit venom at them anyway.