Tiller Assassination

[Rymramoch]

I agree with Tev. And besides, most of the U.S. does not support the death penalty anymore, so legally that machete wielding maniac would not be put to death for the horrific things he does. Therefore, it is also legally unjustifiable to kill anyone for any reason.

Interestingly to me, why is it only the pro-life people who bomb buildings and shoot people? I cannot think of a case where a militant pro-choice person walked into a church and shot the officiator or planted a bomb. And therefore, why are they called pro-life anyways? I have known a number of pro-death penalty/war individuals who are anti-abortion but call themselves "pro-life." Pro-life to me seems like it would better describe my pacifist hippie friends.

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Rymramoch

And therefore, why are they called pro-life anyways? I have known a number of pro-death penalty/war individuals who are anti-abortion but call themselves "pro-life." Pro-life to me seems like it would better describe my pacifist hippie friends.

It sounds better to be pro-"something". Being anti-"something" leaves your group with a more negative connotation.

[stefan]

Am I the only one who finds it kind of bleakly funny how a man who protests abortion on grounds of it being like murder was A-okay with gunning a man down in a church?

I mean, okay, you don't like abortion. Alright I disagree with you on several counts, but I'm going to let you keep that view, even if I won't let you enforce it. But if you're calling for and acting on violence towards pro-abortion activists and doctors who perform it, can't you, you know, take a step back and evaluate the intrinisic contradictions and hypocrisy of your plans, even for a second?

I mean, its like protesting fossil fuel indulgence by holding a 4-day nascar endurance race.

[bluestarultor]

Being in a vocally pro-life area, another thing they like to toss around is "pro-abortion" when speaking about pro-choice people. It's a subtle way of demonizing people like me, who don't support abortion, but can't justify forcing their views on others. I mean, pro-abortion is a horrible misnomer that indicates that the person wants ALL babies to be aborted, but there you go. These people are not sane or thoughtful in their beliefs. They're sheep. They believe it because they're told to by their religion, to the point where my own church tried to refuse Communion to people who wanted Kerry in office. I was really disgusted, but it didn't stop me from getting it anyway by not being an idiot and telling them I was working for the Democratic office. I'm quite satisfied that I'm not going to Hell for it.

You can't challenge these people to think. They don't WANT to. They live in a comfortable bubble where all they have to do is regurgitate what they're told and do what they're told to do. It's easier that way. Opposing them is pointless because that's exactly what they'll do, and they won't think about it or how it's hypocritical or self-conflicting.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Here's a fact for you: Up to 70% of late-term abortions are done because gestational age was misjudged. The remaining 30%, consisting of an inviable fetus or an endangered mother, are the situations that I totally understand.

Since it turns out you don't need to be a med student to Wiki something I'm gonna share that the entirety of this study runs

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

and also that the study measured from 16 weeks which is itself a pretty damn early time to start measuring "late-term" abortion.

(study link)

Frankly going from the top four responses I'd say that for people with problems with late-term abortion the number one thing they could do to reduce this (already quite rare, natch) procedure is by fighting against right-wing laws and policies that make abortions generally more difficult to obtain and the various social stigmas directed at women who obtain them, ensuring that women who need them will be able to get them and will make their decision to do so within their first trimester.

[Mashirosen]

That was kind of a shitty non-apology I made back there, so: I unconditionally apologize to Swordchucks for having insulted his intelligence.

But you know what, I did not threaten to ban him just because he's anti-abortion -- if I was cool with that, why would anyone who feels that way still be here after several rehashes of the argument? I threatened to ban him because I misjudged his post and his level of understanding of the subject and really wasn't in the mood that day to indulge the usual slanderous fallacies about the reasons women choose any abortion, let alone something as -- I think pretty much everyone on both sides can agree on this? -- as distressing as late-trimester abortion. We have at least one poster here who's had one and been upset by other posters implying frankly shitty things about the motivations of women in that situation, and no matter what you feel about the subject you ought to understand that that's not something to be encouraged here or anywhere. I wrongly thought that was where Swordchucks was going with his remark about personally approving of very few late-trimester abortions, saw red, and made an ass of u and me, for which again I'm sorry.

Anyway, derail aside:

the number one thing they could do to reduce this (already quite rare, natch) procedure is by fighting against right-wing laws and policies that make abortions generally more difficult to obtain and the various social stigmas directed at women who obtain them, ensuring that women who need them will be able to get them and will make their decision to do so within their first trimester

It'd be great if those things could come to be, but realistically I think it's better to shoot for consensus on preventative measures, like instituting comprehensive (maybe even mandatory) science-based sex ed in which abstinence is presented as a potential choice rather than made the sole or primary focus, providing free and uninhibited access to birth control methods, and R&D into improving methods currently available.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Being in a vocally pro-life area, another thing they like to toss around is "pro-abortion" when speaking about pro-choice people. It's a subtle way of demonizing people like me, who don't support abortion, but can't justify forcing their views on others. I mean, pro-abortion is a horrible misnomer that indicates that the person wants ALL babies to be aborted, but there you go.

Pro-choice groups often do the same thing, by calling pro-life people anti-choice. It's technically true, as is pro-abortion, but they both twist the intentions and beliefs of the opposing view. Pro-life people, by and large, believe that life starts at conception. That the fetus has as much a right to live as any five year old child, or an adult. It's not that they want to sinisterly oppress women by taking away their choice, it's that the right of the child to live has to trump the right of the woman to choose.

Originally Posted by stefan

Am I the only one who finds it kind of bleakly funny how a man who protests abortion on grounds of it being like murder was A-okay with gunning a man down in a church?

Not that I agree with it, but the justification runs something like this: A doctor who performs abortions is intentionally ending the life of the fetus. The fetus is a full human being with all the rights therein.Thus the doctor was murdering a human. The law of the United States does not recognize this as murder, so it's up to the individual citizen to provide justice. Killing the doctor isn't murder, it's an execution for murder - justice.

The killer probably sees himself as a justified vigilante, dispensing justice because the laws of the US won't. It's twisted, wrong, and pretty much evil. But it's not hypocritical.

Which makes me think of something else. People often bring up the hypocrisy of pro-life people supporting the death penalty. The distinction is that pro-lifers support life for the innocent. Babies haven't killed anyone, and thus deserve to live. Murderers have killed people, and so have forfeited the right to live. Support for this belief often come from the Bible, though personally I think that's ignoring distinctions between the Old and New Testaments. But that's another discussion entirely.

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?)

This:
http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...tion/23342.htm
Ignore the site's bias. It was the first Google link when searching "Sweden Abortion Gender"

Health authorities in Sweden have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to the countries law and can be allowed to happen in Swedish hospitals, according to Swedish channel Sveriges Television.

Earlier this year Swedish website The Local reported on the case of a woman from Eskilstuna in the south of the country who had two abortions after discovering the gender of her baby.

The woman already had two daughters and requested an amniocentesis to check for any possibility of chromosome abnormalities. She also requested to know the gender of her unborn baby. After finding out that she was pregnant with another girl, she reportedly asked for an abortion six days later.

Doctors at the Mälaren Hospital were concerned with the request and and asked the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare to make guidelines on how to deal with such cases where they felt “pressured to examine the foetus’s gender” without a good medical reason.

The board has responded to the request saying that any woman who asks for an abortion upon discovering the sex of the child cannot be refused so long as it is not after the 18th week of pregnancy.

[pochercoaster]

Ryanderman: That's kinda disturbing but that woman is probably part of an extremely tiny minority. Even so, I don't think it's right to rule against someone's right to an abortion just based on their motivation- that sort of situation gets really sticky fast, and it'd be easy for women to get denied for all sorts of reasons which are actually valid.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Pro-choice groups often do the same thing, by calling pro-life people anti-choice. It's technically true, as is pro-abortion, but they both twist the intentions and beliefs of the opposing view. Pro-life people, by and large, believe that life starts at conception. That the fetus has as much a right to live as any five year old child, or an adult. It's not that they want to sinisterly oppress women by taking away their choice, it's that the right of the child to live has to trump the right of the woman to choose.

Only I just SAID why the same doesn't apply. Anti-choice holds true because they're against the choice to abort. Aside from the fact that I've never heard the term "anti-choice" (though this isn't saying much, and I may use it if push comes to shove), "pro-abortion" holds a completely different denotative meaning. Note that pro-choice people don't hold any grudge if called "anti-abortion." It still accurately describes what they are. It even accurately describes my own personal views on abortion. I am proudly anti-abortion and pro-choice, because I don't believe in abortions, but I can't justify forcing that belief on anyone else.

If I were pro-abortion, I'd be some sort of slavering lunatic running around yelling, "LET'S KILL THEM BABIES! RAWR!"

[Ryanderman]

Let me rephrase. Sorry. Pro-abortion is accurate as you are for the right to have an abortion, regardless of how much you actually want it to happen. Just as anti-choice is accurate because I am against the right for a woman to choose to abort the baby (in most circumstances, etc. Not going into that now), despite the fact that my being against that right is a consequence, not a reason for my stance. Neither term is comprehensive though.