Even if pro-lifers tell themselves they don’t oppose the removal of a dead fetus, the skills a doctor learns to perform an abortion on a dead fetus is very similar to what they use for an abortion where the mother’s life/health is at very high risk, or where the fetus may “live” for a few days before dying horribly, or where the fetus is very profoundly damaged. When pro-lifers terrorize doctors into choosing not to perform any abortions, they don’t just decrease the availability early-term “choice” abortions, they also decrease the availability of abortions that are needed in more desperate circumstances.
If I misread you, I apologize. I explained what I thought you were asking, if I got it wrong, by all means correct me. Because, as I said, it seems to me the question was “why want less abortion providers when it is possible that an abortion could be the right thing to do”? Is that the question you’re concerned about? Because I think we can agree that, in the incredibly rare situations where abortion is the right thing to do, it should be done by a trained, competent doctor and woman should receive all the proper medical care she needs or desires. I honestly didn’t think that was a point in dispute.
Produce a cite that any pro-life group holds this as their position, or shut your lying mouth.
Regards,
Shodan
It is self evident that anyone who makes distinctions is worse than Hitler.
My post is my cite.
Do you have a cite for any pro-life group that clearly differentiates between the two?
(ETA: Because I just spent a few minutes poking around on the Operation Rescue web site and didn’t see any clear information on the issue.)
This is exactly my point. The killing of this Dr. and the protesting at his clinic has led to a situation where there are fewer doctors with the skills or the willingness to provide necessary life-saving medical services where a mother’s life is in danger. This seems to be a bad thing to me.
I was trying to keep my question quite specific, while you have broadened it out way, way, past where I was wanting to go.
There is no doubt that anti-abortion protesters have been very adamant about shutting down the type of services that Dr.Tilden provided. In this, they seem to have been very successful. There is no doubt that there are some in the anti-abortion movement that are pleased with this.
My specific question was - how can this be construed as a good thing for mothers whose lives are in danger? (let’s forget about the removal of a dead fetus for now, as it seems to be a sticking point). A mother who wanted to carry to term is now faced with a non-viable fetus, perhaps with minimal brain tissue. Yes, as you point out, these cases are rare. However, there are now VERY few doctors who can help her. And it seems to me that the anti-abortion movement would like there to be NO doctors who do this operation.
This does not make sense to me.
If a woman is carrying a baby that will die shortly after birth and giving birth might affect her future furtility, the anti-abortion people still think abortion is wrong.
A book I read (Randy Alcott) states that “A family should have the positive experiene of bonding with a child that will die shortly after birth and experience the healthy grief for a child that died, instead of the unnatural grief of knowing they have killed their child.”
I think here is where you lose me. As I said, “in the incredibly rare situations where abortion is the right thing to do, it should be done by a trained, competent doctor and woman should receive all the proper medical care she needs or desires.” While there are certain far right factions who want women to suffer and die if they get abortions, I think it’s incorrect to think that the pro life movement supports that as a whole.
Point of fact, I do not think that there are many (any?) who want women to suffer and die. Also, I don’t think that the situations are as “incredibly rare” as you might suppose.
Finally, I know that there were lots of protests at Dr. Tilden’s clinic, and there are other protests about other doctors who do the same sort of procedures. I dispute that these protesters are all at the far right lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion movement. It seems that there are MANY in the movement that want these clinics shut down in their entirety.
There are (depending where you get your stats) less than 1% of abortions are done after 24 weeks, and maybe .04% after 26 weeks. I’d call that rare.
Whatever. I’m done with the “your side wants …” assumptions. I’m more than happy to explain MY point of view if you wish, as I have. If you want to talk to the protestors, have at it.
They oppose the kinds of abortion this doctor was performing, which means they hold that position by definition.
I’m sure they’re rare. But they do exist, and there is a need for medical professionals to do them.
And thank you for your point of view, which is, no doubt, reaonable
You’re correct in that I"m trying more to understand the point of view of those (and they DO exist, and are very vocal) who wish to shut down health providers like Dr. Tilden in entirety.
Just to be clear- the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health (which is a part of the Royal College of Obstericians and Gynaecologists in the UK) states that to be competent in surgical abortion at 19+ weeks a trainee must have observed 5 abortions from 14-19 weeks, perfomed 20 abortions at 14-19 weeks while supervised, then observed a minimum of 5 abortions at 19+ weeks and performed a minimum of 20 abortions at 19+ weeks while supervised by a competent trainer.
Cite (pdf).
This is not a skill you want to learn on that “one in a million” case that runs across your path as an OB. That’s why you need people like Dr Tiller- they have the specialist skils and the experience to deliver a safe service.
If 1.21million abortions are perfomed per year in the USA (cite) and if even 1% of those is after 24 weeks- that’s still 12100 abortions a year.
Which is a big job for 2 doctors. In fact, I would say an impossible job- which means someone is doing them and claiming not to, or doing them without adequate training on a case-by-case basis. Neither of those scenarios makes me happy.
Guttmacher Cite seems not to work- I’ll try again
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The doctor in question’s name is George TILLER, not Tilden. Tiller, which rhymes with “killer,” which is how Bill O’Reilly referred to him, and for which a Google search on the term “Tiller The Killer” returns over 600,000 hits. NOT Dr Tiller, not George Tiller, they called him “Tiller The Killer” because to the radical anti-abortion crowd that is all he was–a “killer.” Never mind the thousands of women’s lives he saved, to the anti-abortion dog whistlers he was nothing more than a killer. How, exactly, do you spin that?
Sorry about getting his name wrong…
irishgirl and SmartAleq have summed up my confusion nicely. How can the many, many people who want to shut down ANY abortions, possibly justify the harm that it causes to women who will die without them?
Are these women just collateral damage? Do the protesters honestly not know there are women in danger like this? (the “it’s extremely rare” group) Are they afraid that if the Dr. Tiller’s of the world continue that this will lead to easy abortions for every woman who wants one in every state?
Damn. I thought they might let Roeder off, and he’d be mowed down by a group of pregnant women (fearing that, should they have complications in their third trimesters, they’d be unable to find someone able to provide assistance).
ETA I’m not sure why anyone’s surprised by a gaping hole of logic. These are the same people who stare blankly when asked how long women should be jailed for for getting abortions. Who still support abstinence-only education despite all the evidence against it providing real results. Who spend more time making sure unwanted children come into the world than doing anything to help them once they get there, from parental leave to health care. So they’d rather all abortion providers drop off the face of the earth, even if all evidence points to that resulting in more dead and ailing women from botched abortions (but no reduction in abortion)? La la la, fingers in ears.
I notice your fucking pie-hole was strangely silent when ivn1188 was lying on behalf of the anti-abortion argument. Funny that.
In Shodan’s defense (Jesus Christ, did I just write that?), ivn’s bullshit was debunked before he even finished typing.