Tiller Assassination

[Kurosen]

I don't agree that the thought process that 'everyone should have a choice' should translate into an accomodation for any choice made for any reason.

As this isn't currently the case and never will be, I'm not sure why it's worth having an opinion on either way.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Rymramoch

Snake, my understanding is the late term abortions performed on fetuses with "conditions" are performed only when that "condition" is incompatible with life. Example: Bart's Hydrops Fetalis. For those of you unfamiliar with hemoglobin: every "normal" person is born with 2 beta and 4 alpha hemoglobin (HGB) chain producing genes. Every HGB molecule is made up of 4 chains, with at least 2 of those being alpha chains. You can get by without the beta chains (potentially needing chronic transfusions) but you cannot survive without alpha chains. In rare cases when it happens that a fetus has no alpha chain genes the are unable to produce HGB and cannot transport oxygen through its blood. A fetus with Bart's Hydrops Fetalis essentially cannot be born alive.

I'd have no issues with these late-term abortions.
I'm aware that I may be arguing against a fantasy hypothetical application of abortion, but in a society where parents are already talking about choosing the gender of their children, I'm worried about the long-term ramifications we may be headed for if we consider genetics a field to manipulate at will. I mean yes, by all means, let's use genetics to eliminate fatal diseases. But let's not use any knowledge of genetics as an excuse to eradicate all semblance of individuality under a very broad definition of "disorders" that encompasses nontraditional character quirks as well as recoverable disorders with work-arounds.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Most definitely. If the mother was single or the family in question was socioeconomically disadvantaged, for example, I'd consider those both legitimate arguments for an abortion of a disabled child.

However, I don't agree that the thought process that 'everyone should have a choice' should translate into an accomodation for any choice made for any reason. I guess that's the moderation I'm seeking. If the choice is made out of necessity or due to a severe impediment that would drastically alter the lives of those affected, I understand that. If it's just a matter of an otherwise wealthy, productive set of parents saying "nah, we'd rather our kids fit our preconceived definition of perfect, that'd make our privileged lives even easier" then we'll simply be advocating policy that eradicates all the "impure" children in favor of a slightly "less challenging" existence. But how can genetics truly predict the level of "challenge" any child presents his/her parents?

Eventually, taken to an extreme, you'll have parents selecting the exact traits they desire their children to have, and that's a rabbit hole I don't consider remotely healthy for humans to chase. For genetic reasons alone, it's best for humanity that we don't streamline future generations.

There's little argument that a familiy should just be able to abort spawn left and right because they're not going to have the right eye color of they'll have one extra/less finger/toe or they'll be a little weaker. We all agree that's just sort of petty revolting.

It's understood (by me, at least) the general severity of developmental defects that qualify a fetus for a late-term abortion aren't just minor things that can be "worked out" later. There's a difference between "He may be a little sickly" and "He'll be born with half a brain missing/won't develop beyond a year old"

[Rymramoch]

If it's just a matter of an otherwise wealthy, productive set of parents saying "nah, we'd rather our kids fit our preconceived definition of perfect, that'd make our privileged lives even easier" then we'll simply be advocating policy that eradicates all the "impure" children in favor of a slightly "less challenging" existence

Isn't there a movie where most everyone is genetically altered to be the best, except the guy it follows isn't, or am I having a senile moment?

And out of my own curiosity, I guess I am unsure of what exactly you are getting at with the: "for genetic reasons alone" comment.

[BitVyper]

Isn't there a movie where most everyone is genetically altered to be the best, except the guy it follows isn't, or am I having a senile moment?

Gattaca. It's a fantastic movie.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Most definitely. If the mother was single or the family in question was socioeconomically disadvantaged, for example, I'd consider those both legitimate arguments for an abortion of a disabled child.

However, I don't agree that the thought process that 'everyone should have a choice' should translate into an accomodation for any choice made for any reason. I guess that's the moderation I'm seeking. If the choice is made out of necessity or due to a severe impediment that would drastically alter the lives of those affected, I understand that. If it's just a matter of an otherwise wealthy, productive set of parents saying "nah, we'd rather our kids fit our preconceived definition of perfect, that'd make our privileged lives even easier" then we'll simply be advocating policy that eradicates all the "impure" children in favor of a slightly "less challenging" existence. But how can genetics truly predict the level of "challenge" any child presents his/her parents?

Eventually, taken to an extreme, you'll have parents selecting the exact traits they desire their children to have, and that's a rabbit hole I don't consider remotely healthy for humans to chase. For genetic reasons alone, it's best for humanity that we don't streamline future generations.

I doubt there are few women out there who would chose to have an abortion simply because of the gender/eye colour (can you even tell what their eye colour is?)/whatever of their child. As described in the article that Mash linked to, an abortion is not a pleasant process. You'd have to be downright sociopathic to want such a thing.*

*Please note I am pro-abortion, even for late-term pregnancies, and even for healthy pregnancies. If a woman feels she is not able to raise a child, for whatever reason- social, financial, mental- she should not be forced to because it is unfair for both parties.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by pocheros

I doubt there are few women out there who would chose to have an abortion simply because of the gender/eye colour (can you even tell what their eye colour is?)

I think he was referring to the already existing, but not yet very mainstream genetic tests that may become mainstream, allowing anyone to know many of the child's traits pre-birth, or barring social/political taboo, design those traits as we wish.

[Fifthfiend]

I think this raises an interesting point.

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes 5 months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

And so the execution of Tiller, 67, is not only tragic but ominous. He was born into an era when being an abortion provider meant saving women's lives. And the cold-blooded murder in church and in front of his wife of this stalwart defender of women rights and beloved physician, comes as a message for others, as well as tragic deja vu.

It seems like this slaying is of a piece with the general ratcheting up of extremist, violent rhetoric and attitudes since Obama came into office, along with that shooting of police officers recently and things like the increases in gun/ammunition sales.

[ChaosMage]

The extremism that, I think its generally agreed caused this horrific (regardless of what side of the fence you're on) action, is probably reprehensible. My brother in law pointed out something to me though that makes me wonder.

That abortion clinic violence has increased makes sense since the pro-life forces are out of power. Terrorists always increase in presence when there is an oppressive force (see: Iraq), and all that rhetoric probably makes people in churches feel like they're being assaulted on all sides. I live in smallish town Indiana. Part of me wants to go to one of these crazy churches so I can find out. Anyway, think about it this way. Lets say you are absolutely, completely convinced that for whatever reason, life begins when sperm and egg say hello. In your mind, an abortion, no matter how early, is as much murder as walking down the street with a machete and picking someone out at random. Wouldn't it be even more reprehensible if people with these beliefs did nothing?

I'm not saying I condone killing people, and I do think there is a level of brainwashing taking place. Isn't it possible its at least a little justified though?

[Tev]

Originally Posted by ChaosMage

I'm not saying I condone killing people, and I do think there is a level of brainwashing taking place. Isn't it possible its at least a little justified though?

I'm going to go with a "no" on the justification for killing unarmed civilians in their church for no reason other than being a crazy extremist.

There's really no way to look at what that guy did and go "you know, he was in the right somehow..." Taking his life yourself doesn't make you any less of the murderer that you saw him as.