Good. Execute the bastard, and along with it, all the lefty whining about standard court procedures and what not.

So much for the manslaughter deal.

Thankfully even Kansans aren't crazy enough to fall for that.

Good for the jury! It seemed to me like an open and shut case, the guy never hid the fact that he killed the doc.

I was afraid that this guy would only get found gulity of the lesser charge as jurors had to compromise in order not to acquit, but it turned ok in the end.

all the lefty whining about standard court procedures and what not.

LOL I wonder how many will admit they blew their load a little early on that one.

Laughed out loud when he was spouting how no man should ever take the life of another.

Unless, of course, he or some soft in the brain (washed) Xtian soldier, who has been taught that it is OK for Christians to murder if they disagree with the law of the land.

"Render unto Caesar" means a good Xtian must follow civil law.

This murderer chose his own fate.

Glad Tiller isn't performing his "health care services" anymore. But too bad it took this fool's actions to make it happen. Maybe they can eventually be buried together.

Hang 'em high...

40 minutes?

Impressive that even in a Red state a hometown jury doesn't dawdle in handing out justice in this kind of case.

Corky, redstate juries DON'T DITHER.

What do you expect from a 'church' that is 100% Jesus-Free.

As it should be, guilty.

Good verdict, great deliberation time.

The only sensible verdict, especially given Roeder's admission he killed Tiller. Nice to see no jury nullification by buying into the ridiculous idea that Roeder's act was somehow justfied. One more terrorist goes where he belongs, behind bars.

Shot the man IN A CHURCH and then tried to claim the high moral road...

Thanks to the Kansas Jury that brought back a quick verdict on the side of justice for all!

Glad Tiller isn't performing his "health care services" anymore.

So you are glad he is dead.

Okay, three cheers for the Kansas jury. Seriously.

Let's just hope the Judge man up and gives him life without parole.

I'm sure the righties here will be disappointed Kansas doesn't have the death penalty, though.

"I'm sure the righties here will be disappointed Kansas doesn't have the death penalty, though."

Yes.

#8, I would have preferred a different reason for his stopping late term and partial-birth abortions, yes. But in the end......

I was pleased when I first heard about this. Oh wait, this is about that hero that killed the baby murderer? Nevermind.
I thought it was about Scott Ritter, the pedophile that was the darling of the left.

I don't understand why the Rtards aren't shouting from the rafers that "THERE HAS BEEN ANOTHER TERRORIST TRIED IN CIVIL COURT".

You would think that the pants pissers are so desperate for a 'terrorist act under Obama' that this would be the only news reported on Clusterfox.

This guy actually killed an American, unlike the stupid fuck that just tried to set his underwear on fire.

This actually was a terrorist act and the shit-stains on the right aren't screaming about it?

There are THREE threads on this.

Kansas is a death penalty state, although nobody's been given the chop since capital punishment was reintroduced 16 years ago.

101CHAIRBORNE.....You Right Wing Assholes never disappoint, to divert the conversation from this MURDERER who Fucks like you support, to Scott Ritter is laughable if not PATHATIC!!!!! If you had any moral fiber you should be ashamed of your self. Be an American Asshole not a Partisan Dick who appreciated the Constitution only when you agree with it!!!!!!

This FUCK Killed an Human Being in Church, an you think that this is something that should be bypass, you are a fucking idiot!!!!

What SHE said!

101chairDUPE

#9 | Posted by celisary at 2010-01-29 01:52 PM | Reply |

How can you still not know the difference between "an" and "and"? Especailly after having it pointed out to you numerous times.

I'm glad this guy killed the abortion doctor. I'm especially glad that it was done in The Almighty God's home.
The only way this could have turned out better is if Jesus himself came down from the Glorious Heaven and smited that cocksucker all by himself.

I'm sure the righties here will be disappointed Kansas doesn't have the death penalty, though.

#4 | Posted by northguy3 at

damn straight.
I believe in the rule of law..send him to texas. he will NEVER KILl another BABy killer AGAIN.

Devout Troll-Worshiper 101chairpoodle uses Jesus' name in his hate filled post.

Typical of the 100% Jesus Free 'Christians'. I'd love to hear one of them quote one thing that Jesus preached that they believe in.

Hypocrites need some serious ass kicking.

I'm willing to bet that Jesus laughed so hard when Roeder killed Tiller, that he almost fell off the crucifix.

I don't understand why some of you don't think prayers are answered. They may not be answered exactly, because if they were, Tiller would have died in a blender/vaccuum combo, but getting shot to death in God's House is pretty fucking cool.

"#8, I would have preferred a different reason for his stopping late term and partial-birth abortions, yes. But in the end......
#18 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-01-29 01:40 PM"

The end justifies the means.

Is that what you left off?

now if they'd only rip him to pieces one by one without pain-killers or shove scissors into the base of his skull and suck out the contents until his skull collpased for a perfect case of justice....maybe they could even put his head in some form of amnio fluid and video it so we could see his "silent scream" like we can with Tiller's abortion recipients...

I think that Jesus would be immensely sad at this situation. Too many lives, both outside and inside the womb, have been destroyed.

I guess this ugly will rot in a Kansas joint forever. So will Paul Hill, who sits in Florida's death row for murdering clinic personnel how long ago, a decade? Of course the evangelistic gurus who advise their sheep to assassinate physicians go free. First Amendment and all that. Soon the Supreme Court will rule that they are people too. herm

kirk..

you should know better than to deal with that reality,...dont you know all of those babies that tiller murdered were just globs of plasm no matter how many months they were before being savagely ripped out and tortured..

nice one herm..even if you are full of shit
I like to see more than one subject in one paragraph.

I'm willing to bet that Jesus laughed so hard when Roeder killed Tiller, that he almost fell off the crucifix.
I don't understand why some of you don't think prayers are answered. They may not be answered exactly, because if they were, Tiller would have died in a blender/vaccuum combo, but getting shot to death in God's House is pretty fucking cool.
#28 | Posted by 101Chairborne

afk sorry to read that you are to stupid to know what a baby is. did you at least try to go to school

Herm -

Just a point of information on Paul Hill: Florida gave him a lethal cocktail back in 2003.

And I see that the bogus paratrooper, who only emerges from his cesspool hole to gloat over the misfortunes of his betters, has returned. He and Fred Phelps are probably sharing a beer in some Topeka bar. herm

Thanks, Doc. I admire your hanging in there. herm

You as well, Herm.

Thanks, Doc. I admire your hanging in there.

FF

"He and Fred Phelps are probably sharing a beer in some Topeka bar. herm"

You forget, Phelps doesn't like gays.

hermaphrodite,
I surprised you're still alive. Tick tock, gramps.

afk sorry to read that you are to stupid to know what a baby is. did you at least try to go to school

#36 | Posted by Georgeisadrunk

well I did go long enough to know the difference between to and too.....

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HOLY SHIT...That baby murderer just go blown the fuck away! Awesome!"

"Please join us in laughing...errrr...I mean signing our praises and thanks to the Almighty Lord Our Savior for guiding the hand of The Honorable Mr Roeder. I'd also like to pray for the gun show loophole that made all of this possible"

Thanks, Doc. I admire your hanging in there. herm

#39 | Posted by herm at 2010-01-29 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You as well, Herm.

#40 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at

HEY

you two GET A ROOM

if you dont know and understand the words, you are to stupid to play and afk you are to stupid to play

[Roeder's defense attorney] ...compared his client to Martin Luther King Jr. and other heroes who fought injustice around the world...

Kinda makes you want to throw the defense attorney in a cell, too.

But remember, there are no Christian Terrorists.

I don't understand how some people can screw that concept up so badly... when it's written plain as day.

I'm guessing he is having fun with the libtards at Christianity's expense.

I'm willing to bet that Jesus laughed so hard when Roeder killed Tiller, that he almost fell off the crucifix.

I don't understand why some of you don't think prayers are answered. They may not be answered exactly, because if they were, Tiller would have died in a blender/vaccuum combo, but getting shot to death in God's House is pretty fucking cool.

#28 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-01-29 02:28 PM

R0B0T, you're a retard.

I don't understand how some people can screw that concept up so badly... when it's written plain as day.
I'm guessing he is having fun with the libtards at Christianity's expense.
#50 | Posted by eberly

Damn that's fucking evil, and also hilarious.

#51 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-01-29 03:27 PM | Reply

The vengeful evil god/jesus troll still pulls them in. Just like my anti-pot rants laced with religious overtones.

I laugh my ass off with the "And smite that eveil cocksucker..." talk.

Still...

#52 | Posted by R0B0T at 2010-01-29 03:32 PM | Reply |

I know. I know. It's just that it works EVERY time. It's so far over the top I just don't understand how it can still work.
I've never seen anything posted on the Retort that was even close to that type of over the top rhetoric, and that's saying something.

Impressive that even in a Red state a hometown jury doesn't dawdle in handing out justice in this kind of case.

#8 | Posted by Corky

Actually, you should know that it is the red states that don't mess around when it comes to sentencing and the carrying out of that sentence. Just look at how long people sit on death row in California and compare that to Texas. Red states know what justice is. Blue states seem to be the ones who are too much of liberal wussies to give and carry out sentencing.

Of course the evangelistic gurus who advise their sheep to assassinate physicians go free.

#32 | Posted by herm

Would you like to provide proof of this or is this as false as claiming righties and lefties have the better candidates?

Glad Tiller isn't performing his "health care services" anymore.

You're glad???

You want women to die attempting to deliver nonviable or already dead fetuses?

Oh well, I guess you're just an asshole.

R0B0T, you're a retard.
#51 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I know. I know. It's just that it works EVERY time. It's so far over the top I just don't understand how it can still work.
I've never seen anything posted on the Retort that was even close to that type of over the top rhetoric, and that's saying something.
#54 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Sorry R0B0T, thought you might be an uptight asshole type Christian. If not I retract "retard."

I was pleased when I first heard about this. Oh wait, this is about that hero that killed the baby murderer? Nevermind.
I thought it was about Scott Ritter, the pedophile that was the darling of the left.

#19 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-01-29 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Awwwwww....sniff* sniff*. Dry those eyes Whine-oh-Whine. Face it, your hero was found guilty of first degree murder.

Look at the bright side. You can go there (prison) and give him conjugal visits.

now if they'd only rip him to pieces one by one without pain-killers or shove scissors into the base of his skull and suck out the contents until his skull collpased for a perfect case of justice....maybe they could even put his head in some form of amnio fluid and video it so we could see his "silent scream" like we can with Tiller's abortion recipients...

#30 | Posted by kirk

All he did was perform a really late abortion. I thought late term abortions were legal in Kansas.

Give him the DEATH PENALTY!!!

Soon they will be together in hell.

101 loves him some murderers, fo sho.

I'm willing to bet that Jesus laughed so hard when Roeder killed Tiller, that he almost fell off the crucifix.

Saw some pictures of a church in haiti. He did fall off the crucifix after he killed a couple hundred thousand folk. Same thing in Mississippi after Katrina.

What a clown that Jayzuzz is. Knocks 'em dead everywhere. He sure was smokin' in NYC on 9-11. Killer routine.

Just look at how long people sit on death row in California and compare that to Texas.

In Texas, even the innocent ones don't get a chance to get comfortable, do they?

I'm glad this guy killed the abortion doctor. I'm especially glad that it was done in The Almighty God's home.
The only way this could have turned out better is if Jesus himself came down from the Glorious Heaven and smited that cocksucker all by himself.

#25 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

..well we are wishing for your demise to motherfucker.

smile..Jesus wants to crank a .40 in you..

#8, I would have preferred a different reason for his stopping late term and partial-birth abortions, yes. But in the end......
#18 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-01-29 01:40 PM

scumbag..

Figures the federal gov't is going after another servant of God. I am suprised they have not killed him yet like they killed the prophet David Koresh

All he did was perform a really late abortion. I thought late term abortions were legal in Kansas.

#61 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

FUNNY, VERY FUNNY

i havent heard god claim the pos as a servant. does god just whisper in your ear? or did paster ted tell you that. how is your secret invisible friend these days?

Why did they treat this guy as anything but an enemy combatant?

"...like they killed the prophet David Koresh"

Bwhahahahaha!!!

Yer as funny as you are stupid!

Figures the federal gov't is going after another servant of God.

Much like they go after the "Party of God," Hizbullah.

I am suprised they have not killed him yet like they killed the prophet David Koresh

One man's child-molesting lunatic with an arms stockpile is another man's prophet. Granted, that other man is a fucking moron, but perspective counts for something. Your perspective happens to be that of a blithering idiot.

The judge got it right as did the jury.

It was not imminent--the guy searched out where to kill the doctor--too much security at the clinic and at his home.

He went for the church.

And the guy admitted to the court that he killed the doctor.

40 minutes might be too long to decide--but hey they had to pick a foreman...

Now that the guy gets 25 years to life--maybe he will see what he did was wrong--no matter the 'reason'.

Figures the federal gov't is going after another servant of God. I am suprised they have not killed him yet like they killed the prophet David Koresh

#69 | POSTED BY TIMBCI

If you think that way, you are a sick individual.

I am suprised they have not killed him yet like they killed the prophet David Koresh

One man's child-molesting lunatic with an arms stockpile is another man's prophet. Granted, that other man is a fucking moron, but perspective counts for something. Your perspective happens to be that of a blithering idiot.

#74 | Posted by ZombieHunter

The federal gov't made up lies about David Koresh. Janet Reno knew he was a prophet. The gov't lies about great men like Colonel James Braddock, CIA Agent Matt Hunter, and Vietnam Vet John T. Booker.

King David had an arms stockpile too.

Janet Reno knew he was a prophet.

troll. right?

What do you expect from a 'church' that is 100% Jesus-Free.

#10 | Posted by axe at 2010-01-29 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

FF!

Pretends to know something about Jesus! (Wears his stupidity like a bag on his head)

David Koresh was a great man. If Mason Storm wasn't on a assignment with James Braddock they would have saved him

The only way this could have turned out better is if Jesus himself came down from the Glorious Heaven and smited that cocksucker all by himself.

#25 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Cos Jesus really hated abortion?

Wouldn't shut up about it?

troll. right?

~Ichiro

tImbecile?

Yeah, him and 101 Airhorn are basically just trolls.

Airhead is basically the blog equivalent of a shock jock only you know... dumber and tImbecile is basically a sub-moronic hard right version of Walter Mitty replete with fantasies of being someone other than just a racist trailer trash redneck from NJ.

On Topic?

Another Religious extremist behind bars?

Good, maybe now those other Talibaptist fucktards will finally stop trying to turn this punk-assed biatch and domestic terrorist into some kind of a hero.

Be Well.

What the anti-abortion crowd call abortion: Murder = BAD!

What they call the murder of a human being: GOOD!

I won't use 'pro-life' because most of the anti-abortion crowd are strong proponents of the death penalty. Prison is better punishment, and you don't have to kill a living, breathing, human being.

--- "Vengence is Mine sayeth the Lord"

So, why do they consider it their duty? Are they God?

Paradoxical to say the least ...

#79 | Posted by vernon at 2010-01-30 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Pretends to know something about Jesus!

Be Well.

The trial and the verdict played out almost precisely as I anticipated. The defense made a thin effort to push for manslaughter. The judge, so as to avoid possible reversal on appeal, allowed them. The jury saw through the smoke and quickly convicted. No surprises here.

"Glad Tiller isn't performing his "health care services" anymore.
You're glad???
You want women to die attempting to deliver nonviable or already dead fetuses?"

Actually, the reason Tiller was controversial was because he admitted doing late term abortions on viable, healthy third-trimester pregnancies. There are other late-term abortionists who don't have the fame, or infamy, that Tiller did. In fact, Kansas changed the law because of Tiller, and he supposedly made changes to his practice.

Roeder's a murderer, and since I don't believe in capital punishment I hope he spends the rest of his life in a very bad prison with some very bad people.

That said, it's possible to be glad Tiller's not doing what he did and still wish he hadn't been murdered.

I wish the band Rush would have never recorded any of their shitty songs, but that doesn't mean I wish Geddy Lee were murdered.

most of the anti-abortion crowd are strong proponents of the death penalty.

I would like to see documentation to support that claim.

I'd bet most Hardcore christian rightwingers are death penalty advocates.

Actually, the reason Tiller was controversial was because he admitted doing late term abortions on viable, healthy third-trimester pregnancies.

That requires a verifiable, main stream media link.

The federal gov't made up lies about David Koresh. Janet Reno knew he was a prophet.
-Timbecile

I'm going to let the utter stupidity of this statement linger in the air for a little bit.

David Koresh was a great man.

So was Jim Jones.

Actually, the reason Tiller was controversial was because he admitted doing late term abortions on viable, healthy third-trimester pregnancies.

According to Roe, abortion is only permitted in the third trimester to protect the life or health of the mother.

So, if he was actually breaking the law, why was he not it jail? Especially in a Red state like Kansas?

I thought the reason Tiller was controversial was because he was doing late-term abortions at all. It's an exceedingly rare practice. But I haven't followed this closely. I do know that late-term abortions are only supposed to be done when a major health problem comes to light. And I would be surprised if the vast majority if not all of Tiller's late-term abortions met that criteria.

I'd bet most Hardcore christian rightwingers are death penalty advocates.

#87 | POSTED BY JACKASS AT 2010-01-30 01:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

What you would "bet" and what you can prove are two different things, and additionally- not all pro-life Christians are "hardcore right wingers". The largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, opposes abortion AND capital punishment.

Actually, the reason Tiller was controversial was because he admitted doing late term abortions on viable, healthy third-trimester pregnancies.
According to Roe, abortion is only permitted in the third trimester to protect the life or health of the mother.

So, if he was actually breaking the law, why was he not it jail?

Especially in a Red state like Kansas?
I thought the reason Tiller was controversial was because he was doing late-term abortions at all.

First off- don't assume that ANY state, red or blue, is in complete unanimity on a given issue.

The issue is that Tiller sometimes performed late term, post-viability abortions because of the MENTAL health of the mother (which was a loophole in Kansas because it apparently never occurred to anybody that it might be used as a justification for late term abortion), rather than the PHYSICAL health of the mother.

He wasn't prosecuted because it wasn't illegal, via something opponents call the mental health loophole.

There are other doctors who perform late term abortions. Not many, but they exist. Tiller was famous (or infamous, depending on one's POV), while they are not.

I would be surprised if the vast majority if not all of Tiller's late-term abortions met that criteria.

The vast majority of Tiller's late-term abortions almost certainly DID fall within the physical health of the mother criteria. Tiller reported to the the state of Kansas that a few hundred did not- they were for the mental health of the mother. A few hundred out of many thousand doesn't sound like much- unless you consider the abortion of a viable, healthy late term pregnancy barbaric and wrong.

Tiller did stand trial on what amounted to trumped-up "anything we can do to get him" charges a year or two ago. Late term abortion in Kansas requires a second, independent physician to sign off, and Tiller was accused of paying a particular doctor to sign off on procedures. He was acquitted, and the prosecutor is facing a good number of ethics charges from the prosecution.

There's not a lot of reporting available on the mental health loophole, because it wasn't illegal- the legislature passed a bill, vetoed by Karen Sebelius- to outlaw it.

For documentation, so requested by somebody in the thread, simply Google Kansas H Sub 218, which was the bill in question.

Now, the law that Kansas DID pas a while back changed the reporting regulations- requiring details about why each and every late term abortion was performed. This is when Tiller's "mental health" argument surfaced, and supposedly he stopped performing abortions for that reason at the time the reporting requirements changed.

The bottom line is- Roeder is a murderer, and deserves life in prison for his crime. However, that does not of itself justify Tiller's actions. Nor does condemnation of Tiller equate to support of Roeder.

Ken Schwartz - good post. Thanks for the info.

A few hundred out of many thousand doesn't sound like much- unless you consider the abortion of a viable, healthy late term pregnancy barbaric and wrong.

All that matters is whether or not it's legal. There are plenty of barbaric, wrong things the law has no problem with.

The Guy is a freakin Loon, hope He gets gang beaten and raped daily in Prison forever

"Protect the Babies"..?

What about protecting the Mom with complications who have to make very difficult choices to save their own lives and health?

Thank goodness He did not attack evil Bush to really "save the babies" after the satanic Bush Invasions had proven to murder 100s of thousands of women, kids and babies (not a handful) who were all innocent and actually living!@!

Then, once He "saves" the babies, and injures the Mom's,
The RepubliCons refuse any Health Care, Support programs, Jobs, Housing, or assistance to Americans of any kind ever!

Ken Schwartz - good post. Thanks for the info.

A few hundred out of many thousand doesn't sound like much- unless you consider the abortion of a viable, healthy late term pregnancy barbaric and wrong.

All that matters is whether or not it's legal. There are plenty of barbaric, wrong things the law has no problem with.

If we're his attorney, then all that matters is whether it was legal... In an assessment of Tiller's character, though, the legality or illegality of his action doesn't matter...

As I said, no amount of disgust at Tiller's actions could justify his murder, but it's possible to find the murder AND Tiller's profession reprehensible.

Glad Tiller isn't performing his "health care services" anymore.
#6 | POSTED BY SPOKANEJIM AT 2010-01-29 12:48 PM

Stay classy!

it's possible to find the murder AND Tiller's profession reprehensible.

Yeah, but take away the right to abortion and it will still be done. Just not safely, just not by trained professionals. Which to me seems more reprehensible.

it's possible to find the murder AND Tiller's profession reprehensible.

Yeah, but take away the right to abortion and it will still be done.

I understand that argument, and you are correct.

However, that argument is only pertinent if you accept the premise that the abortion issue is primarily about "reproductive rights" and not about "life rights". Because, obviously, if you're of the opinion that abortion (in this case, late term abortion specifically) takes a life, the "they will do it anyway" argument is equivalent to "rape should be legal, because rapists will do it anyway". Not that I'm equating a woman who has an abortion to a rapist.

In the case of Tiller, specifically, though- there are plenty of people who otherwise consider themselves Pro-Choice who found his practice abominable.

The notion that all abortions are acceptable regardless of the state of the pregnancy or the week of gestation isn't generally accepted, and rightly so.

"most of the anti-abortion crowd are strong proponents of the death penalty..... I would like to see documentation to support that claim."

In my clinic escort days I challenged not dozens but scores of lunatics bearing doctored nine-foot bloody fetus photos on just this issue. Catholics, evangelicals and just plain ugly haters. I have NEVER found a fetal rights advocate, including disciples of Pope Benny the 110th, who did not also endorse executions. Somehow those executed are always guilty of SOMETHING, but the "unborn" are simon pure. herm

but the "unborn" are simon pure - HERM

Yes - they are. You, are quite the opposite. I suggest starting hail Mary's now - it may take the rest of your natural life to pay YOUR pennance. Don't know for sure of course, but I would play the safe smart bet.

"I have NEVER found a fetal rights advocate, including disciples of Pope Benny the 110th, who did not also endorse executions"

Then you didn't look very hard.

Some folks are more comfortable with their prejudices than with objective measurement.

Even assuming your claim regarding your personal experience is true- and I can see no reason to believe you, given your obvious bias- it remains anecdotal evidence of a statistical claim, which isn't evidence at all.

However, that argument is only pertinent if you accept the premise that the abortion issue is primarily about "reproductive rights" and not about "life rights".

The problem with "life rights" is I can't see any way to grant those rights without granting the fetus a status of legal personhood.

This opens an intractable can of worms, and it's also unprecedented in human history. And it's not like the understanding that a fetus develops into a person is some new marvel of science. Fetuses have never been people, period.

Though, as Roe acknowledges, fetuses are so "person-like" in the third trimester that interfering with the course of nature is only permitted to protect the health of the mother.

This to me is a reasonable balance between personal freedom and the recognition that a fetus will eventually become a person.

Now, if someone like Tiller is going to be the one to split hairs and consider mental health as part and parcel of the health of the mother, I am fine with that. Mental health cannot be disentangled from physical health. Furthermore, I am not a medical professional an I am not legally allowed to dispense medical advice. Should Tiller and a woman make decisions about her health, it's none of my business. I don't have a dog in that race.

Fetuses have never been people, period.

"Person" and "people" being legal terms, of course, rather than biological terms.

Fetuses are, without question, human life. Currently, they constitute human life largely unprotected by law, but are undisputably human, and alive. This is the crux of the issue: whether human life is worthy of protection. Once that issue is settled, the "reproduction" aspect is pretty straightforward. If human life is worthy of protection, abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. If human life isn't necessarily worthy of protection, there's no argument against abortion.

The "reproductive freedom" angle is simply a way to avoid the BIG question.

Now, if someone like Tiller is going to be the one to split hairs and consider mental health as part and parcel of the health of the mother, I am fine with that. Mental health cannot be disentangled from physical health.

The difference is that in the case of a "mental health" exception, it's almost impossible to quantify any danger in giving birth. The argument for the health/life of the mother angle is that childbirth or continued pregnancy directly threatens the health or life of the mother. That can be documented, more or less, whereas with "mental health", not so much. After all, what consitutes a "mental health" exception?

"I'm suicidal?"

"I'm depressed?"

"I'm sad because I've lost my figure?"

Because of the physical discomfort and hormonal activity in the third trimester, a good argument could be made that pregnancy is a short-term mental health risk to ALL mothers. Allowing an exception for non-medical reasons is allowing third trimester abortion on demand, regardless of the health or viability of the child.

Should Tiller and a woman make decisions about her health, it's none of my business.

Again, that argument only holds if the bigger question of whether a third trimester child constitutes a living human. Because if so, it is indeed everybody's business when somebody takes the life of a living human being.

From what I've read Tiller's 3rd term abortions were only done when the fetus was viable and/or the mother's life was in danger.

If someone wants to provide a credible link that proves he aborted healthy fetuses in the 3rd trimester let's see it ...

"From what I've read Tiller's 3rd term abortions were only done when the fetus was viable and/or the mother's life was in danger.
If someone wants to provide a credible link that proves he aborted healthy fetuses in the 3rd trimester let's see it ..."

This is the crux of the issue: whether human life is worthy of protection.

Well, I disagree with this in the most strenuous terms possible. There are competing interests. If the State dictates that fetuses in the womb shall be afforded protection, they have completely trampled on the freedom of women to do as they see fit with and within their own bodies.

Furthermore, if fetal life is worthy of protection, on what basis could we permit abortion in cases of rape? The State would compound the injury to rape victims, forcing them to be surrogate incubators for babies they do not want. This is the antithesis of freedom.

There is an unavoidable tug of war between the rights of the fetus (or, more accurately, the State's interest in preventing harm to its citizens or citizens-to-be as the case may be) and the rights of the mother.

I think Roe gets it "close enough."

If the State dictates that fetuses in the womb shall be afforded protection, they have completely trampled on the freedom of women to do as they see fit with and within their own bodies.
Women (and men, for that matter), of course, should be free to do as they wish with and within their own bodies, right up to the point they cause harm to another human being.

Furthermore, if fetal life is worthy of protection, on what basis could we permit abortion in cases of rape?

I don't accept the premise that we SHOULD permit that, for the obvious reason that the unborn child is not in any way at fault.

Regardless, it's a straw man. Those abortions account for a statistically insignificant number- if I recall correctly, I believe it's fewer than 1 percent.

The State would compound the injury to rape victims, forcing them to be surrogate incubators for babies they do not want

Sadly, life brings unintended responsibilities quite often. Our rights end where those of others begin. It's the old "your right to swing your fist ends at your neighbor's jaw" principle.

free to do as they wish with and within their own bodies, right up to the point they cause harm to another human being.

Fine, but a fetus has to abide by those principles too. If a woman finds the unwanted fetus inside her is causing her harm, your principle empowers her to seek relief.

Another problem I have with outlawing abortion is, in the language of Animal Farm, the living, breathing, speaking, thinking, self-sufficient, self-aware person is "more equal" than the living, non-breathing, nonspeaking, nonthinking, non self-sufficient, non self-aware non-person.

To claim they are equal is counting your chickens before they hatch.

Fine, but a fetus has to abide by those principles too. If a woman finds the unwanted fetus inside her is causing her harm, your principle empowers her to seek relief.

For it to be equivalent, I would have had to suggest that death is an appropriate punishment for a woman who receives an abortion, or for that matter, involuntarily miscarries...

Another problem I have with outlawing abortion is, in the language of Animal Farm, the living, breathing, speaking, thinking, self-sufficient, self-aware person is "more equal" than the living, non-breathing, nonspeaking, nonthinking, non self-sufficient, non self-aware non-person.

And that's where the real divide lies: you value some human beings more than others. You're not alone in this, and I'll give you credit for discussing this reasonably where so many fail to do so, but if human rights matter then they matter for ALL, not just those we deem more useful or productive. Should we value the life of the Rhodes Scholar more than the person with Downs Syndrome? Should we value the able bodied worker more than the quadraplegic?

And that's where the real divide lies: you value some human beings more than others.

I can't accept "human being" as such an inclusive term that in include the fetus (or the blastocyst, etc.). Because something will grow into a human being doesn't mean it is a human being.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

I would have had to suggest that death is an appropriate punishment for a woman who receives an abortion, or for that matter, involuntarily miscarries...

And obviously you see then why your proposal is unworkable.

The real deal-breaker I see for anti-abortion advocates who pursue the legal status of personhood for the fetus is the sheer unworkability of it. Do you get to declare your fetus as a dependent come tax time? Should fetuses be counted when we do the census? There's a long-standing and very well established tradition, in both law and less arcane realms, that a fetus is simply not a person. If you define it as such to achieve the goal of ending abortion, you've created endless problems for society and the law to deal with. For example, one you've identified, the mother who miscarries being charged with manslaughter, or worse.

The cure is worse than the disease.

Anyway, it's still illegal to abort in the last trimester, as the fetus inches nearer to becoming a person, except in dire situations. I'm fine with that trade-off. It seems like a fair balance between a person's right of self-determination and the acknowledgment that the fetus is more than just "a bunch of cells."

"The real deal-breaker I see for anti-abortion advocates who pursue the legal status of personhood for the fetus is the sheer unworkability of it. Do you get to declare your fetus as a dependent come tax time? Should fetuses be counted when we do the census?"

Not to mention, every menstrual period could be subject to investigation.

Should we value the life of the Rhodes Scholar more than the person with Downs Syndrome? Should we value the able bodied worker more than the quadraplegic?

You mean to say should we protect the life of one more than the other, I think. Quite clearly we value people differently based on who they are. Apparently a CEO deserves a lot more pay than I do. A wrongful death suit will establish the value of the dead dude by looking at earnings, etc. We're not valued equally in that regard.

Now, if we're going to talk about protecting life equally, we can get into the death penalty debate. :)

But I don't feel that standard strictly applies to the fetus, because, as I seem to have said a million times now, a fetus is not quite a person. Though the law more or less affords it that protection in the third trimester anyway.

An acorn is not an oak tree

And an acorn will never become an oak tree, sans water and nutrition. In your analogy, the acorn would be more akin to a woman's egg cell.

The real deal-breaker I see for anti-abortion advocates who pursue the legal status of personhood for the fetus is the sheer unworkability of it. Do you get to declare your fetus as a dependent come tax time ... etc.

That doesn't strike me as a valid argument. When it comes to government paperwork, all human beings have varying status in varying situations. My 26 year old son can't be listed as a dependent, but my 14 year old can.

For example, one you've identified, the mother who miscarries being charged with manslaughter, or worse.

If the miscarriage was clearly intentional- such as a woman asking somebody to smack her in the stomach with a baseball bat so her 5 month pregnancy is terminated, manslaughter or worse is clearly appropriate. It's not unheard of for the killer of a pregnant woman to be charged with 2 counts of murder rather than one, for example. Gloria Allred herself- the attorney for hire who is the sole source of accusation that the Tebows' Super Bowl ad is a "lie"- in fact, demanded that Scott Peterson be charged with 2 counts of murder: one for his wife, Laci, and one for their unborn child. Strange how her definition of "person" changes depending on who's paying her...

Anyway, it's still illegal to abort in the last trimester, as the fetus inches nearer to becoming a person, except in dire situations.

And that is the problem with the late George Tiller and his "mental health" abortions, in which healthy 3rd trimester babies were aborted because of alleged and unspecified "mental health" conditions of the mother. Even clinical depression, if treated, is not often a "dire" or threatening situation, and situational depression almost never is.

Should we value the life of the Rhodes Scholar more than the person with Downs Syndrome? Should we value the able bodied worker more than the quadraplegic?

You mean to say should we protect the life of one more than the other, I think.

No, I meant to say exactly what I said.

Quite clearly we value people differently based on who they are. Apparently a CEO deserves a lot more pay than I do.

Red herring. It remains illegal to murder a homeless, penniless hobo or non-working, non-communicative quadraplegic and a first degree murder charge in a given state carries the same penalty for each.

Wrongful death is a civil verdict arising from a suit, not a criminal verdict arising from prosecution.

One other thing- if we're going to use the euphemism "Pro-Choice", which is how one side describes itself, it's only reasonable to use the euphemism "Pro-Life" for the other side, rather than "anti-abortion".

I prefer the term anti-abortion because it states in no unclear language what the group is against. "Pro-Life" could just as easily mean "anti death penalty."

"Pro-choice" is not a great term but "Pro-having-the-right-to-
choose-abortion" is a bit unwieldy.

Strange how her definition of "person" changes depending on who's paying her...
That's not strange, that's a lawyer advocating the interests of her client. Don't mistake her client's position with hers.

And an acorn will never become an oak tree, sans water and nutrition. In your analogy, the acorn would be more akin to a woman's egg cell.
No way. You can give an egg all the water and nutrition in the world, it will never become a human. But feed and water the acorn and it will become a tree.

healthy 3rd trimester babies were aborted because of alleged and unspecified "mental health" conditions of the mother.
So you'd give up doctor-patient confidentiality and require the State to give approval for late-term abortions? That goes way too far and erodes our fundamental right to make our own health care decisions.

To put it simply I don't see a legal mechanism to ban abortion which doesn't trample on a host of other rights, with far-reaching negative consequences well beyond the narrow issue of abortion. Maybe a Constitutional amendment could ban abortion and leave the rest of our rights intact, actually I think that's the only way.

A few hundred out of many thousand doesn't sound like much- unless you consider the abortion of a viable, healthy late term pregnancy barbaric and wrong.

The abortion of a viable, healthy third trimester pregnancy for nebulous "mental health" reasons IS barbaric and wrong.

That noted, giving the State the authority to intervene in those instances is a slippery slope that don't lead anywhere good.

One other thing- if we're going to use the euphemism "Pro-Choice", which is how one side describes itself, it's only reasonable to use the euphemism "Pro-Life" for the other side, rather than "anti-abortion".

No, if yer being completely honest the best way to describe the two sides are "Pro-Right-To-Choose-Abortion" and "Pro-Forced-Birth".

Be Well.

Pro-Life" could just as easily mean "anti death penalty."

For most mainstream Pro-Life groups, it does mean that, as well.

Strange how her definition of "person" changes depending on who's paying her...
That's not strange, that's a lawyer advocating the interests of her client. Don't mistake her client's position with hers.

And it's a clear illustration of why her comments on the matter should be ignored, rather than assumed accurate.

Dethspud-
That noted, giving the State the authority to intervene in those instances is a slippery slope that don't lead anywhere good.

So you agree that killing a healthy child is barbaric and wrong, but find legal protection of that child's life a "slipper slope"? Other killings are illegal. There's no slope, slippery or otherwise.

One other thing- if we're going to use the euphemism "Pro-Choice", which is how one side describes itself, it's only reasonable to use the euphemism "Pro-Life" for the other side, rather than "anti-abortion".
No, if yer being completely honest the best way to describe the two sides are "Pro-Right-To-Choose-Abortion" and "Pro-Forced-Birth".

That's a pretty glaring misunderstanding of the Pro-Life position, for one thing, and for another- it lacks objectivity.

So you agree that killing a healthy child is barbaric and wrong, but find legal protection of that child's life a "slippery slope"?

Pretty much.

Besides there are already laws in place protecting the life of viable late term pregnancies.

Spud finds them sufficient.

A decent compromise, in fact.

That's a pretty glaring misunderstanding of the Pro-Life position, for one thing, and for another- it lacks objectivity.

Objectivity?

No, it's chock full of objectivity and unvarnished truth.

Wot it lacks is euphamistic deflection.

Sorry bout that.

Be Well.

So you agree that killing a healthy child is barbaric and wrong, but find legal protection of that child's life a "slippery slope"?
Pretty much.

Besides there are already laws in place protecting the life of viable late term pregnancies.
Spud finds them sufficient.

Spud doesn't think too clearly, then, since he recently referred to those same protections as a "slippery slope".

No, it's chock full of objectivity and unvarnished truth

No, not so much. In fact, it's slightly less accurate than referring to "Pro-Choice" as "Pro-Abortion", since (as already noted) mainstream Pro-Life groups are concerned with life issues besides abortion, whereas Pro-Choice groups are concerned only with abortion.

And an acorn will never become an oak tree, sans water and nutrition. In your analogy, the acorn would be more akin to a woman's egg cell.

No way. You can give an egg all the water and nutrition in the world, it will never become a human.

That's right- it requires fertilization. As an acorn requires things to be added in order to begin growing and become a tree, so does an egg cell.

A "fetus", meanwhile, is already growing. If you insist on using the tree analogy, the "fetus" is more accurately a sapling.

healthy 3rd trimester babies were aborted because of alleged and unspecified "mental health" conditions of the mother.
So you'd give up doctor-patient confidentiality and require the State to give approval for late-term abortions?

No. I'd outlaw late-term abortion completely.

Regardless, though, Kansas (where Tiller practiced) has had mandatory reporting of all late term abortions (including the condition, term, and reason or the abortion) for a decade- with the patients' identities redacted. It has yet to cause a privacy crisis.

That goes way too far and erodes our fundamental right to make our own health care decisions.

Nonsense.

To put it simply I don't see a legal mechanism to ban abortion which doesn't trample on a host of other rights, with far-reaching negative consequences well beyond the narrow issue of abortion. Maybe a Constitutional amendment could ban abortion and leave the rest of our rights intact, actually I think that's the only way.

When all else fails, invoke the "slippery slope" fallacy.

We have successfully outlawed murder and rape without trampling other rights. Additionally, we require reporting of other medical procedures without trampling other rights.

And, of course, abortion is not primarily a privacy rights issue. It's a life issue.

And, of course, abortion is not primarily a privacy rights issue. It's a life issue.

It's both. And I feel the privacy issue trumps the life issue, in case that wasn't obvious. Specifically because, legally, and in many other practical ways, life begins at birth.

I'd outlaw late-term abortion completely.

Well, there are times when a living yet non-viable fetus must be extracted from the mother in order to protect her health. You would harm or kill the mother by forcing her to deliver a non-viable fetus. You're a monster. The type that Roe protects us from, thankfully.

You're a monster

And you obviously have no desire to be taken seriously, if that's the type of childish rhetoric on which you have to fall back.

What would you call someone like yourself, Ken, who would inflict harm and possibly death on a woman by forcing her to deliver a living, deformed, non-viable fetus with a head swelled up to the size of a basketball?

That's why they do partial birth abortion, you know. Because the head swells up so big it can't get out the vagina. They have to suck the brains and fluid out to make it smaller.

Sometimes things go wrong, even in the last trimester. Your blanket law would ignore that.

Most disturbing, you'd make women suffer or die delivering unviable fetuses -- all because you claim to have such deep respect for life.

You're completely ass-backwards on this issue and you don't even realize it.