Here's the link to the story. Click here The freaky thing is, the guy who did it lived up the street from me. So, what are your guys' opinions on this? On one side, this man was performing late-term abortions, which is a stage in pregnancy where the child is alive and capable of living outside of the mother's womb and had been doing this for years. But this wasn't the way to handle this kind of situation. Personally, I don't think he should have been shot. They should have just played the legal system in this.
I thought late-term abortion was illegal? Or was that only partial-birth abortion? Either way, regardless of how I feel about other types of abortion, once the baby can live outside the womb, it's wrong to kill it. That said, vigilante justice was not the way to go in this case. Especially because it wasn't a total failure of the legal system (see the Vigilantism thread), but a select group of opposers, most of which denounced the shooting to begin with.
I believe it's partial-birth that's illegal. I think late-term is going through the system right now. And thank you. I do think he should have stopped these abortions, but they should have apprehended him and then revoked his medical license so it's illegal for him to do it. I'd like to actually also hear your guys' opinion's on abortions, since that's what led to the shooting. My personal stand is it's only okay in the first trimester, but I think when I have children of my own, that view will change.
Well in all honesty, I can see why they would have shot him. Those are clearly living babies (at the least can move and such). They should have been more clean about the solution, but I don't think I would have expected any decency out of the reaction, especially if it with people who take immense offense to abortions like this.
Would someone please explain to me how killing a fetus is any different than killing an adult? This isn't going to solve anything, btw.
It all really boils down to when you believe the intelligence of a child begins (or when the soul enters the body, if you're religious - some cultures don't believe the soul is present for years, while others (ours) believe that the soul is present from conception).
Umm, I thought it was there was a chance that the baby could survive if the mother gave birth to it at that exact time? Not that it would survive, but that there would be a chance. Yeahh, killing him will solve nothing. It will only cause vilification of the "pro-life" (lol) supporters.
A fetus is just a fetus. An adult is living and breathing. Whether you believe it or not, biology and law states that a fetus is not a human being. I Wiki'd the guy, and this is why he performed "late-term" abortions: "Tiller was a particular target of the anti-abortion movement because he performed late-term abortions. Some of Tiller's patients discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects, but he also aborted healthy late-term fetuses in cases where this would prevent "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" for the mother." It seems you guys have the opinion that this guy was some evil *******, when he was simply looking out for the health and safety of the person who deserves to have the choice.
I didn't think he was evil ;_; He and his clinic set out to provide the best and safest health care for women. And really the mother takes precedence. As well as the rest of the family, of course.
Alright, first of all, that was actually directed at anti-abortionists. I was trying to make the point that the pro-life people seem to have no trouble killing someone that is obviously human, when they claim to be preserving life by not killing fetuses. Secondly, I don't see what qualifies a fetus as non-human, but that's not what the discussion is about. Thirdly, anyone who finds this man to be "evil" really needs to consider that maybe the parent actually has a choice *gasp*.
A fetus is a parasite; it needs a host (mother) for nutrients to survive. In fact the female body functions so well that it stops the immune system from killing the fetus in the blastocyst stage. So, in truth, it isn't truly a "life form" in the scientific sense until it is out of the womb entirely or past a certain point in pregnancy (some time in third trimester, I would guess). It is a mean way to look at it but it is true. Now, this doesn't necessarily disqualify the fetus as human, it just isn't independent in the sense you and I are.
Technically, a fetus is alive, but it cannot function on its own yet. It is a life form, just as a tapeworm or a leech. In my opinion, though, that doesn't make it any less human, once the brain has developed. After that point (I think about 14-18 days), I consider it a human being with potential like any other. Obviously, the law is not on my side, but I'm not gonna shoot someone over it either :D.
As George Carlin said: "Is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the question that is asked most frequently. Well, if a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the national consensus count them? If there's a miscarriage why isn't there a funeral? Why is it when a woman is pregnant and has two children she says "Well we have two children and one on the way" instead of just saying she has three children?" Not in any serious manner, just something to think about. lol
The thing is - we don't know if a fetus is alive or not I personly believe that it is not alive intill it is out of the mother and has taken it's first breath And I also believe a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion - what if she can not take care of the child? And I don't believe adoption is the answer - there are too many children up for adoption as it is. It's horrible that someone killed that doctor for that! Now a family has no father and/or grandfather!
