Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 1, 2009
News "Tiller The Baby Killer"
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Daily Kos pulled together this selection from the 29 segments Bill O'Reilly did on Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor gunned down in his church yesterday.
4
Just to clarify - before someone points out that the video clip on Daily Kos uses several clips from the same segments and does not add up to 29 distinct segments where Dr. Tiller was mentioned/attacked on O'Reilly's show:
The clips come from 8 of the 29 segments mentioned.
Most notable/alarming is that the clip from April 27, 2009 (a month prior to Dr. Tiller's murder) in which O'Reilly states:
"Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date."
The link below details the other segments that were run.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5…
The clips come from 8 of the 29 segments mentioned.
Most notable/alarming is that the clip from April 27, 2009 (a month prior to Dr. Tiller's murder) in which O'Reilly states:
"Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date."
The link below details the other segments that were run.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5…
6
This is the disgrace of Murdoch. Giving voice to murderers and savages. Sure it's couched in what seems dignified speech, but it is none the less incitement to violence. Dr. Tiller is a real American hero. He fought for freedom no matter what religious fanatics said or did. (And that includes those who exploit ignorance and hate for personal gain as well.)
7
am i missing something? when did "abortion doctor" become a specialty? Tiller was a physician who performed abortions. he was not an "abortion doctor." the phrase is right wing nonsense.
8
Bill O'Reilly will not be found to blame - except by real pro-lifers who understand that an established human life is far more important than a potential human life...
I feel sorry for the people of Tillman's church and for his family, especially. Abortion can be a tragic and difficult choice for the woman and a difficult task for the doctor. O'Reilly cannot fathom the depth of introspection Tillman must have had to go through to choose this life in the face of the persecution he had received over the decades.
Well, perhaps O'Reilly is pleased with himself and his perceived power. Perhaps one day he will fully understand his role in Tillman's (and potentially other's) death(s) and repent to his fellow man - and to Tillman's family.
I feel sorry for the people of Tillman's church and for his family, especially. Abortion can be a tragic and difficult choice for the woman and a difficult task for the doctor. O'Reilly cannot fathom the depth of introspection Tillman must have had to go through to choose this life in the face of the persecution he had received over the decades.
Well, perhaps O'Reilly is pleased with himself and his perceived power. Perhaps one day he will fully understand his role in Tillman's (and potentially other's) death(s) and repent to his fellow man - and to Tillman's family.
9
My own apologies are in order. I meant to write Tiller and instead typed Tillman. At every mention of the Doctor. Well, at least I was consistent...
10
Does anybody honestly think that this sad event will make this giant bully reconsider his tone or words regarding this matter... of course not. This is just another "vicious attack" from the Far Left!! Hate speech (ours, not his), etc. etc.
11
You know, if you can try the Chicago 8 for conspiracy, it really seems to me that you should be able to charge Bill O'Reilly with solicitation of a homicide. I mean, just if we're talking about applying an equal standard here.
12
I don't think it would be appropriate to charge Bill O with anything. I mean, I hate him and FOX news, and have volunteered for years with my local Planned Parenthood chapter, and work in a community-based agency devoted to women's rights. But how is this different from everyone screaming that Dubya has murdered americans and iraqis? Again, I'm against the war, and I do think that Dubya has blood on his hands, but I'd hate to think someone can charge all the groups who said so if something ever happened to Bush.
14
It is my fond hope that O'Reilly will be charged for murder under the Law of Parties, arrested on the air, dragged out into the sunlight in chains, held without bail for over a year, raped repeatedly, have all his teeth knocked out to make him a better cocksucker, then released on a technicality by a liberal activist judge.
15
@7 is totally right - "abortion doctor" is right-wing framing; don't use it, even though it's convenient and short.
16
From NYT:
"Scott Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kan., whom authorities have described as a suspect in Sunday’s fatal shooting here of George Tiller, was once a subscriber and occasional contributor to a newsletter, Prayer and Action News, said Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines who runs the newsletter. Mr. Leach said that he had met Mr. Roeder once, and that Mr. Roeder had described similar views to his own on abortion.
Commenting on Dr. Tiller’s death, Mr. Leach said, “To call this a crime is too simplistic.” He added, “There is Christian scripture that would support this."
why is calling it a crime too simplistic Mr. Leach? Last time I checked the constitution, our LAW trumps your scripture.
"Scott Roeder, 51, of Merriam, Kan., whom authorities have described as a suspect in Sunday’s fatal shooting here of George Tiller, was once a subscriber and occasional contributor to a newsletter, Prayer and Action News, said Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines who runs the newsletter. Mr. Leach said that he had met Mr. Roeder once, and that Mr. Roeder had described similar views to his own on abortion.
Commenting on Dr. Tiller’s death, Mr. Leach said, “To call this a crime is too simplistic.” He added, “There is Christian scripture that would support this."
why is calling it a crime too simplistic Mr. Leach? Last time I checked the constitution, our LAW trumps your scripture.
17
It makes him look really guilt, but I don't know if there is any legal precedent here.
It'd be an interesting story for someone to uncover if there was though.
It'd be an interesting story for someone to uncover if there was though.
19
4
"Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date."
does Slog have any evidence to the contrary?
"Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date."
does Slog have any evidence to the contrary?
20
Well I think it's great. The baby killer finally got what was coming to him. How many lives did he take and i am supposed to feel bad about his ending? I say Bravo!
22
So we can ad "jihadist imam" to "sexual predator" and "human shitstain" on O'Reilly's long and illustrious resume.
24
Wow, #23, you sure do have a great reverence for human life.
Keep talking. Talk loud and long. People like you are the best spokesmen for protecting the right to choose there are.
Keep talking. Talk loud and long. People like you are the best spokesmen for protecting the right to choose there are.
25
how many abortions would Tiller have NOT performed if there were guilt-free sex education and readily-available birth control?
O'Reilly will probably be ordered by FoxNews legal to NOT mention this murder. ever.
O'Reilly will probably be ordered by FoxNews legal to NOT mention this murder. ever.
26
Ugh, O'Reilly is so repugnant I couldn't listen for long. Dr. Tiller was a brave man and his loss is tragic.
27
We are poorer for the compassion that we lost with Dr. Tiller. We may only hope that another OB/GYN steps up to fill his boots.
28
I, too, noticed O'Reilly stated Tiller did the procedures pretty much, for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever, other than the mother has a pain in her foot.
Andrew Sullivan noted a Kansas Farmers' Forum in which most posters were glad for Tiller's murder. Here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
Dissenting stories acknowledged that Tiller had a referral list of adopting couples for those who would be willing to carry to term. Tiller also had protocols defining the circumstances that qualified for a late term abortion. Yet other posters expressed (in no uncertain terms) difficulty in believing a monster like George Tiller would have such things as an adoption referral list, or preparation protocols other than the ability to pay.
I can't help but wonder if it was a matter of people finding it easier to trust journalistic sources, rather than first-hand, or even second-hand accounts.
Was O'Reilly doing any less than what was accusing Tiller of malpractice? Would that be any less than journalistic slander?
Whether or not a direct line from O'Reilly to Scott Roeder can be traced, it seems there might be grounds for liability after all.
Andrew Sullivan noted a Kansas Farmers' Forum in which most posters were glad for Tiller's murder. Here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th…
Dissenting stories acknowledged that Tiller had a referral list of adopting couples for those who would be willing to carry to term. Tiller also had protocols defining the circumstances that qualified for a late term abortion. Yet other posters expressed (in no uncertain terms) difficulty in believing a monster like George Tiller would have such things as an adoption referral list, or preparation protocols other than the ability to pay.
I can't help but wonder if it was a matter of people finding it easier to trust journalistic sources, rather than first-hand, or even second-hand accounts.
Was O'Reilly doing any less than what was accusing Tiller of malpractice? Would that be any less than journalistic slander?
Whether or not a direct line from O'Reilly to Scott Roeder can be traced, it seems there might be grounds for liability after all.
29
WTF is the probability of a woman coming in for an abortion, late in her pregnancy, unless something new had happened or new information has been gained that changes her situation with the pregnancy?
Really? Do you honestly think that women think, "oh, I'll have a baby in about a week... maybe I should do something about that?" Really?
Either they have the abortion early, or they don't have it unless circumstances force their hands. (including diagnosis of unknown medical conditions in the woman or the fetus)
Really? Do you honestly think that women think, "oh, I'll have a baby in about a week... maybe I should do something about that?" Really?
Either they have the abortion early, or they don't have it unless circumstances force their hands. (including diagnosis of unknown medical conditions in the woman or the fetus)
30
@ 20
You ask: "How many lives did he take"
To my knowledge absolutely none. He killed no one, he aborted fetuses that HAD NOT YET BEEN BORN.
You ask: "How many lives did he take"
To my knowledge absolutely none. He killed no one, he aborted fetuses that HAD NOT YET BEEN BORN.
31
And it appears, JudT, your typical anti-abortion activist believes exactly this, that women are often absent-minded about their pregnancy until twenty-plus weeks into gestation.
To the contrary, with extremely few exceptions, in late-term abortion cases, the mother was anticipating carrying to term, and it was only due to medical complications that abortion was being considered. Granted, prognoses in these cases weren't always zero, but even best cases they weren't good, and the infant could look forward to a life of hospitals, life support machines and high-risk surgeries, and an adulthood of extreme mental retardation, if any adulthood at all.
I have heard of an incident of a basketball player who went into labor on the court. All the symptoms of her pregnancy were so subdued that she didn't even know she was pregnant until that moment. Both she and her baby survived, and were perfectly healthy.
So it's possible that women can be pregnant and not know it until late term. That isn't however, grounds by which a woman commonly chooses to abort, or necessarily legally can in this country.
To the contrary, with extremely few exceptions, in late-term abortion cases, the mother was anticipating carrying to term, and it was only due to medical complications that abortion was being considered. Granted, prognoses in these cases weren't always zero, but even best cases they weren't good, and the infant could look forward to a life of hospitals, life support machines and high-risk surgeries, and an adulthood of extreme mental retardation, if any adulthood at all.
I have heard of an incident of a basketball player who went into labor on the court. All the symptoms of her pregnancy were so subdued that she didn't even know she was pregnant until that moment. Both she and her baby survived, and were perfectly healthy.
So it's possible that women can be pregnant and not know it until late term. That isn't however, grounds by which a woman commonly chooses to abort, or necessarily legally can in this country.
33
redwulf25_ci @30 In late-term pregnancy it is quite arguable that the fetus is very much alive, or more accurately, has achieved personhood, hence is an entity regarded as individual from the mother. While opponents of abortion access are rigid in defining personhood at conception, there remains academic discussion (amongst the legal sector and the pro-abortion-access community) as to when during the gestation period that would be. Popular choices include statistical viability, higher-brain neurological activity, sustainability with life support and sustainability without life support. Late-term abortions are, by definition, after most, if not all of these points.
But the question is not as simple as how many babies did George Tiller kill, but the circumstances under which the procedure was performed. Few, if any of the procedures he performed were on pregnancies that had a high prognosis of survivability either for the infant or for the mother. Most cases involved birth defects that would kill the child within only a few years, and/or left the child with severe brain damage. The question that arises in such cases is as much the quality of life as the quantity.
As has been addressed on this board before, though, opponents to abortion access seem to regard unborn children as perfect, ideal children, unaware of, and often refusing to examine the circumstances that would bring such dire recourses into consideration.
But the question is not as simple as how many babies did George Tiller kill, but the circumstances under which the procedure was performed. Few, if any of the procedures he performed were on pregnancies that had a high prognosis of survivability either for the infant or for the mother. Most cases involved birth defects that would kill the child within only a few years, and/or left the child with severe brain damage. The question that arises in such cases is as much the quality of life as the quantity.
As has been addressed on this board before, though, opponents to abortion access seem to regard unborn children as perfect, ideal children, unaware of, and often refusing to examine the circumstances that would bring such dire recourses into consideration.
34
Lol, what a bunch of liberal jerks! Poor Tiller! Should he be given sainthood like Mother Teresa of Calcutta? To listen to people on here, one would think so.
Seriously, this guy is rotting in hell right now with his face shoved in a bucket of crap. I even blogged about it.
http://www.futuretwits.blogspot.com
Seriously, this guy is rotting in hell right now with his face shoved in a bucket of crap. I even blogged about it.
http://www.futuretwits.blogspot.com
35
Good by and Good riddance to Tiller the baby Killer,"what goes around comes around" what a appropiate place to be be killed than at church,,,he shouldn't have darkened the doors in the first place.Hooray! Scott Roeder !
36
cajunj @34 and theMessiah @35, way to go, reenforcing the stereotype that Christians are ignorant, intolerant, heartless bastards, right when we're trying to recognize that this is only true for an overly vocal minority. If you bothered to research more about George Tiller and his patients than what Murdoch spoon-feeds you on FOX News, you might actually understand why Tiller's life, and his death, are such a controversy.
But we don't need to make George Tiller a saint. Your man Scott Roeder did that for us all. George Tiller set aside a dermatology practice to provide, at risk to life and limb, reproductive services for women that are otherwise very hard to obtain. He devoted his life to this cause, and ultimately died for it as well. This is more than I suspect you or I will do in our lifetimes. George Tiller is now the definition of a hero, again thanks to your man Roeder.
When they are shooting at you, you know, you are doing something right.
-- Classic American Proverb
The Schofield Kid: It don't seem real... how he ain't gonna never breathe again, ever... how he's dead... All on account of pulling a trigger.
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.
-- Unforgiven (1992)
But we don't need to make George Tiller a saint. Your man Scott Roeder did that for us all. George Tiller set aside a dermatology practice to provide, at risk to life and limb, reproductive services for women that are otherwise very hard to obtain. He devoted his life to this cause, and ultimately died for it as well. This is more than I suspect you or I will do in our lifetimes. George Tiller is now the definition of a hero, again thanks to your man Roeder.
When they are shooting at you, you know, you are doing something right.
-- Classic American Proverb
The Schofield Kid: It don't seem real... how he ain't gonna never breathe again, ever... how he's dead... All on account of pulling a trigger.
Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.
-- Unforgiven (1992)
37
Uriel-238
LMFAO!!!! I guess it's true that you guy are trying to make Tiller a saint after all!
I don't care how noble you think a man's intentions are or what he sets out to do or how his actions are gift wrapped ("provide reproductive services for women"), if ANYONE kills 60,000 babies, they are going to have to answer to the Lord for it at judgement.
Maybe by the same token, you would argue that Hitler was just trying to "provide economic stability for the German people that is otherwise very hard to obtain" or something of that nature?
But, my favorite part was where you tried to wax poetic by quoting that Eastwood rag, Unforgiven -- the same man who made his name off gunslinger movies and then had the audacity to turn around and proclaim himself anti-gun. Next time, could I suggest reading the Bible perhaps?
P.S. We DON'T all have it coming. True, we all die, but we all are judged differently, depending on how we chose to live our lives. Just thought I'd remind you of that.
LMFAO!!!! I guess it's true that you guy are trying to make Tiller a saint after all!
I don't care how noble you think a man's intentions are or what he sets out to do or how his actions are gift wrapped ("provide reproductive services for women"), if ANYONE kills 60,000 babies, they are going to have to answer to the Lord for it at judgement.
Maybe by the same token, you would argue that Hitler was just trying to "provide economic stability for the German people that is otherwise very hard to obtain" or something of that nature?
But, my favorite part was where you tried to wax poetic by quoting that Eastwood rag, Unforgiven -- the same man who made his name off gunslinger movies and then had the audacity to turn around and proclaim himself anti-gun. Next time, could I suggest reading the Bible perhaps?
P.S. We DON'T all have it coming. True, we all die, but we all are judged differently, depending on how we chose to live our lives. Just thought I'd remind you of that.
38
cajunj, you apparently don't even know your own dogma. Tiller was a practicing Lutheran, and according to Gospel, he held the Jesus pass, and thus is promised eternal salvation, no matter how dire his sins against mankind. Heck, he even was murdered on holy ground, putting Roeder in violation of the tradition of hospitality. Even the children of Abraham know we take disputes outside before letting them come to violence.
And the Abrahamic god doesn't necessarily consider abortion equal to murder, no matter how often you hear (or care to repeat) the thought-terminating cliché that insists it does (as if repeating something over and over again or with ever increasing fervor somehow makes it true). In Mosaic law, the parents of a stillborn aren't allowed to grieve or hold a funeral. In fact, a baby has to survive for thirty days and nights before he is a person, or she (if the infant is female) is given value as chattel. The biblical god has little concern for the unborn unless a given coupling is specifically foretold to be destined for some major divine purpose.
Perhaps it is you who should read the bible, especially before depending on it to back your point.
In the meantime, as one who lives in the contemporary era, where, concerning the preservation of equal human rights, scripture doesn't hold a candle to the Geneva Convention, I tend to regard women as equal to men in all respects: the more obtuse gender roles become in society, the less we see behavior patterns specific to one sex or the other. It seems appropriate to give them control over their own bodies as we expect to have control over our own. This includes allowing them to choose when, or if, they should bear children. All this is, of course, in violation of the bible, which regards a woman as property of the father, or of the husband after marriage, hence rape is a fining or marrying offense. I take you types who value tradition over progress may tend to prefer this latter way of thinking, though such discrimination is frowned upon in the United States.
I'm glad for you that you find the promise of Heaven's fold comforting, or at least take some solace in the thought that the wicked will suffer for eternity. May these beliefs comfort you as you go gentle into that good night. Contemporary literalism has revealed itself to me to be no less than absurd. I suspect it is a device by which organized churches control the faithful, so I'm content to stay in the skeptical fringes, in fidelity to truth I can establish with my given senses, and principles I can extrapolate from the ethic of reciprocity.
Incidentally, I wasn't actually quoting Eastwood, who, granted, did speak the lines. But it was David Peoples who wrote them. The point stands; we all die sometime, and too often not when or how we deserve death. As you've already crossed the Godwin threshold, I can safely cite as an example Josef Mengele, who, despite his considerable crimes, escaped prosecution to his death in 1979.
And I've already covered multiple times in the SLOG threads numerous methods we could reduce the number of abortions, methods alternative to those based on legal obstruction, intimidation, terror or assassination. The anti-abortion-access circles have shown an interest in none of them, so frankly, I don't think you guys are for real. Until I am convinced otherwise, I'll continue to believe this controversy is really about the Christian fear / rage about sex without consequences. or in rare cases, giving a wrathful fool justification to kill a man, but certainly not about actually saving lives.
More...
And the Abrahamic god doesn't necessarily consider abortion equal to murder, no matter how often you hear (or care to repeat) the thought-terminating cliché that insists it does (as if repeating something over and over again or with ever increasing fervor somehow makes it true). In Mosaic law, the parents of a stillborn aren't allowed to grieve or hold a funeral. In fact, a baby has to survive for thirty days and nights before he is a person, or she (if the infant is female) is given value as chattel. The biblical god has little concern for the unborn unless a given coupling is specifically foretold to be destined for some major divine purpose.
Perhaps it is you who should read the bible, especially before depending on it to back your point.
In the meantime, as one who lives in the contemporary era, where, concerning the preservation of equal human rights, scripture doesn't hold a candle to the Geneva Convention, I tend to regard women as equal to men in all respects: the more obtuse gender roles become in society, the less we see behavior patterns specific to one sex or the other. It seems appropriate to give them control over their own bodies as we expect to have control over our own. This includes allowing them to choose when, or if, they should bear children. All this is, of course, in violation of the bible, which regards a woman as property of the father, or of the husband after marriage, hence rape is a fining or marrying offense. I take you types who value tradition over progress may tend to prefer this latter way of thinking, though such discrimination is frowned upon in the United States.
I'm glad for you that you find the promise of Heaven's fold comforting, or at least take some solace in the thought that the wicked will suffer for eternity. May these beliefs comfort you as you go gentle into that good night. Contemporary literalism has revealed itself to me to be no less than absurd. I suspect it is a device by which organized churches control the faithful, so I'm content to stay in the skeptical fringes, in fidelity to truth I can establish with my given senses, and principles I can extrapolate from the ethic of reciprocity.
Incidentally, I wasn't actually quoting Eastwood, who, granted, did speak the lines. But it was David Peoples who wrote them. The point stands; we all die sometime, and too often not when or how we deserve death. As you've already crossed the Godwin threshold, I can safely cite as an example Josef Mengele, who, despite his considerable crimes, escaped prosecution to his death in 1979.
And I've already covered multiple times in the SLOG threads numerous methods we could reduce the number of abortions, methods alternative to those based on legal obstruction, intimidation, terror or assassination. The anti-abortion-access circles have shown an interest in none of them, so frankly, I don't think you guys are for real. Until I am convinced otherwise, I'll continue to believe this controversy is really about the Christian fear / rage about sex without consequences. or in rare cases, giving a wrathful fool justification to kill a man, but certainly not about actually saving lives.
39
Why all the fuss over Tiller's retroactive abortion? I really cannot shed a tear over the death of a mass murderer. Instead of making abortion illegal, it should be taxed and fined and regulated to the point where there is actual financial loss (or at least no profit) in performing abortions - and you'd be surprised how quick they would stop. Dollars and cents trump God and human life in this country, so we might as well make use of that fact.
40
The fuss over Tiller's assassination, lbts @39 is quite obvious to those on either side of the abortion-access controversy. Proponents see Tiller as a staunch defender of women's reproductive rights and a provider of services otherwise difficult to find. Opponents see Tiller as you describe him, a mass murderer, hence despite the condoning statements by the mainstream, anti-abortion groups, many in the those circles find his death cause for celebration.
But since you describe him as a mass murderer, I presume you do not regard the life-ending procedures he performed as justified. The personal stories of those who've been driven to seek out Tiller's services seem to suggest otherwise. I left a link to some of them on one of the previous SLOG threads, found here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
I'd like to find and better understand the specific cases to which Bill O'Reilly was referring in which a mere hurt foot or a little depression was enough for Tiller to qualify them for D&E. I highly suspect O'Reilly was speaking hypothetically and out of ignorance.
But since you describe him as a mass murderer, I presume you do not regard the life-ending procedures he performed as justified. The personal stories of those who've been driven to seek out Tiller's services seem to suggest otherwise. I left a link to some of them on one of the previous SLOG threads, found here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
I'd like to find and better understand the specific cases to which Bill O'Reilly was referring in which a mere hurt foot or a little depression was enough for Tiller to qualify them for D&E. I highly suspect O'Reilly was speaking hypothetically and out of ignorance.
41
Uriel-238
If one believes in the "McChristianity" version of the doctrine like some of the worse pastors try to force feed people, then I can see how your argument holds.
However, if one believes in the Biblical version of things, my reading of the Bible suggests to me that Tiller really is in trouble in the next life. Jesus was the one that said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven" and other things of that sort that suggest that he, and God too, were really big on children.
Also, I'm not saying that Tiller, in a limited number of cases, may have been justified in aborting the fetus late term because they were medically necessary. I suspect that those cases were rare. And, even if 1/2 or 90% of the cases were justified, were they all justified? If even one of them wasn't, in my book that would make Tiller a murderer, just the same as if he had done that to a 10 year old or an old person. And, if two were not justified, then that would make him a mass murderer. Out of 60,000 suspected cases, I think it would be hard to justify them all as medically necessary (as the Nebraska law dictates that they MUST be to be legal).
Finally, I am still not going to shed tears over him. The world is a better place since he's no longer here.
If one believes in the "McChristianity" version of the doctrine like some of the worse pastors try to force feed people, then I can see how your argument holds.
However, if one believes in the Biblical version of things, my reading of the Bible suggests to me that Tiller really is in trouble in the next life. Jesus was the one that said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven" and other things of that sort that suggest that he, and God too, were really big on children.
Also, I'm not saying that Tiller, in a limited number of cases, may have been justified in aborting the fetus late term because they were medically necessary. I suspect that those cases were rare. And, even if 1/2 or 90% of the cases were justified, were they all justified? If even one of them wasn't, in my book that would make Tiller a murderer, just the same as if he had done that to a 10 year old or an old person. And, if two were not justified, then that would make him a mass murderer. Out of 60,000 suspected cases, I think it would be hard to justify them all as medically necessary (as the Nebraska law dictates that they MUST be to be legal).
Finally, I am still not going to shed tears over him. The world is a better place since he's no longer here.
42
Every denomination of Christianity, cajunj, is a Cafeteria Christianity, or as you put it, a McChristianity even yours. This is inevitable at very least due to prevalence of contradictory passages, but is exacerbated by the complicated process through which the bible is translated then interpreted then put into context. This is why denominations of protestantism number in the tens of thousands. It's impossible for one ministry to demonstrate its interpretation of scripture, its refitting of archaic restrictions into post-industrial-age civilization, its preference of given passages over others is, somehow, more valid than another's. And still, most claim superiority, and then proceed to add Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
The interpretation of God's word in protestantism, by the way, is the responsibility of the individual parishioner, not the church, but most folk are content to let their ministry tell them how to think, and most conventions discourage individuals from researching and thinking for themselves, despite that this is the foundation of Martin Luther's legacy.
For example, I would assert that Matthew 19:14 would best be interpreted as a call to allow children to speak and prophecy in church, and to be recognized by clergy. In contrast, your interpretation requires one to assume a child and a fetus are the same thing. A child is so severely different from a fetus both chronologically and probabilistically that they cannot possibly equate. It's as fallacious to presume an unborn fetus is the same as a child as it is to assume a child is the same as an adult.
Is there any basis on which you mark George Tiller with 60,000 suspected cases or that you figure he was engaging in malpractice in all but 10% of his abortion cases? You might be relieved to know he could not proceed with an abortion without the consent and concurrence of a second doctor who also reviewed the case, and that out of all of Tiller's cases, only nineteen proved suspect the consulting physician in question might not have been truly independent. He was charged with nineteen misdemeanors, but was found not guilty on all charges (not to be confused with getting acquitted due to a technicality). Now considering he was public enemy number one according to most abortion access obstructionist groups, you can rest assured they scoured all records available to incriminate him, and couldn't find anything.
It may also comfort you to know Kansas doesn't allow abortions for reasons less than serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. and that by far, most abortions past 24 weeks are due to a late discovery of a fetal anomaly incompatible with life. Since Tiller's practice was confirmed to be within the law of the state, he was indeed providing a necessary service, and not running as O'Reilly liked to put it, a death mill.
Roeder murdered an innocent man.
More...
The interpretation of God's word in protestantism, by the way, is the responsibility of the individual parishioner, not the church, but most folk are content to let their ministry tell them how to think, and most conventions discourage individuals from researching and thinking for themselves, despite that this is the foundation of Martin Luther's legacy.
For example, I would assert that Matthew 19:14 would best be interpreted as a call to allow children to speak and prophecy in church, and to be recognized by clergy. In contrast, your interpretation requires one to assume a child and a fetus are the same thing. A child is so severely different from a fetus both chronologically and probabilistically that they cannot possibly equate. It's as fallacious to presume an unborn fetus is the same as a child as it is to assume a child is the same as an adult.
Is there any basis on which you mark George Tiller with 60,000 suspected cases or that you figure he was engaging in malpractice in all but 10% of his abortion cases? You might be relieved to know he could not proceed with an abortion without the consent and concurrence of a second doctor who also reviewed the case, and that out of all of Tiller's cases, only nineteen proved suspect the consulting physician in question might not have been truly independent. He was charged with nineteen misdemeanors, but was found not guilty on all charges (not to be confused with getting acquitted due to a technicality). Now considering he was public enemy number one according to most abortion access obstructionist groups, you can rest assured they scoured all records available to incriminate him, and couldn't find anything.
It may also comfort you to know Kansas doesn't allow abortions for reasons less than serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. and that by far, most abortions past 24 weeks are due to a late discovery of a fetal anomaly incompatible with life. Since Tiller's practice was confirmed to be within the law of the state, he was indeed providing a necessary service, and not running as O'Reilly liked to put it, a death mill.
Roeder murdered an innocent man.
43
In Mosaic law, the parents of a stillborn aren't allowed to grieve or hold a funeral. In fact, a baby has to survive for thirty days and nights before he is a person, or she (if the infant is female) is given value as chattel. The biblical god has little concern for the unborn unless a given coupling is specifically foretold to be destined for some major divine purpose.
So, maybe we should allow mothers (if you wish to call them that) to kill their children within the first 30 days of birth? If a baby is born unhealthy should the delivery doctor give the mother the choice of keeping the clild alive or killing it right there?
So, maybe we should allow mothers (if you wish to call them that) to kill their children within the first 30 days of birth? If a baby is born unhealthy should the delivery doctor give the mother the choice of keeping the clild alive or killing it right there?
44
I presume you were addressing me, regular-guy @43, since you quoted me. My point was to illustrate the bible is not the best resource by which to define the beginning point of personhood, or much of anything regarding the details of abortion access.
To answer your question, the mother is the next-of-kin and she has power of attorney over an infant who is born with defects or health issues incompatible with life, so technically it would be her choice and responsibility to decide whether or not to discontinue life-saving measures on such an newborn, not unlike the next-of-kin of a comatose adult who had, by injury or disease, been reduced to a vegetable-like state.
So, yes, in severe cases, when a baby is all but stillborn already, or can anticipate a short life of risky medical procedures, sometimes the mother is, as you put it, given the choice of keeping the child alive or killing it right there. I would doubt the delivery doctor is the one to present this dilemma, though. Most hospitals have counsel teams including chaplains to assist the mother through the emotional trauma that naturally emerges with such life-or-death decisions.
To answer your question, the mother is the next-of-kin and she has power of attorney over an infant who is born with defects or health issues incompatible with life, so technically it would be her choice and responsibility to decide whether or not to discontinue life-saving measures on such an newborn, not unlike the next-of-kin of a comatose adult who had, by injury or disease, been reduced to a vegetable-like state.
So, yes, in severe cases, when a baby is all but stillborn already, or can anticipate a short life of risky medical procedures, sometimes the mother is, as you put it, given the choice of keeping the child alive or killing it right there. I would doubt the delivery doctor is the one to present this dilemma, though. Most hospitals have counsel teams including chaplains to assist the mother through the emotional trauma that naturally emerges with such life-or-death decisions.
45
I would agree with your interpretation of Matthew 19:14 somewhat, although I think that if you only see it as a license for children to speak in church, then I think that you are limiting the words of Jesus to a very narrow focus that was never originally there. If there was any doubt at all, Matthew 18 makes it all very clear.
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
To me, with these verses, the Lord makes it very clear what kind of value he places on children in the kingdom of heaven. I've copied one such scripture here; there are many others. Moreover, I think that any honest interpretation of the New Testament would have to recognize the importance that Jesus placed on children.
Having answered that . . .
I think that you, Tiller, and everyone else in the abortion community HOPE that God doesn't look on the destruction of a fetus the same as the destruction of a newborn baby. I personally can't see any difference between a baby 1 minute before birth and one 1 minute after birth. Yet, late-term abortion gives doctors the right to shove a scalpel through the brain stem of the one and not the other, if it is deemed "medically necessary" by two doctors. Isn't it nice to know that life (or potential life as you would probably deem it) can be extinguished so easily. A murderer at least has to have 12 people to send him to die.
I also would really question the extent to how well two doctors are able to determine fetus viability in the first place. In some cases it would be obvious -- if the fetus had no brain perhaps. In others, I doubt it. I work in the medical industry and I've seen, very up close and personal, how incompetent doctors can be and how little they actually know, contrary to popular belief and the myth that the AMA tries to perpetuate to the public. Doctors are people too, and they are bound by the same limitations that we all are. To me, it is better to let God decide who lives and who dies, except in the most extreme cases. I would suspect, from the sheer volume of abortions Tiller performed that this medical necessity would have been hard to justify in EVERY SINGLE CASE (which was one of the points that I made in the last post that seems to have been misinterpreted). If Tiller had only performed a couple of abortions, or even 10 or 100, we would probably not be hearing about it now. But, 60,000? Could he justify ALL 60,000 (and the 5K or so he accepted for each one) abortions as being absolutely necessary with no other alternative? I wonder if he'll be able to justify it to God.
More...
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
To me, with these verses, the Lord makes it very clear what kind of value he places on children in the kingdom of heaven. I've copied one such scripture here; there are many others. Moreover, I think that any honest interpretation of the New Testament would have to recognize the importance that Jesus placed on children.
Having answered that . . .
I think that you, Tiller, and everyone else in the abortion community HOPE that God doesn't look on the destruction of a fetus the same as the destruction of a newborn baby. I personally can't see any difference between a baby 1 minute before birth and one 1 minute after birth. Yet, late-term abortion gives doctors the right to shove a scalpel through the brain stem of the one and not the other, if it is deemed "medically necessary" by two doctors. Isn't it nice to know that life (or potential life as you would probably deem it) can be extinguished so easily. A murderer at least has to have 12 people to send him to die.
I also would really question the extent to how well two doctors are able to determine fetus viability in the first place. In some cases it would be obvious -- if the fetus had no brain perhaps. In others, I doubt it. I work in the medical industry and I've seen, very up close and personal, how incompetent doctors can be and how little they actually know, contrary to popular belief and the myth that the AMA tries to perpetuate to the public. Doctors are people too, and they are bound by the same limitations that we all are. To me, it is better to let God decide who lives and who dies, except in the most extreme cases. I would suspect, from the sheer volume of abortions Tiller performed that this medical necessity would have been hard to justify in EVERY SINGLE CASE (which was one of the points that I made in the last post that seems to have been misinterpreted). If Tiller had only performed a couple of abortions, or even 10 or 100, we would probably not be hearing about it now. But, 60,000? Could he justify ALL 60,000 (and the 5K or so he accepted for each one) abortions as being absolutely necessary with no other alternative? I wonder if he'll be able to justify it to God.
46
cajunj, my interpretation of Matthew 19:14 is a broad scope interpretation. A proper narrow scope would not even consider it applicable outside the circumstances of the narrative. If you were to broaden the scope further, then it would really be subject to the opinion of the church, or in protestantism, the given parishioner. In that regard, I would choose to interpret it as I did, and since that was decided between me and God, your interpretation would be out of the equation. Do you see how that works?
And still, you presume with Matthew 18 and any importance that Jesus placed on children that this would apply to the unborn. I see plenty of good reasons why the two should not be equated, many of which I've expressed elsewhere on SLOG. On what basis do you equate an unborn fetus (or a newborn infant) with a child (i.e. a toddler)?
I would disagree with you, however that I Tiller, and everyone else in the abortion community HOPE that God doesn't look on the destruction of a fetus the same as the destruction of a newborn baby. You presume that God would see the destruction of a newborn as a universally bad thing, I noted @44 that this isn't always the case, when the choice is between a quick death and a short life of extreme suffering. These are circumstances that the obstructionist community likes to ignore, dismiss or pretend doesn't exist (as you've demonstrated in your posts, above).
Yes, Doctors are human beings, but so are judges, so are representatives, so are ministers. So are you and I. I don't know your experiences with doctors, and I would even admit a few stories myself of the medical sector's less than finest hours. But that doesn't change that they are the best we have, and without them as advisers to their patients, it rights and responsibilities fall to the patients, in pregnancy cases, the mothers to choose what they want done to their own bodies. Your complaint in this regard isn't that abortion is, in any case, unjustified, but that ethics training amongst doctors is lax. That doesn't change the fact that doctors have to make ethical decisions all the time, hence the solution isn't to outlaw procedures that may cross into ethical grey-zones, but to better prepare the doctors for such events.
In the meantime, to me, it is not better to let God determine who lives or who dies, since doing so rules out all mechanisms by which we artifice the preservation of life, as well as its destruction. Having been the recipient of an appendectomy, during which my appendix burst while still inside me, I would not be here today without human intervention. I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with allowing us to determine our own destinies.
This is the second time you mentioned Tiller's record of 60,000 abortion procedures through his career as a gynecologist, and again I'd like to know your source, as I've not been able to confirm that figure. Even if his lifetime case load was so long, though, keep in mind he was one of only a handful (O'Reilly said one of three) in the entire US who performed late-term procedures, so I find it completely plausible that all were justified. It is telling, though, how readily you believe, determinedly so, even, that they cannot be so.
If that were the case, if in even a few of Tiller's multitudes of cases, his practices were questionable, your obstructionist allies would certainly have found something with which to incriminate their number one target. No?
More...
And still, you presume with Matthew 18 and any importance that Jesus placed on children that this would apply to the unborn. I see plenty of good reasons why the two should not be equated, many of which I've expressed elsewhere on SLOG. On what basis do you equate an unborn fetus (or a newborn infant) with a child (i.e. a toddler)?
I would disagree with you, however that I Tiller, and everyone else in the abortion community HOPE that God doesn't look on the destruction of a fetus the same as the destruction of a newborn baby. You presume that God would see the destruction of a newborn as a universally bad thing, I noted @44 that this isn't always the case, when the choice is between a quick death and a short life of extreme suffering. These are circumstances that the obstructionist community likes to ignore, dismiss or pretend doesn't exist (as you've demonstrated in your posts, above).
Yes, Doctors are human beings, but so are judges, so are representatives, so are ministers. So are you and I. I don't know your experiences with doctors, and I would even admit a few stories myself of the medical sector's less than finest hours. But that doesn't change that they are the best we have, and without them as advisers to their patients, it rights and responsibilities fall to the patients, in pregnancy cases, the mothers to choose what they want done to their own bodies. Your complaint in this regard isn't that abortion is, in any case, unjustified, but that ethics training amongst doctors is lax. That doesn't change the fact that doctors have to make ethical decisions all the time, hence the solution isn't to outlaw procedures that may cross into ethical grey-zones, but to better prepare the doctors for such events.
In the meantime, to me, it is not better to let God determine who lives or who dies, since doing so rules out all mechanisms by which we artifice the preservation of life, as well as its destruction. Having been the recipient of an appendectomy, during which my appendix burst while still inside me, I would not be here today without human intervention. I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with allowing us to determine our own destinies.
This is the second time you mentioned Tiller's record of 60,000 abortion procedures through his career as a gynecologist, and again I'd like to know your source, as I've not been able to confirm that figure. Even if his lifetime case load was so long, though, keep in mind he was one of only a handful (O'Reilly said one of three) in the entire US who performed late-term procedures, so I find it completely plausible that all were justified. It is telling, though, how readily you believe, determinedly so, even, that they cannot be so.
If that were the case, if in even a few of Tiller's multitudes of cases, his practices were questionable, your obstructionist allies would certainly have found something with which to incriminate their number one target. No?
47
O'Reilly Rules !!! Good riddance to Tiller the Baby Killer. Ann Coulter put it best. "I don't like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating someone in their 203rd trimester."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (47) RSS