People who oppose late term abortions are evil.
I reject this as I really don’t think that is is either accurate or useful. It’s simply demonizing those you disagree with.
They are misinformed. In other words, they think late term abortions are all by choice; women who simply use this as birth control. They think there are NO medically necessary abortions.
I am misinformed. There are no (or few) medically necessary late term abortions. The procedure is done just as a convenience for women who don’t want a child.
They recognize the need for late term abortions to save the mothers life (esp. in cases where the fetus is a non-viable lump of tissue), however they think that the doctors who do this operation are not discerning enough. In other words, they want more controls on the procedure. (I don’t think this will fly, as I understand that a single doctor does not make the decision to do a LTA)
Slippery slope; they think that if we allow LTA’s where the mother’s life is in danger, then this will lead to any and all abortions being acceptable.
I’ll try, as long as you promise to remain respectful and not devolve the conversation as people like Der Trihs do.
The starting point is that the entire issue of abortion is incredibly difficult. There are few bright lines, and even fewer completely positive outcomes.
But what it seems to me you are asking is based on the idea that there exist scenarios in which an abortion is “the right thing to do” (the braindead fetus and the death to the mother). You take this scenario, this incredibly rare scenario, and extrapolate to your conclusion that, since this scenario exists, that abortions should be easily obtained, anywhere in the US. And you conclude that people who believe that less abortions are better somehow celebrate the complete elimination of any possible abortion you can conceive.
Am I being clear on why your question isn’t necessarily fair? Do you see the conclusions you are jumping to to make your point?
If I had to answer you question, it would be that, yes, it is possible to create a scenario where an abortion is “the right thing to do”. The fact that you can create that scenario, however, does not negate the argument against all the other kinds of abortion that occur.
Sorry if I’m not being clear, but hell, I gave it a shot.
I personally am not seeing this. And I am sensitive to both assumptions: as my views are not completely in concordance with one side or another, I often* get people assuming that I want to completely allow or eliminate all abortions depending on which side the other person is on.
There are a lot of people who DO believe in those extreme views. I just don’t see a lot of people in this thread accusing others of subscribing to these views (with exceptions of course :))
*well, often in this context, as a person without a huge axe to grind I don’t usually wade into these topics.
It was the very basis for the question. EP asks why people are celebrating that there are less abortion providers when there exists a scenario in which abortion may be the right thing to do. Granted EP has not come out and said that since this scenario exists, there should be a hundreds of doctors out there ready for the eventuality of if the scenario actually occurs, but he/she does seem ready to blame people who want less abortions for their unavailability.
Are you asking for an explanation of the position that abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances at all, including a near high probability of injury or death to the woman and/or severe birth defects to the fetus?
I’m trying to figure out whether Hamlet answered the question you asked. It seems to me Hamlet interpreted your question differently.
No, no, not at all. I’m really not sure where you came to the conclusion that I think "abortions should be easily obtained, anywhere in the US. Do you fear the slippery slope then? I do not dispute that fewer abortions would be better.
Yes, you pretty much have it. The question was asked in the context of this thread; Dr. Tilden was killed pretty much (as I gather) because he specialized in a procedure that aborted late term fetuses. These seem to be few doctors that will do this procedure, which seems to me to be a bad thing. Yes, I’m sure that the conditions that will lead to a late term abortion of a non-viable fetus are rare but I’d think that there should not be a stigma associated with saving a woman under these circumstances. I’m trying to figure out why there is.
Hamlet may have been ascribing ulterior motives to me, based on bad experiences he’s had with debating others about this sensitive topic in the past.
The jury got it right. Good for the jury. He will get at least 25 years. There is a movement of terrorists in this country that have conducted a campaign of violence against abortion providers. These people are just as guilty as Roeder. There are some opponents of abortion who are horrified at this violence. But the people out in front of the clinics can actually prevent murders by turning in fellow protesters as soon as they get wind of a plot. I’m pretty sure it never happens.
So should this guy be waterboarded to give up the names of his encouragers/helpers? I say no, torture is always wrong. But under the Yoo torture memos, this home grown terrorism aimed at American citizens on American soil is justified by it if we are going to be safe.
So what? They are people whose goal is to oppress, hurt and kill women; if that isn’t evil I don’t know what is.
And yes, that is their goal. That is consistently what they fight for, and what they accomplish whenever they can. I’ve never heard a “pro-lifer” express sympathy for a woman who who is injured or dies because we kept her from getting an abortion. These are the same people who outlawed so-called “partial birth abortion”; a law which had no effect beyond forcing doctors to use methods more dangerous to the woman. Which of course is the point; to “punish the sluts”.
And no matter how hard you want to pretend that these are well meaning but misguided people, that will never become true. They are not remotely well meaning.
No; there’s a very bright line. Opposition to abortion equals the oppression of women. Period. That is the point. That is the reason the anti-abortion movement exists.
“People who think less abortions are better” is NOT a synonym for “anti-abortion”. Plenty, probably the great majority of pro-choice people think that fewer abortions are better.
And yes; people who are cheering the lack of availability of abortion in the most extreme of circumstances - which would be anyone opposing the kind of abortions we are talking about in this thread - can be safely assumed to oppose all abortions under all circumstances.
Anyone who opposes the kind of abortion this doctor was doing.
Definitions of abortion: Medicine.com: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
answers.com: The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.
Wiki: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.
dictionary.com: the arrested development of an embryo or an organ at a more or less early stage.
No. The pro-life movement makes up its own meaning for terms or creates entirely new terms like “partial birth abortions” that have no meaning at all in the world of the medical community. I don’t really care how they define abortion.
Abortion is the term the medical community uses for all miscarriages. “Partial birth abortion” is not a medical term, it is political spinning. Roeder killed a doctor in cold blood who removed dead fetuses which threatened the life of the mother. Because of the terrorist threats, he was one of three doctors in the entire nation who would do this rare, but necessary procedure.
Now that you have had plenty of links showing that you are 100 percent wrong, are you going to admit it, or change the definition of anyone to anyone who agrees with you not to use medical terminology?