Pharyngula

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 1:34 PM

With gun or by D&C, still murder.

Er, nope. You fail at both biology and law.

Posted by: Jorge | May 31, 2009 1:39 PM

Another sick bastard in the violent KooKer cavalcade that is the reichwing (Godwin be damned).

Bloody Kansas keeps it reputation for over 150 years.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 1:40 PM

Culprit probably fled the scene to pray, like a good Christian, for forgiveness - which will be self-granted.

Scum of the earth.

Posted by: Pareidolius | May 31, 2009 1:43 PM

I'm too pissed to be snarky and avsn ... nevermind, nothing I say will change your mind.

Posted by: josh | May 31, 2009 1:46 PM

so the government sees folks like the earth liberation front, who engage in property destruction as the most dangerous domestic terrorist group, while the right-wing nuts go around killing people.
great.

Posted by: Holbach | May 31, 2009 1:48 PM

I'll bet that religious scum murderer was a memeber of the same church as the doctor, and was saying to his god that if it gives him guidance he will take out this doctor who has the gall to prevent one of your creations from being born. I hope the cross from the steeple falls off and impales his skull to the pavement. Did his god do that?

Posted by: Kristin | May 31, 2009 1:50 PM

"Operation Rescue" has put up a completely simpering message about how they really are sorry that someone murdered Mr. Tiller, but they deplore violence so it wasn't their fault. Assholes. And yes, they do refer to him as Mr. Tiller instead of Dr.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 31, 2009 1:50 PM

Unfortunately, fatwa envy occasionally goes beyond the envy. *sighs*

Posted by: JMZ | May 31, 2009 1:51 PM

At least the murdering scumbag had the decency not to shoot him/herself after, so there's a chance justice may still be served.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | May 31, 2009 1:54 PM

If only curious George had stayed away from such a dangerous activity as going to Church, he might still be alive today. He's obviously not reading your blog PZ.

Tiller's clinic was severely vandalized earlier this month. According to the Associated Press, his lawyer said wires to security cameras and outdoor lights were cut and that the vandals also cut through the roof and plugged the buildings' downspouts. Rain poured through the roof and caused thousands of dollars of damage in the clinic. Tiller reportedly asked the FBI to investigate the incident.

Epic fail (yet again) to the FBI, who've obviously been aware of this problem (ongoing for years, but there were very recent crimes, which, if investigated properly IMHO, would likely have prevented this violence. Will there be a proper investigation over this, or will some high ranking pro life supporter get sheltered and pampered in the basement of the Wichita Baptist Church?

Enjoy.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 31, 2009 2:01 PM

Aaaa, shit. What a fucked-up world.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 2:03 PM

I say, where do you draw the line? I have no problem with making some abortions illegal,

Can't trust the damned bitches with control over their own bodies...

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 31, 2009 2:05 PM

Not only do I think Holbach's prediction will be right about the suspect. But I'd be willing to further bet that the fundie scum would agree that every word in the holy babble is true and inerrant except genesis 2:7 where gawd is really lying about when life begins.

The part about the victims family only being able to find comfort in jebus is almost as sickening as the crime. What a flock of deluded cretins.

Posted by: Holbach | May 31, 2009 2:11 PM

Martha @ 15

No, life is not precious, and this is proven everyday in the natural world among animals who cannot endorse reason or emotion to decide the fate of natural occurrences which is blind evolution at work. The emotion behind this in humans is, if not emotional, then is most certainly religious which will voice opinions and actions against abortion, but will not exercise that same voice over abnormal births, deformities, cancer, and so many other inequities of nature that their imaginary god deigns. Yes, life is so much precious to the doctor who lost his to a religious moron who decided an unborn life to be worth more and acted upon that religious intent. So if he is caught, prosecuted, jailed, and perhaps executed, and his imaginary god does not repay his deed with a miracle of dismissal, then his life will be as worthless as his belief.

Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 2:13 PM

Strangely hypocritical that a fundamentalist Christian wouldn't be satisfied with the justice that will be administered in the afterlife. Not much is promised in this world. The shooter was probably someone with doubts about part of his faith.

Posted by: Matt | May 31, 2009 2:14 PM

Dr. Tiller was a personal hero to my wife and me. I am very sad to hear of his brutal murder. No doubt, his assassin was egged on for years by the so-called "pro-life" movement who stoke the flames of hate by referring to him as "Tiller the Killer" and "America's Doctor of Death".

Posted by: SebastesMan | May 31, 2009 2:17 PM

So many things come to mind when I think of these radical anti-choice loons, but it's the same old stuff we always say and they never understand. I would like to say I'm astounded by both the stupidity and hate; unfortunately I'm not.

Posted by: Kimbo Jones | May 31, 2009 2:22 PM

I would think if they were proud of what they did, they would turn themselves in. But they know that what they did was wrong and that they will go to jail, rightfully, for their crime. So they'll hide. I hope they are found and jailed for many, many years appropriate to the scope of this crime -- terrorism. Which, I'm given to understand, your government doesn't negotiate with.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 2:25 PM

Your guides to right-wing extremism:

The Department of Homeland Security's recent report: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

David Neiwert and Sara Robinson's regular updates: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sandi | May 31, 2009 2:28 PM

Kudos to SocraticGadfly!

Posted by: mothwentbad | May 31, 2009 2:29 PM

Ugh. I'm sorry to hear it.

Posted by: Walton | May 31, 2009 2:31 PM

strange gods, there's a reply waiting for you on the "Daniel Hauser might live now" thread...

Posted by: C | May 31, 2009 2:32 PM

I can find no words to express how angry this makes me. What a despicable bunch of fucking evil bastards Operation Rescue is, and I'd bet everything I have that the shooter was a member of that organization.

My deepest sympathy to Dr. Tiller's family and friends. His murder was a great loss to humanity, to his patients, and to the medical community, but to the Dr.'s family and friends,it's an enormous personal loss. It's hard to cope with the murder of a loved one.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 2:35 PM

@ Strange Gods 23: HUGE non sequitur to argue that Martha's friends are still "supernatural thinkers." Try again. (Or, perhaps, if you want to continue to "think" that way, DON'T try again.) For example, I certainly wouldn't call Nat Hentoff a "supernatural thinker."

Nat Hentoff's premises do not hold up to a naturalist examination. He can repeat ad infinitum that he's not working from magical assumptions, but he's kidding himself. It's sperm magic.

@Martha 15, all: I'd prefer to junk the trimester system for a bimester system. Federalize abortion totally in 1st bimester, including banning second dr visits, providing Medicaid coverage, etc. In the 2nd bimester, I'd give states even more leeway than they have now.

Yeah, because women should be punished for living in red states.

Individual rights matter. States should not be allowed to take those rights away.

Posted by: Alew | May 31, 2009 2:40 PM

He has fought for a woman’s right to choose for decades. He has been charged in a court of law and beat the politically-motivated case with an acquittal. They have shot him in both arms trying to end his practice of medicine. They have bombed his clinic and picketed his clinic regularly.

They finally silenced Dr. George. They murdered him this morning. On his way to church. From MSNBC:

He was acquitted in March of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict the state’s medical board announced it was investigating allegations against him that are nearly identical to those the jury had rejected.
Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.

Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple declined to speak to reporters afterward.

Tiller, 67, has claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated. An attorney general who opposed abortion rights began the investigation into Tiller’s clinic more than four years ago, but both his successor, who filed the criminal charges, and the current attorney general support abortion rights.

Tiller has been a favored target of anti-abortion protesters, and he testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 “Summer of Mercy” protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

They had to kill him to silence him. Sick bastards who say they are pro-life killed Dr. George. May they all rot in hell.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 2:44 PM

@Strange Gods 48: See, you just had to prove that you're illogical (and anti-empirical research), confirming my previous suspicions about you from previous posts, as well as this one.

As we say here to theists, put up some evidence or STFU.

As for my comments to Martha, states differ in all sorts of laws. The second trimester, with viability in play, if states want to do that, that's a legitimate legal interest.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 2:46 PM

@Sandi 40: The Iranian philosopher Idries Shah's most famous comment probably is, that there are never just two sides to an issue.

Posted by: Alverant | May 31, 2009 2:52 PM

This was terrorism pure and simple. It's too bad the media won't call it that since the terrorist who did this act was likely a white male conservative christian. [sarcasm]And we all know "those" types of people NEVER commit terrorism. Terrorists can only be liberals or heathens or have brown skin. It's never terrorism when done in the name of the one true God.[/sarcasm]

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 2:53 PM

This feels like a real blow. I actually felt my body start to go numb as I read this news, felt the heat rise to my head. I'd even read about Tiller's efforts before--how he was constantly fighting to keep the area clinics going and how he and his family were often the target of harrassment and stalking. I feel upset and angry that somebody has killed somebody who was trying to help women.

Here's what I wrote on my blog:

George Tiller was particularly known for being one of the doctors to perform late-term abortions. Incidentally, I used to be against late-term abortions until I did a lot more research on the subject. Considering that in a nation where abortion (both via D&C and the Mifepristone pill) is legal and generally safe, especially earlier in the pregnancy, late term abortions are largely the province of pregnancies where something has gone horribly wrong. No abortion is committed on a whim or just for fun, but late-term abortions are often the result of dire medical need. (Or sometimes because women couldn't get to a provider before due to financial circumstance or other medical issues, or because they'd been raped and beaten and unable to provide full consent until they recovered. There's a lot of reasons why women will seek a late-term abortion, but a lot of them fall under "necessary to save life or to maintain good health".)

Basically this guy was saving women's lives. He was giving them the dignity to make tough medical decisions regarding their health and future well-being. For his efforts, he had been shot (before in the 90s) and stalked and had his family threatened, and finally he was killed. For daring to help women.

(If you are reading this, and have a sort of gut-reaction to the idea of abortion, I recommend reading up on the reasons why women choose to get abortions. Incidentally, there's usually not just one reason, but a number of factors, including economic status, education plans, number of children one has already and the impact a new child would have on its siblings, medical issues of existing children, current and future health risks, depression or other medical issues that would be impacted or complicated by a pregnancy, personal beliefs about population, age, genetic factors, pregnancy complications, etc. Suffice it to say, there's a wide array of reasons for most women and the decision is never lightly made.)

Posted by: Jessica | May 31, 2009 2:54 PM

Pygmy Loris, as I understand it, he was one of only two doctors NATIONWIDE who would perform late-term abortions. So this is a tragedy that affects not only his family and friends and the people of Kansas, but the whole country.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 2:58 PM

@Strange Gods 55: Now, you're misquoting. (No surprise, lack of reading skills along with illogic.)

NO, I demanded that YOU put up empirical evidence that Nat Hentoff is a supernaturalist in his supporting his stance on abortion.

Until you do that, STFU in spades.

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 3:01 PM

Pandagon has more about Tiller's clinic: ...he continued to work diligently to provide abortion services to women who are often in the worst possible situation, facing down the termination of a pregnancy that was being eagerly planned for, until things went terribly wrong. If a woman has a later term therapeutic abortion---be it because it was a wanted pregnancy, she has serious mental health issues, or she is a child victim of rape---it’s rarely easy on her mentally or physically. Dr. Tiller’s clinic was renowned for the thoughtful patient support to help women get through what is a very difficult time---counseling, support groups, religious services for the lost baby if you desire.

This man was saving the lives of grown women making tough medical choices and helping them through what must be one of the most traumatic moments of their life. And he had shit rained down on his head for it, by people who were afraid or unable to understand the decision.

Posted by: Uppity Atheist | May 31, 2009 3:01 PM

RIP Doctor Tiller, my thoughts are with your family and staff, such a tragic senseless loss.

You knew you were risking your life every day but the terrorists never prevented you from helping women in crisis.

Your dedication and courage will not be forgotten.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 3:03 PM

Here's an example of Nat Hentoff's supernatural presumptions: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff112906.php3?printer_friendly

This crucial dispute reminded me of a letter in the Feb. 18, 1990, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that significantly affirmed my decision — contrary to many of my fellow journalists — to become a pro-lifer. Dr. Joel Hylton, a North Carolina physician, wrote in that letter:

"Who can deny the fetus is ... a separate genetic entity? Its humanity also cannot be questioned scientifically. It is certainly of no other species."

And so what? Genetic material has no moral relevance. The naturalist's questions are "when does this become a person?" and "should a person be allowed to use another person's body for life support against the latter's will?"

Nat Hentoff is a supernaturalist because he treats genetic material as having moral significance, which it cannot, unless it has a soul. Hentoff hides the soul behind irrelevant and idiotic notions like "it's got human DNA." He treats a fertilized egg as a conscious being that can have interests, and then asks us to protect those interests with laws and state violence. He's a theocrat.

Posted by: Mena | May 31, 2009 3:05 PM

Oh, do the mouth breathing knuckle draggers at Free Republic have to be so predictable? They're well beyond stupid and they vote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2261656/posts
Some examples:
"I do not support this, but I do understand this.
Kansas politics has been corrupted to the core by George Tiller, making him like a mobster above the law.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. "

"You do realize that if this story proves true, that it will be played by the liberal Barry media as the work committed by a rightwing extremist?
Chances are it was done by one. Our cause is not helped by acting like a bunch of 3rd world muzzies. "

"Why would an abortionist go to church?
Because he needed it, and hopefully he was sincere enough that in his last moments he can be saved.
As for the shooter, he had done nearly incalculable damage to the pro-life movement, and just created a holy patron saint of abortion. "

"Why is the death of a satanic worshipper tragic?"

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 3:08 PM

@Strange Gods 55: Now, you're misquoting. (No surprise, lack of reading skills along with illogic.)

NO, I demanded that YOU put up empirical evidence that Nat Hentoff is a supernaturalist in his supporting his stance on abortion.

Until you do that, STFU in spades.

You made the claim that Nat Hentoff had reasoning which is not based in supernatural thinking. If you demand that every comment include "empirical research" then you ought to have provided the evidence that backed up your own claim. You fail by your own standards.

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 3:11 PM

Martha@ 15: Your two atheist friends think abortion should be criminalised? I call that "forced pregnancy".

And a month as the limit? Most women don't suspect that they are pregnant until their first period gets missed, which puts you at about the three week mark. (If you have stress, your period can be thrown off by as much as a week, even with birth control.) Many tests give false results and many aren't reliable until about the fourth week of pregnancy. Then you have to get to the doctor's office or clinic, assess your options, decide what is best for you, possibly see what your partner thinks (although you should be the person to make the final decision.) So if you want to posit that abortion shouldn't be undertaken lightly, give people time to decide. Then you probably have scheduling issues at the clinic, resulting in a scheduling wait of one to two weeks. This is because the clinics operate as wellness centers as well and provide other services. Additionally abortions are often only scheduled for part of the week, as abortion doctors sometimes have to make their rounds between multiple clinics. By this point, your pregnancy is somewhere in the 5-8 week range. A month seems patently unrealistic.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 31, 2009 3:13 PM

Holbach, We may get a pleasant surprise here. This senseless death may cause some people to stop and think about just how hateful religion is. Probably not, but I'm hopeful.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 3:16 PM

@Strange Gods various additional posts. You made the original claim about atheist pro-lifers as a class. I simply raised Hentoff as a particular, well-known example.

Your "evidence" isn't, when you finally supplied it, because you make unjustified claims of the nature that "when Hentoff says A, he really means B."

Beyond that, of course, all I have to do is find one counterexample to prove your claims about an entire class of people wrong.

And, based on abundant empirical experience, I think my desire for strictures on second-bimester abortions, based on the viability issue, and my being an atheist, (and a newspaper editor who understands the use of language better than you) proves you're wrong.

So, STFU and sit down.

Posted by: Logicel | May 31, 2009 3:21 PM

aholes like SocraticGadfly make my blood run cold. A pro-choicer is an extremist? Why don't you STFU?

Posted by: Sir Craig | May 31, 2009 3:23 PM

The first thing I saw when I opened Pharyngula this morning was this blog entry. As I began reading, the moment I read "Kansas" I knew who had been killed and I wish I could say I was surprised, but when you have an asshole with an audience like Bill O'Reilly's, it becomes a matter of not "if" but "when."

I absolutely blame O'Reilly for this, as well as those pricks from Operation: Rescue, for creating the atmosphere they have in regards to reproductive rights. I know O'Reilly will do a special segment on his show Monday stating that it was an unlawful act that took Dr. Tiller's life, but at the same time he will never admit to his own role in making this tragedy possible. He will sound cool and calm, almost contrite, but it will be a sham--the only reason I knew Dr. Tiller's name was because O'Reilly spewed forth on him and his trials too many times to count. He regularly paraded guests who would describe some of the most vile things about Dr. Tiller, without so much as a single shred of evidence. (Link to News Hounds for some of O'Reilly's garbage.)

If there was anything like actual justice in this world, we could hope to see the following headline:

Fox Personality Bill O'Reilly Emasculated in Car Accident

Was Being Fellated by Randall Terry at Time of Accident

I extend to Dr. Tiller's family my deepest condolences, and the quickest trip imaginable to a non-existent Hell for Bill.

Posted by: Sandi | May 31, 2009 3:26 PM

Thank you SocraticGadfly for the side trip re: Idries Shah.
Learn something new everyday. I will have to read Idries Shah. Hope SPL/KCLS (my local libraries) has his stuff.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 3:28 PM

@Strange Gods various additional posts. You made the original claim about atheist pro-lifers as a class. I simply raised Hentoff as a particular, well-known example.

No, you made a positive counterclaim, that Hentoff was not doing what I said he was. That's a claim requiring evidence. If you didn't want to make a positive claim, you should have left it at "please explain yourself."

Your "evidence" isn't, when you finally supplied it, because you make unjustified claims of the nature that "when Hentoff says A, he really means B."

No, I explained how he cannot mean anything except B. There is no route from A to B except through the soul or another supernatural claim.

Beyond that, of course, all I have to do is find one counterexample to prove your claims about an entire class of people wrong.

Yes. And all you have to do is find one rabbit in the precambrian to prove evolution wrong. There's your homework, go do it.

And, based on abundant empirical experience, I think my desire for strictures on second-bimester abortions, based on the viability issue, and my being an atheist, (and a newspaper editor who understands the use of language better than you) proves you're wrong.

You yourself ought to learn some reading comprehension, friend. I was responding to the claim of "atheists [who] believe that abortion should be criminalized and that life is too precious to end it with an abortion." That's a blanket claim about the supposed value of "life," and so applies to fertilized eggs.

Your sophistry about viability need not be based on supernaturalism, but it does still mean that you subordinate women's rights to the state, and you don't believe women are competent to make difficult decisions for themselves. That doesn't make you a theist, just an asshole.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 31, 2009 3:30 PM

The irony of my finding out about this is, I had just finished some modules on safety training at work. How to keep you and your coworkers alive and well, so nobody has need for calling an EMT. Then check in here at Pharyngula and see the tragedy. And find out the good doctor was on his way to church. It doesn't make sense to me, and the behavior of some of the anti-choice groups is beyond any civilized bounds. Which just shows how amoral they really are.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 3:33 PM

@Strange Gods 75: More woo-ish hand-waving, like a New Ager, almost, and saying, now, "Hentoff must mean B when he says A, because I said so."

Well, your boo-hooing is still illogical.

The only routes humans have ever proposed from A to B have been supernatural routes. I am on as firm ground when I say that the next one will be supernatural too, as when I say the sun will come up tomorrow in the east.

You are free to come up with a counterexample that proves me wrong at any time.

Your absolute failure to even try is indicative of your cowardice, as is your projection of "boo-hooing" when no one has been doing that except you.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 3:35 PM

They've made an arrest. (It's just listed as "breaking" on MSNBC with no more details right now.)

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 3:39 PM

@Logicel 80. I never said Strange Gods was an extremist. I said there are two extremes to this issue. That's not a "moral equivalence" statement any more than to claim that both Israelis and Palestinians are guilty of war crimes.

@StrangeGods 90: So, you're hoisting yourself by your own petard, since that's just what you've been doing?

OK, you're a supernaturalist, by your own logic. I feel comfortable calling you that in every future post.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 3:40 PM

4:00 pm central news conference with the police, including, I would hope, more information about the person they've arrested.

Posted by: Kouhari | May 31, 2009 3:44 PM

@89

abortion happens to be traumatic for the woman (as I understand it, not owning a uterus myself)

Perhaps physically traumatic, as it can be a major surgery depending on how advanced the pregnancy is, but it is not necessarily emotionally traumatic.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 3:48 PM

Strange Gods, more refutation. Despite your claims, Hentoff is an atheist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff

(You'll probably say his self-claims actually mean B, though.)

That said, people like you show that atheism is no guarantee of critical thinking or logical reasoning.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 3:52 PM

Strange Gods, more refutation. Despite your claims, Hentoff is an atheist:

An atheist does not believe in gods. I believe Hentoff does not believe in gods.

His arguments presuppose souls, not gods.

Open a dictionary sometime.

Posted by: Matt | May 31, 2009 3:55 PM

@89

abortion happens to be traumatic for the woman

A lot of things in life happen to be traumatic: seeing your kids go off to college, watching sad scenes in a movie, having your dog put to sleep, burning the dinner you worked all day to prepare, and the list goes on and on. However, I certainly don't advocate outlawing all these things...

Posted by: khan | May 31, 2009 3:58 PM

I go along w/that, but I happen to be pro-life as well as pro-choice. & like it or no, abortion happens to be traumatic for the woman (as I understand it, not owning a uterus myself).

Getting an abortion when you need one is nowhere near as traumatic as NOT getting an abortion when you need one.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | May 31, 2009 4:01 PM

His arguments presuppose souls, not gods.

Open a dictionary sometime.

Dictionaries are the definitive authorities on souls and gods, apparently.

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 4:05 PM

re: the trauma comment at 89: MAJeff and Matt have mostly covered this already. Abortion is traumatic, yes, because for one thing, it's a major surgery and generally invasive. (Even if you take the mifepristone pill, sometimes you still need a D&C afterwards.) But women can choose to make the decision themselves. Women can be educated about the risks.

You wanna know what ELSE is traumatic? Going through a potentially life-threatening condition for nine months, exposing yourself to blood pressure issues, gestational diabetes, skin rashes, hormonal fluctuations, and a risk of post-partum depression....and then giving up the product of said nine months to somebody else. Lots of women who chose adoption found it traumatic. Am I going to say let's get rid of adoption? Not on your life. But I trust that given appropriate information a woman can make the medical decisions for herself, regardless of what that is. (That's why it's called pro-choice. Because you get a choice, see?)

re: Your genetic material - Ceases to be under your control once it invades the host body. Again, see "forced pregnancy".

Ya know, it's not like pregnancy doesn't leave its mark on women. (And I'm not talking just stretch marks.) Women's life expectancies have risen proportionately with access to reproductive options. Less women die in childbirth. (BTW, one of the childbirth/pregnancy things that has a high potential to kill you: ectopic pregnancies. Guess which surgery saves the life of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy?)

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 4:05 PM

@#95"That is what all terrorists say. The guys who hijacked 4 airliners on 9/11 would say exactly that if they were still alive."
The islamic extremists who hijacked the planes and committed mass murder probably weren't just trying to "protect their own". I suspect that a big part of what they were doing was because they saw the west as evil in its mere existence. Not because it threatened their lives, but that it was an affront to their religion, and therefore needed to be destroyed.

I do belive that today's murder had a different motivation, but that motivation was just as morally wrong.

Posted by: C | May 31, 2009 4:08 PM

abortion happens to be traumatic for the woman

This sort of thing simply infuriates me. Are you going to protect us delicate little womenses by deciding what sort of medical procedures of which we may avail ourselves? What a jerk.

I had an abortion. The main feeling I had was one of overwhelming relief, seeing as I might well have died if I'd tried to carry to term. My previous pregnancy and delivery damned near killed me.

Tell you what - you don't like abortions, don't have one. Have the decency not to interfere in the medical decisions of others, and we'll do the same for you. Deal?

Posted by: druidbros | May 31, 2009 4:10 PM

This makes me so mad. The willfully ignorant 'pro-life' crowd may express sympathy in public, but in private they rejoice. I just came from a local eatery and the two couples at the next table (Baptists, I later found out) were talking about people not being to get away with sin anymore and how God moves in mysterious ways etc. It was all I could do to get out the door before I went off on them.
(we had small children with us).

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 4:13 PM

pixelfish @ 110:

But I trust that given appropriate information a woman can make the medical decisions for herself, regardless of what that is. (That's why it's called pro-choice. Because you get a choice, see?)

Getting an abortion when you need one is nowhere near as traumatic as NOT getting an abortion when you need one.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 4:14 PM

and early medical abortion is not at all like open heart surgery!

if you desire -or cannot afford it- you can even opt to have one without any anesthesia. and there are no sutures or bones sawn through, or anything, they just give you a pad like one would use for a heavy menstrual period and send you back to you life.

and the late-term abortions that dr. tiller provided were life saving medical care for the women who had to have them, they may have been physically and emotionally traumatic for those women, that's why he also specialized in providing those women with connections to counseling and religious services if they personally desired them.

it is horrid beyond words that he has been murdered, and i'm assuming murdered means "shot dead right in front of his wife and friends" as he was unlikely to have been alone in that lobby. there will be a press conference in about 45 minuets.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 4:18 PM

The willfully ignorant 'pro-life' crowd may express sympathy in public, but in private they rejoice.

True. There aren't that many Xian Terrorists in the USA. There are probably millions or tens of millions of Xian Terrorist supporters.

I'm sure in fundie churches all over the USA people are wildly cheering or at least quietly celebrating a cold blooded terrorist murder.

So much for that xian morality that no one can find. It simply doesn't exist.

I keep saying the fundies want to overthrow the government and destroy the USA. Assassinating an MD is just no big deal to them. Fundies are evil.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 31, 2009 4:21 PM

The point being, it's traumatic. Hence, to be avoided

The point being, in fact, that it's not your decision what another person does with his or her body. That's the crux of the matter.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 4:24 PM

A "potential person." Yeah, like "a twinkle in your daddy's eye" is a potential person. And today I might become straight and start having sex with women. All the eggs I'm not implanting are also potential people. I'm a murderer! Report me to the Department of Pre-Crime.

What, you think women are having abortions for fun? What exactly is your point? Women do try to avoid abortion.

It's called you being a vague asshole who wants to complain about women making choices, without explaining whether you want to restrict abortion or not.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 4:29 PM

The cost of outlawing abortion:

More than 60,000 women die every year from unsafe illegal abortions, leaving behind 200,000 newly orphaned children who are now at increased risk of starvation, enslavement and disease. http://who.int/reproductive-health/publications/articles/article4.pdf

Posted by: MTran | May 31, 2009 4:34 PM

Please try to understand the differences between comprehending and condoning. Does the phrase, "know your enemy" make it simple enough for you??Do you deny the utility of knowing your enemy?

aperson,

I am not accusing you of condoning anything. I am accusing you of lack of comprehension.

You keep assuming that people here do not understand the murderer's motivations. You are adding no new or helpful insights to any analysis of him or the politics of what is going on.

Just what insights do you think you have that are otherwise missing from the discussion? Because you have not yet made any.

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 4:38 PM

Krystalline Apostate: You provided no context for your statement that women experience trauma, and while it was appended to a statement about how you were pro-life and pro-choice, no further clarification was offered. It was hard to know what your intent in bringing that up. I merely provided context for why I didn't think trauma was a reason to outlaw abortion.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 4:43 PM

So, final time:
I'm pro-choice. I strongly believe every woman has the right to make that choice. Logically, emotionally, across the human spectrum.
But if I were to say that the loss of potential life doesn't sadden me, then I would be less than human.

I'll have to go w/socraticgadfly's explanation, because apparently I fumbled the explanation:

Life may not be "precious" de facto, as in the facts of nature, but it IS "precious," to speak emotionally, de jure.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 31, 2009 4:45 PM

I hate to see him gunned down, but he did earn his name Tiller the Baby Killer honestly. Gunning him down was not the right thing to do.

Then again no one stops to think how many people he killed -especially babies. I do , however, condemn this event of him being killed.

Posted by: Fallsroad | May 31, 2009 4:48 PM

"Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning."

But no, we are not complicit in any way by encouraging unhinged fanatics to view doctors who perform abortions as criminals whom the law has chosen to shelter, thus making them the perfect targets for vigilantism.

These people make me physically ill.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 4:50 PM

Right Winger-

in the view of the law of the USA dr. tiller killed exactly ZERO people in his life.

the more relevant question to ask would be how many lives of living, breathing, sentient, adult human (and some child rape victims) did he SAVE?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 4:51 PM

the more relevant question to ask would be how many lives of living, breathing, sentient, adult human (and some child rape victims) did he SAVE?

silly luna1580. Women aren't people.

Posted by: MTran | May 31, 2009 4:55 PM

@139,

Okay, I see should have not given you the benefit of the doubt. You are a variety of concern troll.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 4:58 PM

Do you think it is irrelevant that the person murdered was known as the Dr who performs late term abortions?

Do you think that all abortions are equally controversial? If they are not, then do you think this might be where prolifers might be concentrating their efforts?

Do you think it is impossible that this murder might decrease the number of late term abortions in kansas or the US as a whole? If it does change abortion rates, might that say something worrying?.

aperson, I think nearly everyone here is aware of these motivations.

I would repeat MTran's questions to you:

You keep assuming that people here do not understand the murderer's motivations. You are adding no new or helpful insights to any analysis of him or the politics of what is going on.

Just what insights do you think you have that are otherwise missing from the discussion? Because you have not yet made any.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 5:02 PM

I hate to see him gunned down, but he did earn his name Tiller the Baby Killer honestly. Gunning him down was not the right thing to do.

The kooks are out in full force. Right WInger is some old senile guy holed up in some god forsaken place with piles of guns and ammo and cases of food. He is afraid that the US commie government may force him to accept modern medical care if he gets some life ending condition like cancer.

Hey Right Winger, Tip for you, straight from the Federal Bureau of Longevity. A medical team is on its way to your shack. They are going to fix your almost nonexistent coronary and carotid blood flow problems with angioplasty and a bypass operation.

Pick your targets carefully. Shooting the postman by mistake isn't going to be much of an excuse in court.

Posted by: Right Winger | May 31, 2009 5:08 PM

luna1580:

He killed thousands! He sucked out their brains, cut off their arms and legs and threw them into the trash - unless their oragns could be harvested for profit. Is that not killing someone?

You are partially correct though. By definiton of our law in the U.S., he did nothing wrong. The "law" itself is contradictory. It imprisons eople who kill other adults and childre, but not children in the womb.

Let's hope we can chnage that in the future by overturning the Roe V. Wade decision. That new judge Obama's looking at, may just do the trick. She is a liberal (expected by a extremist /liberal president), but being hispanic Catholic the Dems are worried about her position on Roe V. Wade.

If she turns out to be pro-life the Dumbocraps have no choice but to confirm her anyway. If they do not, that makes them look racist. The Republicans should be silent on this and let her be confirmed. It will help them in future elections with Hispanic voters. If the Dumbocraps do not let her become a Supreme Courst justice, it will make them look bad.

Looks like Obama has his tail in crack this time - and no fancy smooth talk is going to solve his problem this time around.

We conservatives are going to just sit back and enjoy this little ride for what it is - for now. We'll see where it goes. If she turns out to be another socialist, so be it. At least she'll be a pro-life socialist. We trad a liberal judge for a liberal judge. Nothing lost and nothing gained. This new justice might just be what we need. I'm willing to overlook her blatant liberalism if she turns out to vote down Roe V. Wade.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 5:10 PM

Posted by: Right Winger | May 31, 2009 5:08 PM

We're dealing with backwash here, folks.

Posted by: Hank Fox | May 31, 2009 5:13 PM

From Crooks and Liars:

"Wichita television station KAKE-TV reported that police were looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants."

And from KMBC:

"A man sought in connection with the shooting was taken into custody south of the Kansas City area on Sunday afternoon. Officers at the scene had said they were looking for a Ford Taurus that was registered to an owner in Merriam."

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 5:14 PM

Conclusion: the anti-choice stance is objectively anti-women.

Um, yeah.

Posted by: TuxedoCartman | May 31, 2009 5:16 PM

Rightwinger...THEY WERE NOT BABIES!!! Tiller didn't go around finding healthy, happy young infants to beat against a wall; he helped women with problematic pregnancies that were a matter of life or death for themselves! More often than not, those fetuses stood no chance of being born healthy or even alive!

So let me ask this question: how many women are going to die of ectopic pregnancies if people like this get their way? How many others will die from preventable injuries or infections by trying to perform abortions at home? How many women has Dr. Tiller saved over the years? So, by the twisted logic of the anti-abortion, Christian-reich, if I were to walk into the head office of Operation Rescue and start gunning people down... then I'm doing the moral thing, because I'm saving more lives than I'm taking? Do they REALLY want to push this line of reasoning?!!

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 5:18 PM

As anti-choicers like to point out, sometimes the doctors are wrong, and the woman could have survived. There is no perfect way to discern all cases as "she will certainly live without an abortion" and "she will certainly die without an abortion." What happens when doctors can only say "she might die without an abortion?" You can't craft a law that bans late term abortion and allows medical exceptions under particular circumstances without still killing the women who didn't obviously meet the circumstances. Even the most carefully crafted anti-choice law is a death sentence.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't have a world without legal late term abortion and without avoidable deaths of women who seek illegal abortions. That's a fantasy.

You either prefer that women have full access to legal abortion, or you prefer that women die unnecessarily. It doesn't matter what week you limit abortion. If you limit abortion at all, at any time, you are saving zero fetuses, and killing more women than you would have killed otherwise.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 5:21 PM

You seriously believe that there is no difference in the level of controversy around abortion at different times during pregnancy?Even if your views are black and white, not everyone else's are.

You really aren't interested in what effects this murder might have?

No, aperson, we are all aware of the controversy. What is tedious is your assumption that you're informing anyone of anything we didn't already know.

Posted by: Nocturne | May 31, 2009 5:29 PM

Re: Right Winger -- I smell a poe. Of course it's so hard to tell... *shrug* Who cares, obvious troll is obvious.

If there's one thing I learned from Bush/Cheney, the correct response to this is to round up and waterboard members of so-called "pro-life" groups. Fair's fair, right? ;)

Posted by: Andy Groves | May 31, 2009 5:32 PM

Rather than join in the discussion, I just sent $100 to Planned Parenthood. I would encourage others to do the same.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 5:34 PM

He killed thousands! He sucked out their brains, cut off their arms and legs and threw them into the trash.

Who sucked your brains out?

Faith Aloud has the proper Christian response:

“Dr. Tiller taught me so much about the spiritual concerns of his patients,” said the Reverend Rebecca Turner, Executive Director of Faith Aloud. “He was a kind, compassionate man who respected women and listened to them. America cannot tolerate this kind of domestic terrorism. We must put an end to the hostile rhetoric that fuels this kind of violence. We must hold people accountable who bully women on the sidewalks of abortion clinics. There is nothing “pro-life” about murder and nothing “Christian” about the hatred that fuels it. My heart goes out to abortion providers all over our country who share in this tragedy.”

http://faithaloud.blogspot.com/

They also have some very sensible values:

As people of religious faith and conviction, Faith Aloud supports reproductive justice for every person. Our struggle for reproductive freedom includes these core values:

* That families are created in many ways.
* That all persons desiring to be parents should have the right and opportunity to do so.
* That no one should be forced into parenthood, or into narrowly defined parenting roles.
* That the sexual experiences of consenting adults are not open to government inspection, opinion, and legislation.
* That all persons have a right to privacy.
* That all persons have a right to education and employment without discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, or sexual orientation.
* That all persons have the right to choose the life they want to live, responsibly within their community.
* That no person should ever be forced into contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
* That all young people should have access to comprehensive sex education.
* That all people should have access to reproductive and sexual health information and services.
* That sexually transmitted infections are not a result of moral failure, and the best medical information, prevention, and treatment should be available to all.
* That sex is a glorious component of the human experience, a gift of the Divine, to be expressed with respect, responsibility, and joy.

http://faithaloud.org/

And guess what? It's an organization run by women! Thank goodness there are religious organizations out there that are willing to advocate and think like adults when dealing with human sexuality and reproduction.

Posted by: Lee Picton | May 31, 2009 5:37 PM

People like Right Winger disgust me beyond belief. He is projecting his personal totally immoral beliefs onto the rest of us. I have always been pro-choice and have been fighting the anti-choicers since the 1960's, sometimes with significant money donated to pro-choice organizations. Right Winger, you represent all that is wrong with American society. You want to force your depravity upon the rest of us with your perverted notion of what constitutes a human being. I just wish there were a hell I could consign you to. You are utterly without decency or compassion.

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 5:39 PM

@strange gods#146

can you point me to a post (lower # than #103) that asks whether the late term abortions he provided might have made him a target?Because these abortions tend to be more controversial, not because they are more "wrong"

Can you point me to the post (with a number lower than 103) that asks whether this terrorist might achieve some of his aims, and whether this should make people worried?

Perhaps you will reply that all the Drs apart from Tiller were scared away already, that might be the case. Maybe prolife terrorists already achieved a large part of their goal that by reducing the number of Drs who would perform necessary late term abortions to 1 (and it seems, thanks to their murder, now zero)

Has anyone else (Lower # than #125)asked about the death penalty in Kansas and whether this might mean prolifers get a martyr?

I suggest to you that I am being told my contributions are of no merit because I don't simply condemn today's murder and say nothing further.

Posted by: mayhempix | May 31, 2009 5:42 PM

A documentary making the rounds of film festivals last year has an interview with a protester from Operation Rescue claiming Tiller was a mass murderer. She was speaking outside the courthouse during of the Wichita trial of BTK serial killer Dennis Rader displaying a poster side by side headshots claiming Tiller was on par with Rader. She clearly states she speaks for the church and God.

Disclaimer: I was writer and editor "Feast of the Assumption", a film about a Charlie Otero who returned home from high school to discover that four members of his family were Rader's first victims.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 5:46 PM

aperson, can you point me to a post (lower # than #103) that suggests the late term abortions he provided might not have made him a target?

PZ mentions his late term abortions, as do I @23, Pixelfish @58, Jessica @60, Pixelfish again @64, and maybe others I overlooked.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 5:47 PM

aperson-

what is your deal with finding a "post after" this or that #?

if you'd actually been reading them yourself you would have noticed that one dr. in colorado still offers late-term abortions, he really is the last one, so he will now be more -or less- of a target depending on how all this plays out.

maybe people will be more eager to talk with you about "pro-life martyrs" after we get more information about the actual shooter.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 5:51 PM

We are voluntarily handicapped here. Christians shoot doctors; we don't shoot Randall Terry. Christians bomb clinics; we don't bomb fundamentalist churches. The difference is, of course, that we are normal decent people and they are not. But I have to concede, the tactical disadvantage is obvious.

Yeah, life can be a bitch sometimes.

We do hold the moral high ground though, xians having pulverized their share into dust blown away by the wind.

We also have institutions to protect us. The law, police, courts, army, FBI, Homeland Security and so on. All societies have elements trying to destroy it. The latest volunteers just happen to be fundie xians.

Posted by: mayhempix | May 31, 2009 5:52 PM

Asked why he performed late term abortions Tiller stated,

"Women and Families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues -- including abortion -- and come to decisions that are appropriate for themselves."

Posted by: mayhempix | May 31, 2009 5:55 PM

Posted by: rev bigdumbchimp | May 31, 2009 5:45 PM
"Who says we always agree here?"

So say we all...

Posted by: Evolving Squid | May 31, 2009 6:01 PM

At least the perpetrator of Ottawa's "honour kiling" gets life:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Brother+gets+life+honour+killing/1647215/story.html

“You put your own self-esteem over those of your own sister and the young man she had chosen to become her life partner,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford told an expressionless Hasibullah Sadiqi. “And consigning them to partnership in death has shocked and bewildered every community in the nation’s capital. The forfeiture of your liberty for the rest of your life seems only just.”

Posted by: Right Winger | May 31, 2009 6:02 PM

Andy Groves :

$100 ? Seriously? That's kinda lame. I give more than that to my church every month. That's not including what I give to Answers In Genesis, Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America and other groups. I gave more than at at one time to the NRA!

I'll mkae it even for you. I'll go and give $150 to the conservative side.

Posted by: Gramsuil | May 31, 2009 6:02 PM

I'm from Ireland..been a while since I was in here...shocked by the murder of Dr George Tiler......Guys, you have to sort out that country of yours.....Ireland has mostly rid itself of the plague known was religion though people are still too wishy-washy in their condemnations of this evil evil force that debilitates the intellect , is oppressive in the extreme and has done nothing but bring misery to people's lives.....I remain optimistic that religion is on it's last legs and that these incidents and all fundamentalism of the religious kind are but the death rattle of an outmoded form of being........take care..sorry to say it but the US???? The US is hell really....it's time the US and the rest of the world began to realise that the US is not the model for progress....we need socialism and we need to reinvoke the spirit of Marx and correct the lazy thinking that refers to the former Soviet Union and North Korea and China as "communist" or "former communist states2..they weren't.....the only hope is socialism..I leave you with this reference...Oscar Wilde essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism..the best essay every written...and that's coming from me...an anarchist..oh well bye....

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 6:06 PM

Shorter German Guy:

Women are irrelevant.

Posted by: Gramsuil | May 31, 2009 6:14 PM

The answer is education...more education..it's no coincidence that religion thrives in ignorance and that it recruits from the those who are disenfranchised....most religions are so calculated in this .no wonder religion loves to preserve and bless economics that guarantee that the majority are disenfranchised....as Dawkins points out..in the most intellectual spheres of society atheism is in the majority......that is no coincidence.....be insteresting to see the pressure that will now be put on the LAW to soften the sentence of the Good Doctor's murderer....just watch the ugly machine of conservatism and fanaticism kick in.....it's so depressing...

Posted by: mayhempix | May 31, 2009 6:22 PM

A Christian terrorist has killed a US citizen on American soil.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 6:27 PM

Oh, well, end of story then.

What are gods again?

Are you having trouble following the conversation? SocraticGadfly equates atheism with naturalism, forgetting that there are atheists who believe in other supernatural things besides gods, like human souls and magic.

Some Buddhists are just such atheists, believing in no gods, but in the reincarnation of souls.

I contend that Nat Hentoff is an atheist who believes in the supernatural value of a fertilized egg, and this is indistinguishable from saying the soul enters the egg at the moment of conception. He is a crypto-supernaturalist, hiding the soul behind a genome.

Posted by: Mike | May 31, 2009 6:33 PM

Bill O'Reilly good as put the gun to his head:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200808280009

Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 6:37 PM

strange gods before me,

"I contend that Nat Hentoff is an atheist who believes in the supernatural value of a fertilized egg, and this is indistinguishable from saying the soul enters the egg at the moment of conception."

So when does the killing of organism based up human DNA acquire moral significance? Are you a nihilist who argues it is never? Is it at sentience? At birth? At brainwave activity? At a heartbeat?

Your "supernatural value" argument doesn't seem rigorously defensible. When is there enough humanity to justify moral significance without a soul?

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 6:40 PM

but randall terry personally had this to say:

Randall Terry is a sociopath at the least. But he has created his own hell on earth.
1. Two of his daughters got pregnant out of wedlock.
2. He is leading a Hate Gays crusade. His son is gay.
3. He is divorced.
4. One daughter converted to Islam.

Fundie xian families are noted for their high rates of dysfunction.

A few years back, Randall Terry divorced his wife, Cindy -- who once said her husband was touched by the divine -- and married a much younger woman. (Terry's ex barely speaks to him anymore.) Their four children say they still love their father but the relationship has frayed. Terry recently barred one of his adopted teenage daughters from his house after she got pregnant out of wedlock for the second time. Another adopted daughter also became pregnant as a teenager and later converted to Islam, a religion Terry has described as composed of "murderers" and "terrorists." (The couple's lone biological child, a daughter, is in college.)

The night before Jamiel's interview with The Washington Post, Randall Terry drove seven hours from his Florida home to visit Jamiel in Charlotte. Theirs was not a pleasant talk. Why, Randall demanded, didn't you tell me you were thinking of writing this and committing an act of betrayal? I could have helped you with a Christian cure for {his} homosexuality

Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 6:42 PM

strange gods before me,

"Even if the fetus is a person at some point, it does not follow that it then has the right to use the woman's body for its own purposes. Let's say I need a kidney or I will die. Do I have the right to use the force of the state to remove your kidney and give it to me? No. No person has the right to force another person to give use of their body. "

What then would be your analysis of a woman who has a late term abortion to harvest the kidney for herself, or another child?

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 6:53 PM

So when does the killing of organism based up human DNA acquire moral significance?

Posted by: That German Guy | May 31, 2009 6:56 PM

192:
Of course not. Fetuses (fetii?) With a significant chance of survival are relevant too, though.
As stated: If there's any sort of medical indication, then get the scalpel and warm up the hoover. If the fetus doesn't have much chance of surviving a premature birth, get the scalpel and warm up the hoover.

Side note: That's way more than the current legal situation in Germany (Three months or medical indication, after that you're just plain out of luck, girl), so just consider it a step in the right direction ;)

It's really just a question of drawing the line. We probably all agree that "at conception" is far too early, and "at 9 months minus a week or so) is far too late. It's up to scientists to make and figure out the meaning of a bunch of data, and figure out what that data means.

From the data I have, "Somewhere around the time when the fetus has a significant chance of surviving a premature birth" seems to be in the right ballpark, though I freely admit that it is probably nowhere near the home plate.

Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 7:02 PM

noble strange gods before me,

at birth?

"In the only legally useful sense, yes. See my post just above at 6:37 PM for explanation."

So the law defines moral significance (even if the law changes?). There are laws which also reflect the values of those who are looking forward to the new life, such as counting the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homocide, or count an attack on a pregnant woman that kills the fetus as a homocide. There probably is a consensus in the country against abortions so late term that many think that the slightly increased risk of a C-section should be imposed upon the woman. I don't see a compelling state interest in the issues.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 7:04 PM

aperson @199

I haven't read anyone talk about the death penalty issue re a "martyr" for the prolife cause. (#109 mentions it but not from the martyrdom aspect)

Then talk about it. If you think you have something to add then add it. If you have questions, ask them.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 7:07 PM

Of course not. Fetuses (fetii?) With a significant chance of survival are relevant too, though.

And so you believe in forced incubation. You are clearly putting the value of the fetus over the value of the woman.

Give me your kidney. I need a third one just in case. No arguments, now, you don't have any choice in the matter.

It's really just a question of drawing the line. We probably all agree that "at conception" is far too early, and "at 9 months minus a week or so) is far too late.

It's sexist of you to imply that women are so stupid they are unable to make up their minds about abortion before 38 weeks.

Abortions at that stage are being performed for medical reasons. Take your fear-mongering anti-choice talking points elsewhere.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 7:09 PM

We probably all agree that "at conception" is far too early, and "at 9 months minus a week or so) is far too late.

Posted by: astrounit | May 31, 2009 7:10 PM

This excerpt from an AP article:

"Tiller remained prominent in the news, in part because of an investigation started begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent.

"Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires. A jury in March acquitted Tiller of all 19 misdemeanor counts.

""I am stunned by this lawless and violent act, which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law," Kline said in a written statement. "We join in lifting prayer that God's grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller's family and friends.""

Alright. What proportion of religion-saturated anti-abortionists would anybody here suppose would publicly agree with that "sentiment", while privately chortling over the fact that somebody managed to finally nab the bastard?

Brilliant move, Phil Kline. You've still got your political licks, which is what really counts, aye?

Posted by: Kouhari | May 31, 2009 7:13 PM

@that german guy

(Three months or medical indication, after that you're just plain out of luck, girl)

Wire coathangers. Bleach. And other methods that greatly endanger the mother's lives, which is part of the reason why abortions should be legal.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 7:14 PM

So the law defines moral significance (even if the law changes?).

Idiot africangenesis, I'm surprised that even you could squeeze that profound misunderstanding out of my words.

My answer was that moral significance and the law are very different things. Some things that are morally significant, the law cannot address. Moral significance and the law's usefulness happen to coincide at birth.

There are laws which also reflect the values of those who are looking forward to the new life, such as counting the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homocide, or count an attack on a pregnant woman that kills the fetus as a homocide.

If a woman is planning to give birth to a baby, then she is losing something of value to her if the fetus is killed by an assailant. What's relevant here is that it was her choice that imparted the value.

Posted by: Lee Picton | May 31, 2009 7:16 PM

Well, I see that Right Winger gives money to Answers in Genesis. I guess that says it all, doesn't it? Just another brain-dead creobot. Money is tight right now (the husbeast's ALS is an expensive disease), but I still managed to scrounge up $1000 for a life membership to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I don't know what the future will bring, but if I reach the end of my life without using up all my resources, a chunk of my estate (in the six figures) will be split between them and assorted atheist and pro-choice organizations. No, the spawn will not be left out, but he and his beloved both earn very good livings and won't need it. I exhort all you good people to put some money, even if it is just a little, where your hearts lie. There are fewer of us than the fundies, we need to give more.

Posted by: africangenesis | May 31, 2009 7:18 PM

Sir Craig,

"I absolutely blame O'Reilly for this, as well as those pricks from Operation: Rescue, for creating the atmosphere they have in regards to reproductive rights."

You should also blame the state which charged him with a crime, and those that passed the law which gave the state the cause to charge him.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 7:23 PM

Strange gods before me: if we follow your logic... doesn't a baby also take nutrients from a mother when being breast-fed? And attention, and time, and money? Should she be able to ignore him and abandon him if she wants?

In fact women in many places are allowed to abandon their babies at police stations, hospitals, fire stations, and other government institutions.

And there is no legal requirement to breastfeed.

After birth, we are able to require that women feed their children because they now also have the option of giving the child up for adoption. That is, there are now ways for the state to secure the baby's life without infringing upon the mother's bodily autonomy. That's the difference.

Posted by: ZK | May 31, 2009 7:32 PM

In their main article about this murder the BBC new website refers to Dr Tiller as "A prominent US abortion doctor"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8076253.stm

Whereas on their 24 hour news station, BBC News 24, and on the front page of their news website they have been calling him "Controversial US abortion doctor"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
(Get in quick if you really want to see it because it will change soon enough, such is the fickleness of news).

The BBC are probably guilty of no more than a bit of "not very well joined up editorial oversight" and some "not thinking it through properly".

It does wrankle a bit to see this poor chap confirmed as "Controversial", he was only "Controversial" with some people. Others think he was a bit of a totally non-controversial, thoroughly decent doctor type chap.

Oh, the BBC must have heard me, they've just started calling him "a doctor who specialised in late term abortions in the US" on their rolling news service.

Ho hum.

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 7:33 PM

@#224"If a woman is planning to give birth to a baby, then she is losing something of value to her if the fetus is killed by an assailant. What's relevant here is that it was her choice that imparted the value."

Does your argument mean that a pregnant woman's choice (and only that choice) imparts personhood? If the crime is a 2nd murder then it has to be a person that was killed.

If it is only "something of value", and not an actual person, providing she can become pregnant again, you might argue that a delay has been suffered, not a murder.

I am convinced that the goal of defining killing a pregnant woman as 2 murders was to get into law the foetus-as-a-person. It seems to me that the next step is: "If it is 2 murders, surely a foetus needs protection, from someone murdering the mother and from a mother having an abortion?"

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 7:44 PM

Does your argument mean that a pregnant woman's choice (and only that choice) imparts personhood? If the crime is a 2nd murder then it has to be a person that was killed.

If it is only "something of value", and not an actual person, providing she can become pregnant again, you might argue that a delay has been suffered, not a murder.

You're making a good point. Perhaps the law should treat this as an assault in the commission of a burglary.

I am convinced that the goal of defining killing a pregnant woman as 2 murders was to get into law the foetus-as-a-person. It seems to me that the next step is: "If it is 2 murders, surely a foetus needs protection, from someone murdering the mother and from a mother having an abortion?"

That's the tactic, yes. These laws, in the states where they exist (nothing federal yet that I know of) have been strongly supported by the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2009 7:46 PM

I'm willing to overlook her blatant liberalism if she turns out to vote down Roe V. Wade.

...and if she doesn't will you encourage her destruction?

or will you shoot her yourself?

Get help, seriously.

Posted by: MadScientist | May 31, 2009 7:55 PM

Yet another example of religion giving nuts a "mission" to murder people for their bloodthirsty god. I bet we get the usual response - those claiming to be "moderate" saying they do not approve while secretly wishing the law would not hunt them down if they did this sort of thing (after saying they don't approve, they always make some excuse for the murderer) and the fanatics (every one of them as christian as Bin Laden) claiming the murderer is some kind of hero.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 7:59 PM

It must be really frightening to live in a world where you think that fully half of the population has so little brain that they are incapable of making their own basic life decisions.

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 8:07 PM

@#236"The parallel with the abortion case is evident."

It is evident but not entirely congruent.

Coercing someone into choosing between their convenience and "killing someone" is not the same as a pregnant woman. The violinist example is more analagous to a rape victim who is pregnant. They are both in their situation because of a crime against them. Almost no-one (and not me) would vote for obliging rape victims to carry children to term.

A woman who is pregnant is in a far more common and natural situation, and (in the vast majority of cases) much, much less inconvenienced than being in ITU for 9 months.

I consider "natural" to be relevant because my view is that the responsibility to a viable foetus who is not seriously endangering your life is one of the prices paid for being the holders of almost all reproductive rights.

As an (irrelevant?) aside, I really wish we could have sex education that isn't scared of contraception, but also admits that being sexually active at a very young age is probably a stupid thing to do.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 8:17 PM

Coercing someone into choosing between their convenience and "killing someone" is not the same as a pregnant woman. The violinist example is more analagous to a rape victim who is pregnant. They are both in their situation because of a crime against them. Almost no-one (and not me) would vote for obliging rape victims to carry children to term.

The fetus is innocent in either case. If it does not have rights in the case of rape, then it does not have rights ever.

By excusing women who are raped but not women whose contraceptives failed, you are only punishing women for choosing to have sex.

I consider "natural" to be relevant because my view is that the responsibility to a viable foetus who is not seriously endangering your life is one of the prices paid for being the holders of almost all reproductive rights.

You have not established that there is any responsibility to a viable fetus for any reason.

Again, restrictions on abortion do not lower the number of abortions. They only increase the number of deaths of women whose options are then limited to illegal abortions. The empirical evidence is on my side: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 8:33 PM

So I say we take that phrase away from them. It doesn't belong to them. It's inadequate, as a label, as a position, as a viewpoint. It's not their label: it should be everyone's label.

Then explain yourself when you use the term "pro-life" so that other readers can get on board with you. Jesus. How hard is that? All we've been asking is that you respect your readers and not expect them to have some magical understanding of what you mean with words that usually mean something else.

I have not once told you not to call yourself pro-life. I only asked that you be clear about what you mean. But this is more about you playing the victim than any attempt at communication on your part.

I have a habit of stimulating a conversation by not parroting talking points, but making a statement, & expanding on it when asked to. Note that I used a codeword: 'pro-life'. & wow, I could almost hear the metaphorical cartilage snapping from the knee-jerk responses.

Guess what? Your attempt at reclamation doesn't accomplish anything unless you also explain what you mean. And you could have done that at the outset, or if you were determined to have your pedantic fun at the expense of someone else's time, you could have explained yourself as soon as the first person responded to you. Then you still would have gotten your laughs.

Instead you persisted, over and over and over again. To the point that you still haven't answered this question:

So, you previously said "I don't want to restrict abortion."

Are you now saying instead that you do support some restrictions on abortion? And if you aren't, then what was I supposed to "figure out in the 1st place?"

Perhaps I should've made that point earlier: perhaps I should've been asked, instead of assailed. Not playing the victim here: simple observation bears this out.

Not playing for sympathy, even as you whine and whine that you were unfairly assailed. Look, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I really am. What can I do to make you feel better?

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 8:44 PM

@246 "You have not established that there is any responsibility to a viable fetus for any reason."

I suppose I perceive responsibility because I consider that a viable foetus is probably as much of a person as a neonate. And even if there is very considerable inconvenience (but not danger to your life) you have the responsiblility to a living person.

You are right that there is an inconsistency in those who believe in more rights to abortion in the case of rape. It seems to me that a victim of crime should not be treated the same as someone who has chosen to risk the situation.

In the violinist example (which I don't completely subscribe to) the distinction is perhaps between being hooked up to the violinist against your will versus volunteering for it. Everyone knows (or at least shouldn't get out of school til they know) that contraceptives are not 100% reliable

A man whose contraception fails has no right (at least where I am from) to completely disown a foetus/child, let alone insist on an abortion. I cannot see how this could be changed, ever. Men have to put up with that.

But your argument seems to suggest that fully grown adult rights always trump those of viable foetuses. Can you conceive of a situation where a father could insist on an abortion, or (less controversially) insist that he had no responsibility for a child?

I suppose the difference between our positions is that a viable foetus is not a person for you. Fair enough.
I am not completely certain of my own position, but I see no shame in that.

I would like to say that you seem much more civilised (and knowledgeable) than many of the people on this thread.
And thankyou for introducing me to the violinist example.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 9:05 PM

What is meant by performing late term abortions? How late? You should understand the full details of the story before going on a name-calling rampage. While I generally support abortion, aborting late term babies carries the risk of pain perception by a developed nervous system.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 9:19 PM

What is meant by performing late term abortions? How late?

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 9:24 PM

In the violinist example (which I don't completely subscribe to) the distinction is perhaps between being hooked up to the violinist against your will versus volunteering for it. Everyone knows (or at least shouldn't get out of school til they know) that contraceptives are not 100% reliable

Well there's your problem, then. People have the right to enjoy sex without volunteering for parenthood. It's verging on crypto-Catholicism to imply that the most important purpose of sex is reproduction.

But your argument seems to suggest that fully grown adult rights always trump those of viable foetuses. Can you conceive of a situation where a father could insist on an abortion,

By proposing this question, you're just saying that you're interested in men controlling women.

Neither the state nor a man has any right to take ownership of a woman's body. That is the effect of what you are proposing; if anyone besides the woman decides what she does with her body, then she does not own herself, but is a slave to another.

or (less controversially) insist that he had no responsibility for a child?

Again, after the baby is born, the state does have a compelling interest in ensuring that the woman takes care of the baby, and can hold her to charges of neglect. The same applies to the man, so this is fair.

I suppose the difference between our positions is that a viable foetus is not a person for you. Fair enough.

No, I agree it's probably a person. I contend that does not mean it has any right to use the woman's body against her will.

Look, what you keep ignoring is the evidence that restricting abortion does not reduce the rate of abortion but does increase the deaths of women.

You seem to want to have this conversation on very sterile premises, but there are real-world consequences to your proposal. Not only the World Health Organization data that I provided, but also this:

"As anti-choicers like to point out, sometimes the doctors are wrong, and the woman could have survived. There is no perfect way to discern all cases as "she will certainly live without an abortion" and "she will certainly die without an abortion." What happens when doctors can only say "she might die without an abortion?" You can't craft a law that bans late term abortion and allows medical exceptions under particular circumstances without still killing the women who didn't obviously meet the circumstances. Even the most carefully crafted anti-choice law is a death sentence.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't have a world without legal late term abortion and without avoidable deaths of women who seek illegal abortions. That's a fantasy.

You either prefer that women have full access to legal abortion, or you prefer that women die unnecessarily. It doesn't matter what week you limit abortion. If you limit abortion at all, at any time, you are saving zero fetuses, and killing more women than you would have killed otherwise."

You are choosing to err on the side of killing women.

I prefer the women to the fetuses because the already-born women have memories and dreams, relationships and friends, children who love and rely on them, hopes and ambitions, favorite songs, stories to tell, a stated preference for living, a kinship with the world, something to lose.

The fetus cannot even know yet what it might be losing. I do believe that makes one person more objectively valuable than the other.

I would like to say that you seem much more civilised (and knowledgeable) than many of the people on this thread.

I'm really not. I've just had this conversation so many times that I tend to do it all dispassionately now.

I'm sorry if I failed to make clear that I believe your premises are the product of a misogynist culture you've largely unconsciously absorbed. I try not to blame you for it; I do think it's largely unconscious. But it's very frustrating from my end.

Oh well. If I can recommend more reading, have a look at this and follow the conversation up until post #374: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/theres_an_underground_church_t.php#comment-1097798 That's where I picked up one of my arguments that I've given here, but it's more non-judgmental than I'm really capable of.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 31, 2009 9:26 PM

aperson @ # 125: ... the pro lifers might be about to get a martyr.

They've had one for six years.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 9:34 PM

"Tiller remained prominent in the news, in part because of an investigation started begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent. {}

Obvious lie. I'm sure Kline is getting drunk right now and laughing like a loon.

We have millions or tens of millions of Terrorist supporters in the USA. We call them "fundie Xian Death Cultists". I don't know why we even bother fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. While our army is over there accomplishing little, we have our own versions in places like Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Oh well, when the perp gets life for first degree murder we can celebrate. And when the fundies alienate and drive out any of their members who have normal personalities and don't support terrorism, we can celebrate some more.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 9:42 PM

Based on what? There isn't a single fact known about the person who killed Tiller.

He was an operation rescue member

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737357/-Suspect-Identified-in-Tiller-Assassination

Then again, it's not like there's been a violent Christianist movement against women's health care providers or anything that might lead one in the direction of a tentative conclusion that a member of that violent Christianist movement was behind this.

Posted by: Sami | May 31, 2009 9:45 PM

I'm not sure I'd call this irony.

This is a deliberate terrorism, against Christians who do not hew to extremist insanity.

Now, more than ever, your relentless anti-religious bigotry is out of place. You judge Christians by the actions of a tiny minority, and you're wrong to do so. But a good Christian man has been murdered. That this was done at his church, violating the sanctuary of his faith, isn't irony - it's a hate crime.

If you could suspend your will to sneer at the faithful for just a few moments, out of respect for the man who was murdered for doing the right thing, that would be a bare minimum for decency.

Posted by: GMacs | May 31, 2009 9:50 PM

Sami,

I don't doubt most of what you said, but I'm sure that, had I been an important abortion doctor, I would be killed by extremists. I am not a Christian and have not been for a few years. I am not judging all Christians, as I, and I would guess others here, have family members who are both Christian and pro-choice.

Hate crime it may be, but overall, it is a cold-blooded murder by a fanatical psychotic.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 10:07 PM

Mary Kay the xian Death Cultist wannabe killer::

ou crow about being more "scientific" than others, yet jump to the conclusion that Tiller's killer was a pro-life Christian (at least the comments that I've seen, I have to admit that I didn't wade through all 259 comments).

Based on what? There isn't a single fact known about the person who killed Tiller.

So much for your self-congratulatory "evidenced-based" high road.

Yes, we have another Xian Terrorist. Gee Mary, you sound angry. Going out shooting MDs tonight? Or just bombing a few medical clinics?

Typical Xian Al Qaeda. Lies, hate, stupidity, and a fondness for murderers.

Formally we don't know for certain. The probability is nearly 100% though. It isn't like xians don't target MDs often. The toll so far is 25 attempted assassinations, 8 of them successful.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 31, 2009 10:12 PM

Now, more than ever, your relentless anti-religious bigotry is out of place. You judge Christians by the actions of a tiny minority, and you're wrong to do so. But a good Christian man has been murdered.

They eat their own. These, I suppose, "not so good Christians" are killing people. Are we supposed to say "oh, that's all right, they weren't good Christians"? No true Scotsman Christian would even kill another. Yeah right. Tell that to the Inquisition, the Crusaders, and both sides of the Thirty Years War. The Death Cult called Christianity has killed yet again. How many more people will Christianity kill? Any number greater than zero is a condemnation of Christianity.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | May 31, 2009 10:14 PM

@Raven, another (cultist-type?) person making unwarranted and unsupported assumptions, this one about Phill Kline:

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who conducted an investigation into Tiller, said in a statement he was "stunned by this lawless and violent act which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law. We join in lifting prayer that God's grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller's family and friends."

http://www.kansas.com/topstories/story/833730.html

Oh, and just is atheism in no guarantor of rationality, it's no guarantor against herd-like or cultish behavior, either.

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | May 31, 2009 10:19 PM

"Let me tell you, you must resist the evil person. If someone strikes you on the cheek, you must strike him harder. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, take his tunic and cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, force him to march two miles. Take from those who ask of you, and turn away those who want to borrow from you." -Right Winger's Jesus

Posted by: Jeremy | May 31, 2009 10:25 PM

I went to see if Gingi Edmonds had written a new vitriol-filled screed about Dr. Tiller, but she's apparently off at church stabbing labcoat-wearing voodoo dolls.

I did notice this on her site, though:

Writing a book is not like writing a two page opinion column, let me tells ya.

Oh, goody, she's writing her manifesto...

Thank you everyone for the kind words, the encouragement and the awesome links on President Abortion. I mean, Obama. *snicker snicker*

... and it's going to be a real page-turner, filled with BRILLIANT WITTICISMS!!!11oneone

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 10:27 PM

you had a point, troll?

Posted by: GMacs | May 31, 2009 10:31 PM

Also Sami,

Here is some more irony:

I can't say "fuck" in church, but a true believer can shoot someone dead.

Can someone get rid of the warmonger trolls? Kthxbai

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2009 10:36 PM

Who cares what crazy people say?

Gadfly's pursuit of cultism reminds me a lot of the Kwokster.

I wonder if he will meet the same fate and decide that there indeed was nothing but a cult here?

How many blogs will it be tossed from before maybe it sinks in that it's concept of cultism might be flawed?

Do I really care?

does anyone?

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 10:38 PM

I can't say "fuck" in church

Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | May 31, 2009 10:43 PM

@DoctorDefense #271

I proclaim without apology that killing ANY AND ALL right-to-lifers will NOT be murder. It will be JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE provided it is done as a response to this. It will also be justifiable homicide if someone kills the CHILDREN of right-to-lifers.

Are you INSANE?

(Sorry, capslock is contagious.)

In what universe does this line of reasoning make any moral, ethical or logical sense? Justifiable would be in response to a clear and present danger to the life of another... say for example if you saw the fellow preparing to shoot Dr. Tiller, one might make the case for it, but I am not a lawyer.

To advocate unnecessary harm against anyone goes against everything the medical profession stands for. (Unnecessary is the key word. Even "simple" surgery is nothing but carefully applied harm.) Take doctor out of your name, you've obviously no business using it.

As an aside, go go Strange Gods. Really enjoying your comments.

Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 10:45 PM

I wonder which adult rights trump those of viable foetuses and why

1. The one it's included in and entirely dependent on
2. Because it's her body

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2009 10:52 PM

"He is a right wing extremist. He is pro choice."

I meant pro life which really means pro forced childbearing, anti-life, and anti-human.
He is also apparently a xian.

So we have a right wing extremist with violent tendencies, pro life/anti-human, and a xian. What does this sound like? Pretty much defines a fundie xian. Sure as hell doesn't sound like an evolutionary biologist.

Posted by: aperson | May 31, 2009 10:57 PM

@#288" wonder which adult rights trump those of viable foetuses and why....1..included in and entirely dependent on"

I said viable. It may well be that viable is a borderline myth, I am no obstetrician.
However, "viable" and "entirely dependent on" are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 11:08 PM

pixelfish @ 273

Yes, I mentioned trauma in my post, but your trauma reference (post 89) was attached to a discussion of emotion and souls you were having with Strange Gods (post 75, which had nothing to do with my post at 74) I think, so no, it wasn't clear that you were responding to my point about trauma first since you didn't reference and since.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 11:20 PM

strange @ 167:

Then explain yourself when you use the term "pro-life" so that other readers can get on board with you. Jesus. How hard is that? All we've been asking is that you respect your readers and not expect them to have some magical understanding of what you mean with words that usually mean something else.

I have not once told you not to call yourself pro-life. I only asked that you be clear about what you mean. But this is more about you playing the victim than any attempt at communication on your part.

Guess what? Your attempt at reclamation doesn't accomplish anything unless you also explain what you mean. And you could have done that at the outset, or if you were determined to have your pedantic fun at the expense of someone else's time, you could have explained yourself as soon as the first person responded to you. Then you still would have gotten your laughs.

Are you now saying instead that you do support some restrictions on abortion? And if you aren't, then what was I supposed to "figure out in the 1st place?"

Not playing for sympathy, even as you whine and whine that you were unfairly assailed. Look, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I really am. What can I do to make you feel better?

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 31, 2009 11:28 PM

Gadfly @ 267:

Strange Gods is one of the cult-like cherry-pickers. Like most such troll-like persons, he just likes to argue. All you do is feed him, which is why I hadn't posted here for six hrs.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 31, 2009 11:32 PM

Mary Kay squealed:

Namecalling means that you don't have a counter-argument.

No, it means you aren't worthy of the effort, since nothing you'e presented here counts as a valid argument in the first place.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 11:37 PM

At a certain point counterterror becomes justifiable.

Posted by: strange gods before me | May 31, 2009 11:53 PM

Oh, sorry. I didn't get your memo on how conversation is to be conducted at Pharyngula. Oh wait...ain't your damn blog, is it?

Mon frère, you complained at length that you were being assailed. I merely gave advice to avoid this in the future. Take it or leave it, it's not my concern.

Well, I say that abortion's likely not an option @ the quickening. About 3rd trimester, unless the woman's life is endangered. That seems reasonable. The fetus does meet the requirements of being human, the biology matching up & whatnot.
I hope that meets your Royal Highness' standards? Very good sir.

It does mean you were lying when you said "I don't want to restrict abortion." Just another example of how dialogue with you is completely useless, since you're not only obscurantist but deliberately deceptive.

And no, it's not reasonable. There's no reason that a woman should be forced to become an incubator just because you don't trust her to make decisions about her future.

You say "The fetus does meet the requirements of being human, the biology matching up & whatnot", apparently unaware that this matters not at all. A human cancer cell is human, too. Quit relying on the DNA-soul for your non-arguments, and start thinking.

"To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life." http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm

Posted by: TexCephNerd | June 1, 2009 12:09 AM

At a certain point counterterror becomes justifiable.

I would respond to this quote with another:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

...aren't we supposed to be taking the moral high ground here?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 12:16 AM

@256Since you used one of my least favourite overused words, I withdraw what I said about your "civilisation".

Well, I told you I was uncivilized, but I hardly think that mentioning the existence of misogyny makes me so.

If you believe that there is a chance that a viable foetus is a person, then it is not hatred of women to suggest that the people bear some responsiblility for the foetus inside them.

But it is contempt of women to condemn them to unnecessary death under the law, which is what abortion restrictions do.

I wonder which adult rights trump those of viable foetuses and why. I do not suggest that male insistence on abortion would be a good thing, I seek to know how it could be prevented without assigning rights to the foetus. If it is because the woman's body would then be being controlled by men, there is where we disagree. My point is that there are (or might be) three people involved in a pregnancy but your viewpoint assigns rights to only one of those people.

One of them owns her own body. Thus only one of them gets to make decisions about her body. If other people, the state or some man, get to make those decisions, then those other people are the ones who own her body instead.

You are insisting that at some point during the pregnancy, the woman's body becomes the property of the state. Of course you don't want to admit this, because it makes you sound like an asshole. But it's the truth. When slavery was legal, slaveowners could decide when and whether their slaves should get pregnant, or abort. You are putting the state in that role.

I suggested that reproduction is a very significant consequence of sex.

"Consequences" that women should not be allowed to escape, apparently. Very crypto-Catholic, that choice of terminology, suggestive of punishment.

If it is indeed true that restrictions on abortion do not reduce the number of abortions at all, then I suggest the (urgent) goal should be to dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. (I do not think this should be through abstinence education.)

That would indeed be best for all involved. Subsidized and widely-available contraception would be a huge help. Currently many women cannot afford birth control pills, and many pharmacies do not carry them (and are not required to, under so-called conscience clauses).

You said you believe a viable foetus to be a person, just one that is less important than the rights of women. It does not seem clear cut to me that one set of rights is more important than the other.

It is clear cut that one has more to lose.

You think I have been brainwashed by society. Well, perhaps you have read too many articles featuring the word "patriarchy"? Maybe this is why you don't realise that this issue is one where there might be opinions that differ from yours but don't automatically imply hatred and brutal oppression of 50% of humanity.

I think you have grown up in a culture that favors men more than women. I think if you are blind to this, you have a lot of learning yet to do. And I'm well aware that your defenses are exactly the same as those of every fundamentalist nut who does in fact hate women. Your feelings amount to a distinction without a difference, and your actions tell the story.

(Do you also use the word "heteronormative"?)

I use words that usefully describe the world. If you don't see the value of that one, then you've much to learn. I note that you mock these ideas without arguing against them. This is a function of your unexamined privilege.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 12:25 AM

can you argue that a neonate is rational or self conscious? A 6 month old? Perhaps we should have gradations of murder, with the most serious grade reserved for adult victims without any mental handicap?

Singer does go toward those conclusions, but I do not.

I repeat, even if the newborn is not conscious, after birth there are now ways for the state to secure the baby's life without infringing upon the mother's bodily autonomy. We are now able to require that she care for the child because she now also has the option of giving the child up for adoption. So if she does not give them up for adoption, and does not feed them, she has hurt them in ways that the state can intervene against without taking ownership of her body.

It may be that Singer is correct that the newborn is not conscious and its death is no great loss. I disagree, but even if he's right, there is a state interest in protecting newborns' lives because we the people do not like to see newborns dying.

Posted by: SoMG | June 1, 2009 12:44 AM

You folks have it all wrong (the most recent few posts arguing about fetal personhood). It doesn't MATTER whether a fetus is a person. Even if it's a person, if it's inside my body, using my life-support functions and water oxygen and nutrients taken from my bloodstream, and moreover getting ready to subject me to major medical/surgical trauma, then I'm entitled to have it killed EVEN THOUGH it's a person.

"My body" means I'm entitled to decide who and what gets to live inside it, and when, and how long. Giving someone a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to also give them a longer one, just as giving blood does not obligate me to also give the next transfusion the patient might need.

Abortion is homicide. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

Posted by: DoctorDerfense | June 1, 2009 12:50 AM

Re: #306. Oh yeah, I love you "turn-the-other-cheek" guys. "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," you said. Well if all good people were to follow your idea and refrain from taking an eye for an eye, then eventually only the bad people would have eyes left. If I'm gonna be blinded, and I have to choose between a world where I'm blind but my enemy can see, and on the other hand a world where neither I nor my enemy can see, I prefer the latter, thank you very much.

It's time for RIGHT-TO-LIFERS to start having to turn the other cheek.

Posted by: chgo_liz | June 1, 2009 12:56 AM

aperson @ #292:

"viable" and "entirely dependent on" are mutually exclusive.

Fail. While a fetus is hooked up to its life support system (the umbilical cord leading to the placenta) it is entirely dependent on someone else's body doing all the breathing, feeding and eliminating of waste. Even if it is far enough along that being born wouldn't actually kill it (i.e., "viable"), it's still a dependent parasite while inside.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 1:02 AM

DoctorDerfense, go away now.

The killer has been caught and will be put on trial. His children should not be punished for his crimes.

Public sentiment goes to the victims. Make the pro-lifers the latest victims, and they will win the public relations battle.

I didn't read every post of yours to see just how much you advocated violence, but I hope if PZ finds anything even borderline, he will turn you over to the police. You are a danger to society, at least you are right now while you are angry. Please, this is not an insult, go talk to a therapist or psychologist. Even if your logic were sound, and I'm not saying it is, but even if it were, it would not be healthy for you to be so angry.

Posted by: CW | June 1, 2009 1:06 AM

I'm talking about a fetus that is ready to be born, as the many 6 and 7 months births show, and about one that has a brain and a mind already, even if it's -of course- not fully developed

Posted by: aperson | June 1, 2009 1:18 AM

@316

@#288" wonder which adult rights trump those of viable foetuses and why....1..included in and entirely dependent on"
I said viable. It may well be that viable is a borderline myth, I am no obstetrician.
However, "viable" and "entirely dependent on" are mutually exclusive.

Fail. While a fetus is hooked up to its life support system (the umbilical cord leading to the placenta) it is entirely dependent on someone else's body doing all the breathing, feeding and eliminating of waste.

You may well be right in that any unborn foetus (viable or not) gets all nutrition from the mother, but that actually isn't the point.

""Entirely dependent on" obviously implies "would die if removed from", and "viable" here has to mean "capable of life without support from the placenta/uterus etc. after birth."

As I said, that might not be a very common situation at all. But if it does happen, I suggest that it becomes difficult to argue against the foetus being effectively the same as a neonate.

Posted by: DoctorDefense | June 1, 2009 1:28 AM

Strange Gods, you wrote: "it would not be healthy for you to be so angry."

Unless what? Think carefully now.

Why might this make me more angry than it makes other people?

Hmmmmm....

By the way, the Feds know all about DoctorDefense. PZ's welcome to contact them but they won't give him any reward.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 1:38 AM

Here's a dichotomy for you: either an unwanted pregnancy is a bad thing or it isn't. I suggest that an unwanted pregnancy is a potential consequence of many things, like not using contraception correctly.

But when you suggest it as a consequence women should not be allowed to escape, then it becomes a punishment.

No sir, I am suggesting that at some point during a pregnancy a third person might become involved and be deserving of protection.

And I've allowed that possibility. It doesn't change the fact that you have to transfer ownership of the women's body to the state to prevent her from using it or expelling unwanted stowaways as she sees fit.

If there is a third person, then the issue is no longer of someone's body and nothing else.

Non sequitur. It is still her body.

It stops being as simple as, "this is my kidney and you can't have it".

No it doesn't. There's still a person who needs that kidney, there's still a fetus that needs that placenta. And it's still up to the woman to make the decision. There's no one else who's more competent or more deserving to make the decision.

But your "property of the state" is, frankly, a bit nonsensical.

You use such phrases as "property of the state" to make yourself sound like proper paid up libertarian, and to allow the segue into a slavery reference.

Mmhmm. But you haven't given any counterargument. "It sounds ridiculous" does not make it untrue.

Fact: you are trying to transfer the decision-making authority over the woman's body from the woman to the state. Take that statement and argue coherently that it's false.

The crux of our disagreement is that deaths of women in potentially dangerous childbirth automatically trump deaths of potentially viable foetuses. I am not so sure.

If you're not sure that fetuses should die instead of women, when women objectively have more to lose, then it's hard to see how you aren't objectively anti-women.

I find the word "heteronormative" mockable because it carries a rage that ~90% of people are heterosexual.

Wow, that's a complete misunderstanding of the topic. No surprise that you're so sure of yourself you never bothered to research it. Heteronormative culture hurts heterosexual people too, by enforcing strict gender roles that not everyone wants to fit in.

How dare people be part of a majority. Majorities are eeevil. Automatically. This is a maxim.

You're subliterate.

I have found that misogyny is most often used by people seeking a "nuclear bomb" in a discussion that involves sex or gender. You are not allowed to defend something that has been described as misogyny

Either something is in fact not misogyny, and then you may yet have a good argument against it, or you're really just trying to defend misogyny. Sorry about your luck tonight.

You are a very, very tiresome individual. Done talking to you.

I hope so. You were slightly more interesting before you got this little bug up your ass. Now you're on this weird little tirade, and I'm just feeling sorry for you.

Posted by: raven | June 1, 2009 2:17 AM

sodahead: In the rear window of the 1993 blue Ford Taurus that he was driving was a red rose, a symbol often used by abortion opponents. On the rear of his car was a Christian fish symbol with the word "Jesus" inside.

Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.
deleted paragraph
Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines, Iowa.

Pretty obvious that Scott the supect is a xian. He had a jesus fish on his car and a history as an anti-abortion activist.

There is a lot on the net about him. He seems to be a creepy loser who was going to do something terrible some day. Sounds like a lot of fundie xians. They don't call them Death Cultists for nothing.

I'm sure Mary Kay will be by tomorrow to apologize and admit she was lying. And also that hell will freeze over.

It's amazing how many xian terrorist supporters crawled out from under their rocks. The other spin is predictable. Scott Roeder isn't a Real Xian(tm). Yeah right. But supporters of xian terrorism are?

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 2:57 AM

If the reason for aborting is because the woman is trying to wait until she has more money and can support more children, then having this one child now may mean not having two children later. In that case, the fetus is reducing overall reproductive fitness, and would indeed count as a parasite.

You overlook the word systematically in my post. If some animal 'just happens' to decrease other creature's fitness, it still does not make it a parasite. It would have to do it habitually as normal part of its lifestyle. Example. Chloroplasts are in fact just symbiotic bacteria that happen to live inside eukaryotic cells. Do they turn into parasites if someone places the cell culture into a dark room ? Off course not.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 3:15 AM

I think that more loosely understood, the word "parasite" speaks eloquently of the experience of having an unwanted pregnancy.

No it doesn't. The word 'parasite' has a definite meaning, and it is not 'something in me that I happen to hate'.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 3:17 AM

Certainly a little poetic license doesn't make chgo_liz an idiot.

false. there is no poetic license. People like this think that embryo is a parasite proper. Which is blatant nonsense.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 3:23 AM

I don't live in the states so I might be wrong, but I've read this guy who was killed by some idiot today performed "late" abortions. What do you mean by "late"? 5, 6, 7 months? Because if it's anything before that... it's not late, and it's not what I'm talking about.

What you didn't bother to read, and what was stated multiple times in this thread, is that he performed late term abortions to save women's lives.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 3:28 AM

I'm talking about this kind of scenarios because I'm OK with the rest. You don't need to picture me with the fundamentalists because I'm not one of them, but it's pointless to debate the things in which I agree with the usual pharyngula commentator.

I am afraid, once you suggest that it may be not an good idea to have abortions 'till the head is out', you will be kicked to death by jerking knees. And you get labeled death cultist, wingnut, misogynist, etc if you dare to hint that a 9 month old fetus might be an actual human person while she is still in the womb.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 3:30 AM

And you are certain of this because ...?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 3:38 AM

I am afraid, once you suggest that it may be not an good idea to have abortions 'till the head is out', you will be kicked to death by jerking knees. And you get labeled death cultist, wingnut, misogynist, etc if you dare to hint that a 9 month old fetus might be an actual human person while she is still in the womb.

Boring. All addressed multiple times in both threads, coherently and seriously.

But if you believe that women are waiting until the ninth month to have abortions for fun, then you just might be a misogynist. Because that entails believing that women are either cruel or stupid.

Posted by: Nacho | June 1, 2009 3:44 AM

"What you didn't bother to read, and what was stated multiple times in this thread, is that he performed late term abortions to save women's lives."

Yes, indeed, I didn't read all comments. Sorry about that. I was curious about some positions I was reading and asked directly, didn't have time to read all the comments.

If it's to save women's lives, I agree with them, then, there's not much else to debate there.

But I have read some hardline pro-choicers who propose "abortion at any point with no need to say why, because it's the woman's call", which I find unreasonable.

Posted by: James | June 1, 2009 3:49 AM

scandibilly: Run along, agent provocateur.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 3:49 AM

Even the most carefully crafted anti-choice law is a death sentence.

as if permitting killings of 9 month old fetuses were something else.

ducks and waits for the barrage of jerking knees.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 3:57 AM

as if permitting killings of 9 month old fetuses were something else.

Fetuses that have no right to use another person's body for sustenance against the latter's consent.

ducks and waits for the barrage of jerking knees.

Boring. You can call every response to you a knee jerk reaction, but that doesn't make your own comments any less stupid.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 3:59 AM

But I have read some hardline pro-choicers who propose "abortion at any point with no need to say why, because it's the woman's call", which I find unreasonable.

I find it unreasonable that you think a woman's consent, or lack thereof, suddenly becomes irrelevant at X weeks.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 4:05 AM

Fetuses that have no right to use another person's body for sustenance against the latter's consent.

so really abortion at whim till the head sticks out.

Fetuses after onset of cortical activity have right to life as anyone else. Right to life for one is a duty to protect life for anyone else.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 4:10 AM

so really abortion at whim till the head sticks out.

In principle, that's the only way to avoid handing pregnant women over as property of the state. If it makes you uncomfortable, be happy that it's only an argument in principle, and does not occur in real life.

Fetuses after onset of cortical activity have right to life as anyone else. Right to life for one is a duty to protect life for anyone else.

Still wrong. Again Judith Thompson's violinist: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

"In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort."

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 4:23 AM

In principle, that's the only way to avoid handing pregnant women over as property of the state.

Duty to not kill other person makes you a property of the state ? WTF ?

If it makes you uncomfortable

the doctors are dragged into court over and over by your lunatic right-to-life brethren.

Right. Anyone who does not think that you can do what ever you want, regardless who pays with her life for it, is as a lunatic prolifer as the 'zygote is human' crowd. Crazy black-and-white thinking.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 4:31 AM

Duty to not kill other person

And there is no duty not to cut off life support to a person who is using you for sustenance against your will.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 4:38 AM

And there is no duty not to cut off life support to a person who is using you for sustenance against your will.

Of course it is. Pulling the plug is murder.

Again, if it makes you uncomfortable, be happy that it's only an argument in principle, and does not occur in real life.

My feelings are completely unimportant. Yo have no duty to state. You have duty to the person you have to keep alive. So your state property argument is nonsense

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 4:43 AM

that would mean 9 months paid holidays. I would say. Sorry, but I stay by what I said. Every human person has an unconditional right to life. That entails unconditional duty to protect life of other persons for anyone else.

And so you support unlimited socialized medicine, too, right? Just checking.

So killing someone by drowning, suffocation, dehydration, starvation,etc. is perfectly legitimate for you ?

Not just anyone. Not someone who isn't physically inside of me.

Why doesn't consent matter to you at all? I think Cerberus said it well in the other thread:

"no one has the right to someone's body without consent. Period. We don't let people rape people to save lives. We don't let people steal the kidneys out of people to save lives. We don't force people into slavery to save lives. If the choice is between death and upholding the principle of body autonomy, death is the answer."

If you can force a woman to be an incubator against her will, then can you also rape to save a life?

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 5:26 AM

No guys. Saving someone by rape, there is no way how that could be. The same goes for hunting people for organs. kidney transplant just trades one serious illness for other for one, and makes the other also ill. So those analogies are all invalid and serve no other purpose than make me look as a monster. If you want to argue, just tell how rape could save someone's life, I see no possibility )

If the choice is between death and upholding the principle of body autonomy, death is the answer."

And I disagree. killing someone robs her of all body autonomy. so restriction of autonomy( funny word for doing what ever I want without consequences) for one person is still less than complete abolition of autonomy of the other person.

Not just anyone. Not someone who isn't physically inside of me.

Location is unimportant. Right to life is not a function of your location.

And so you support unlimited socialized medicine, too, right? Just checking.

Duh, see, I am an evil socialist monster, and I am out to enslave you ( in a mental ward presumably because of your intellectual performance here )

Justifiable homicide, if the person is enslaving me.

Yeah, Evil slave trader in your womb. *FACEPALM*. No, seriously. Just having duty to someone does not make slavery. ( hint, parents still have legal duty to care for their children after they are born )

Slow, aren't you? Who's going to be enforcing this duty?

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 6:09 AM

Same as any other "psycho puts a gun to an innocent person's head and gives you a command" question.

such a psycho would kill you anyway.

Kidney transplant cannot save a life?

it is just trading dialysis for immunosuppression.

In what way does a fetus have bodily autonomy? It can't even leave the womb.

You can not leave earths atmosphere, so you have neither. making the entire argument moot.

Again, there is zero duty to someone who is using your body against your will. Consent matters.

I think that life matters more. And, the fetus does not consent to being ripped apart either.

was asking you about a consistent implication of your claims.

And you got the answer. Life and health are human not rich rights.

Except when they don't

If the state does not legally have a compelling interest, then it cannot enforce.

the state enforces a lot of things right now, so we are slaves to the state anyway. One more thing does not matter.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 6:14 AM

I am a socialist.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 6:23 AM

A socialist who think that people have no duty to each other, whatsoever ?

A socialist who recognizes that any such duty -- when it even exists -- must be borne by the society as a whole. Imposing a personal duty from one specific individual to another, under the force of the state, creates dangerous opportunity for exploitation.

A socialist who recognizes that the results of forced incubation and forced birth are much worse than the alternative of legal abortion, both as a greater burden upon society and as a contemptuous imposition upon the individual woman.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 6:27 AM

Imposing a personal duty from one specific individual to another, under the force of the state, creates dangerous opportunity for exploitation.

there would be nothing left if we had to abandon everything that potentially creates opportunities for power abuse.

A socialist who recognizes that the results of forced incubation and forced birth are much worse than the alternative of legal abortion

cost of forced last 3 months of incubation are almost nil, because nobody really wants abortion that late. Costs of making right to life less than universal can be infinite.

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 6:39 AM

Damn, TUT's completely incoherent. There are much better extremists on the other abortion thread.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 6:43 AM

Now what are these women supposed to do?

Who cares? It's not like women are people.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 7:08 AM

So cortical activity does not equal sentience, thus cortical activity does not require extending right to life to all fetuses that exhibit it. Thanks for admitting that.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 1, 2009 7:21 AM

T_U_T: Depends on which method of delivery is counted. If referring to vaginal deliveries, then it is arguable which is safer, especially when the prior health of the woman is factored in. However, for the sake of argument I will accept your statement that natural, i.e. vaginal, childbirth is safer than abortion even in those parts of the developed world with legalised abortion. Though I will note that after reading quite a few papers, most of which were by opponents of abortion, when they were being honest and not fiddling with definitions and the like could, at best, only state that it was questionable to claim abortion safer than natural childbirth and that more research needed doing.

However, in 2006, the last year I can find figures for, nearly 1 in three US births were C section. Some for genuine medical reason of course, but many more were elective C sections and C section births are ~100 times riskier than vaginal deliveries. Thus if you consider the US, were C section makes up nearly a third of delivery methods, overall, abortion is safer.

Though I will be the first to admit that if all US C section were restricted to those medically necessary, then we are back to an equal footing or even a possibly slight safety advantage for natural childbirth.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 7:26 AM

There are much better extremists on the other abortion thread.

completely allow abortion for whatever reason prior to week 25, and for medical reasons without limit is extremism ? So I guess I am an extremist.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 7:39 AM

Some for genuine medical reason of course, but many more were elective C sections and C section births are ~100 times riskier than vaginal deliveries

according to statistics they are just 3 times as dangerous. And elective c sections should not count anyway. But 3 * 1/3 + 2/3 = 1 + 2/3 = 66 % higher which is still less than abortion.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2009 7:44 AM

To all you disgusting pro-death anti-abortion piles of vomit: explain how the case of Gerri Santoro supports your contention that making abortion illegal will save lives.

Don't know about it? You need to. Because Gerri Santoro is only the most famous example of what happens when abortion is illegal. There were many, many more like her.

But go ahead, pretend to think that it's for teh baybeez. You may even think you really believe that.

But we all know, because when push comes to shove, you actually think (and say), "Well, if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex."

Carlin was right about you creeps: "It's all about controlling women."

That's what it boils down to. That's why you're misogynistic wastes of oxygen.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 7:48 AM

completely allow abortion for whatever reason prior to week 25, and for medical reasons without limit is extremism ? So I guess I am an extremist.

In fact you are an extremist.

You choose the "you must stay hooked up" answer to the violinist dilemma, which is pretty unusual, and indicates just how far out of the mainstream you are.

But more importantly you never even try to logically establish why there is this absolute right to life, such that one must stay hooked up. You just expect this to be obvious to everyone, without ever offering a rational basis for your claim. That's sufficient to show how your notions of duty are in fact just your idiosyncratic notions, and not morally compelling upon anyone else.

The answer for you, then, is don't have an abortion, since you don't like them.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 7:59 AM

False. Those are not abortions at whim. Abortions for medical reasons are something completely different.

You can't craft a law that limits one without infringing upon the other. The many instances of your allies dragging Tiller into court are just further testament to that fact.

Abolition of right to life can produce a totalitarian nightmare which can (by nuclear or biological holocaust) wipe out the only known life in the universe. That is for all practical purposes infinite cost.

OMFG. You are beyond parody.

Since this is a limited instance when a supposed right to life simply does not override another person's right to bodily integrity, we're at no risk of your nightmare scenarios.

But go on and engage in what is effectively Holocaust denial, by minimizing the suffering of those millions already-born people who lost so much in real lives and real torture and real destroyed families. You are beyond contempt at this point.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 8:04 AM

Your position on this one seems inconsistent. There's a state interest in not seeing zygotes and fetuses die.

No there isn't, and even if there were, the state interest in preserving individual women's choices would be even higher.

I also think you misrepresent Singer's position. He doesn't call it "no great loss", just thinks it's less of a loss than the death of an adult.

He doesn't use those particular words, no. But IIRC he has argued that killing newborns should be legal. Whether or not you want to call that a position of "no great loss" I guess is a matter of opinion.

Posted by: Dianne | June 1, 2009 8:07 AM

Is killing people wrong ? I think it is

Hey! I can play this game too!

Is enslaving people wrong? I think it is. Is enslaving people and allowing them to die because of the conditions under which you force them to labor (pun intended) wrong? I think it is. Is enslaving people for the supposed benefit of a non-self aware parasitic organism wrong? I think it is. Is enslaving people because you hate them or are jealous of them or think that they really must be inferior to you wrong? I think it is.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 8:09 AM

You can't craft a law that limits one without infringing upon the other.

You can. As you can draw line between justified selfdefense. There are many cases where the law uses words like 'excessive' or 'reasonable' as criteria.

The many instances of your allies dragging Tiller into court are just further testament to that fact.

frivolous lawsuits are not reason for abolishing any law.

Since this is a limited instance when a supposed right to life simply does not override another person's right to bodily integrity, we're at no risk of your nightmare scenarios.

Once you start granting 'license to kill' exceptions, there is no bottom. Each of them small and limited, but together, there may be no limit.

But go on and engage in what is effectively Holocaust denial, by minimizing the suffering of those millions already-born people who lost so much in real lives and real torture and real destroyed families.

Just where did I do all those things ? Nowhere I guess, so you had to make up something to make me look like a monster

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 8:11 AM

Again, what you have not even tried to do is explain how having a right to live means having an absolute right to be given everything that you need to live.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 8:14 AM

You are, if the source of your claims is an absolute duty to preserve others' lives at one's own expense

First, the conclusions are not extreme at all. second, there are many people who agree even with my premises.

Demonstrated false by all of history.

care to support your assertion ?

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 1, 2009 8:19 AM

SGBM

No there isn't (a state interest in not seeing zygotes and feteuses die), and even if there were, the state interest in preserving individual women's choices would be even higher.

You said

there is a state interest in protecting newborns' lives because we the people do not like to see newborns dying.

But the only way I can reconcile these two statements is if you think people do not dislike to see zygotes and fetuses die, which is clearly not true.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 8:24 AM

SGBM

Your argument seems to have 3 elements

1. Abortions will happen. Criminalising them just increases the number of people that will die from amateur abortions.

2. A developing baby does not deserve the status of a person, because it is not entirely sentinent.

3. It's unfair to force a women to be inconvenienced by another person. I accept that inconvenienced is much too weak a word here, I cannot think of more appropriate one.

1 is accurately summarizing me. 2 is not; I believe that by the 30th week and maybe earlier it's probably safe to call the fetus a person.

3 should be more like "there is no right to for any person to use another person's body against the latter's will." I'm not talking about an unfair inconvenience, I'm talking about the ownership of one's body, because anything less is slavery. It could be the most convenient thing in the world, truly no inconvenience at all; what's relevant is not convenience but consent.

And that's one of my answers. My other is that since it's never certain that a woman will not die without an abortion, restrictions on abortion necessarily become a death sentence in some cases. And if we are forced to choose between the life of the woman and the life of the fetus, the woman is objectively worth more.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 8:33 AM

Again, what you have not even tried to do is explain how having a right to live means having an absolute right to be given everything that you need to live.

Because otherwise you could legally murder people by suffocation for example.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 8:35 AM

care to support your assertion ?

That you cannot find an instance when failing to be forced into organ donation led to murder.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 8:43 AM

Especially because nobody wants such a thing anyway

What they want, as has been explained to you over and over, is legal and available access to late term abortions when they are medically necessary. And that is restricted because of the laws, which create constant risk of liability and the constant court battles that Tiller fought. The reason there are so few doctors able to perform these life saving procedures is because of the laws you support.

And because you keep overlooking this, and insisting that no one wants or needs these operations when it's been explained to you over and over, it is becoming safe to say that your serial dishonesty indicates a contempt for women's lives. Call it knee-jerking, call it whatever you want, you are disregarding and demeaning women's health and that is misogyny.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 1, 2009 8:48 AM

T_U_T, latest figures gives three times the death rate from c-section for the babies alone as well as three times as high for the mother. Of course, those figures ignore the additional future risks of having a c-section compared to having a natural birth. I will retract the ~100 risk figure as I just noticed it was from a paper in the 80s and is irrelevant today.

However, why do you say we should ignore elective c-sections, BTW elective can be mean the mother or the hospital opting for it for legal, i.e. avoiding possible malpractice suits especially for those who have already had a c-section, or convenience. Because the woman opted for it or because they make up the majority of c-sections?

Ironically, including elective c-sections probably reduces the overall risk figures, as most elective c-sections will be healthier mothers as opposed to those c-sections done for medical reasons. Of course, being a surgical procedure there will still be a risk factor even with healthy mothers, but overall it will reduce the overall risk figure for total c-sections. Thus I don't see your reasoning, though admittedly, that is getting harder with each succeeding post.

Posted by: Walton | June 1, 2009 9:11 AM

I think people are talking past one another to an extent. Reading through all the posts, I can see a general consensus.

(1) Taking human life is not absolutely wrong in all circumstances. (This statement should be fairly uncontroversial.)

(2) An embryo or an early-stage foetus is essentially a bundle of cells and has few of the characteristics of a human being. Therefore, its interests are clearly outweighed by the woman's interest in bodily autonomy, and so she should have the right to choose an abortion at this stage.

(3) A late-term abortion, where the foetus is highly developed, raises more moral issues. But...

(4)...late-term abortions are extremely rare, and almost all are performed as emergency medical measures to save the woman's life.

(5) Late-term abortion is morally legitimate where it is necessary to save the woman's life.

(6) There's little point, therefore, in criminalising late-term abortions - because any such law would need to have an exception for cases where the woman's life is in danger, and this accounts for virtually all the instances of late-term abortion.

I would add that, of course, no doctor should ever be compelled to go against his or her conscience and perform an abortion where he or she does not think it right. But if a woman needs an abortion to save her life, and a doctor is willing to perform it, there is no legitimate reason for the state to get involved. I would say unequivocally that the woman's life is more important than that of the foetus, and that she should have the right to protect her life.

And I think we can all agree that, whatever you think about abortion, murdering doctors who perform abortions is not an acceptable course of conduct. (Not that anyone was defending that course of conduct; I'm saying this just to make my position clear.)

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 1, 2009 9:21 AM

Walton @ # 416: ... murdering doctors who perform abortions is not an acceptable course of conduct. (Not that anyone was defending that...

Oh yeah? Pls read # 257 from "REJOICING", for just one example, or check out some of the comments here.

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 1, 2009 9:31 AM

SGBM, I'm not sure there would be a point, not least because I'm not sure I understand T_U_T's arguments. It's a tricky issue, I'm not even convinced of my own position and I yet I still doubt either of us could sway the other.

The only issue have with you, apart from the holcaust denial charge you levelled at T_U_T, is your position on the violinist example.

I know that I would like having to stay to be mandatory in that case. I think there's a trade of between a person's automony and their duty to society.
If we modified it so that the person had to stay for only 45 minutes instead of 9 months, would you still be in favour of letting them leave? We could modify it so there's a million people's lives depending on it. Is your position that absolute?
Mine certainly isn't. If the time period was 20 years, I think it's unreasonable to expect a person stay.

I'm not sure where I'd draw the line but I think there is one to draw.

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 1, 2009 9:43 AM

Walton, good post.

I've tried to think of another situation where the state can violate a person's physical integrity solely for the benefit of another, and failed. We don't force organ donation, or blood donation on the living, NOR EVEN AFTER A PERSON IS DEAD! We only force inoculations because, in theory, they protect the person being inoculated. The most physically violative act I think the government can force on a person is being drafted for military service, and even that can be argued is to the benefit of the person drafted if they are resisting attack by another country.

1. Quarantine.

2. I doubt you could argue very convincingly that the draft is a benefit to the person, especially if you take the last few American drafts.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 9:46 AM

Someone who deliberately takes the life of an innocent human being is indeed a monster. How, then, should we assess the moral character of Tiller, who deliberately took the lives of thousands of innocent human beings?

That he didn't.

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 1, 2009 9:58 AM

Before I reply in full: would you require a person to commit suicide to save a million people?

Very good question.
I don't know.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 10:04 AM

John Phillips, even if we assume that every woman has a c section instead of normal birth, late term abortion is still more dangerous, so my argument still stays.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 10:17 AM

Anon. First. Your idiosyncratic definition of parasitism is not important for me. Usual definition is different.
As I wrote above :

You overlook the word systematically in my post. If some animal 'just happens' to decrease other creature's fitness, it still does not make it a parasite. It would have to do it habitually as normal part of its lifestyle. Example. Chloroplasts are in fact just symbiotic bacteria that happen to live inside eukaryotic cells. Do they turn into parasites if someone places the cell culture into a dark room ? Of course not.

Second, do you really consider crazy, rambling sci-fi stories about mutated children giving off blindness and cancer causing hormones being an argument ? That is really pathetic

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 10:24 AM

there are many draftees and if you compute the numbers one can be protecting only a few dozen other people. And also, war is several orders of magnitude nastier than pregnancy.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 10:32 AM

it's there to make you think.

I can make up a crazy scenario where only way to prevent the devil himself eat the whole universe is to let mass murderers to do their job without further impediment. Does it follow that we should not jail mass murderers in the real world ?

Would you at least acknowledge that fetuses can be potentially parasites

human fetus can not be a parasite because it does not systematically exploit his parent for fitness gain. Normally a child raises your fitness by 1. If under certain circumstances it fails, it is not parasitism it is just an accident.

Posted by: Dianne | June 1, 2009 11:00 AM

The operation [removal of a kidney for transplant] itself posses a risk,

SO glad you mentioned this! Nephrectomy does indeed have a risk. Coincidentally, it is about the same risk as the average risk of...completing a pregnancy! So if it is acceptable to force a woman to complete a pregnancy then it is acceptable to force a healthy person to donate his/her kidney. In fact, more acceptable because a living, ex uterine person is unequivacolly self-aware. Unlike even a nine month fetus.

Posted by: j.t.delaney | June 1, 2009 11:14 AM

Please, somebody put a microphone in front of Neal "Nuremberg files" Horsely for a soundbite on this -- we need to show just how ugly and estranged this movement is. We need to show this as the face of the anti-choice movement.

Posted by: Dianne | June 1, 2009 11:21 AM

I can make up a crazy scenario where only way to prevent the devil himself eat the whole universe is to let mass murderers to do their job without further impediment.

Here's a scenario, 100% NOT made up, although some of the details have been obscured to avoid a HIPAA violation. Young woman, pregnant for the first time, presents for an OB eval at what she thinks is about 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Ultrasound suggests more like 24 weeks. OB notices something strange about her skin...it's all stretchy. Genetic tests (which take a week to get back) reveal that she has a particularly nasty form of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Risk of death during delivery: 80%. She isn't willing to face those odds and wants an abortion. Should she be "allowed" to protect her life? After all, there's a 20% chance of survival*.

*Well, with C-section. The risk of death with labor is pretty close to 100%. The collagen just doesn't work right and any excess pressure causes blood vessels to rip apart, causing a very rapid, very messy death.

Posted by: gingivitis | June 1, 2009 11:41 AM

I've come down with another attack of gingivitis.
I think it used to be called pyorrhea, but Gingi-vitis is more fitting.
I am sure that both she and the total zombie idiot who murdered the doctor (a doctor who likely saved many women's lives), are expecting 72-virgin-equivalents once they get to Heaven.
Yeah, right.

Posted by: Jim | June 1, 2009 1:20 PM

Lee Picton: "Do these loonies think for one second that a woman will have a late term abortion if it isn't absolutely necessary?"

http://www.abortionessay.com/files/Tiller.html

"In the middle of 1998, the state of Kansas instituted a mandatory reporting policy that required Tiller to submit information about the abortions that he performs. The Kansas Department of Health and Environmental Statistics has recently published this information:

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/absumm.html

"The information sends a clear message: the majority of late-term abortions are purely elective. They typically involve healthy babies and healthy mothers."

Posted by: red rabbit | June 1, 2009 1:40 PM

@DoctorDefense, as has been said already: those of us standing in defense of women's rights do not need people like you.

As an MD who will perform abortions, I don't need your defense. Not even a little bit. I'll take my chances with the Christian wackos before I'd allow anyone to do them or their families harm in my name.

I suspect you're one of those wackos trying to give the denizens of Pharyngula a bad name. You FAIL.

Posted by: Don | June 1, 2009 2:05 PM

James #321

Tetigisti acu

Probably others, too many to read. Whatever sides there are, you ain't on mine DoctorDefense.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 2:29 PM

knockgoat amphiox, the only way a fetus could be a parasite is, if it actually managed on a regular basis to reduce the number of future potential siblings by more than one. But species whose children do such things would go extinct within a few generations, so this is unlikely to occur.

Posted by: Callif | June 1, 2009 2:32 PM

Shameless plug alert:
http://callif.blogspot.com/2009/05/brain-damage.html

Posted by: Matt | June 1, 2009 2:40 PM

Not only was the killer most likely a fundamentalist, but he was pushed over the edge by the rabble-rousing of O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, and the other right-wing mouthpieces. Especially O'Reilly, who for some reason made it a point to repeatedly label Tiller a 'killer' on his show.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 1, 2009 2:53 PM

human fetus can not be a parasite because it does not systematically exploit his parent for fitness gain.

This is an absurd statement. You've obviously never been a parent.

(Neither have I, but then I don't make stupid noises like that)

Posted by: Jim | June 1, 2009 2:58 PM

Sven DiMilo: "Aaaa, shit. What a fucked-up world."

On the one hand, we have anti-abortion extremists who have killed four abortionists, thereby betraying everything that the pro-life movement stands for. On the other hand, we have mainstream pro-choice advocates who support a culture of death that has resulted in the killing of some 50 million pre-born human beings in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. Incredibly, the pro-choice side of the debate, with 50 million dead to its credit, claims moral superiority over the pro-life side of the debate, with 4 dead at the hands of pro-life extremists. We do indeed live in a f**ked-up world.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 1, 2009 3:24 PM

if someone tells me a chicken or a goat or a cow rates higher than a human fetus, I'm going to tell them they're fucked in the head.

No-one's arguing that moron.

@Krystalline again: Strange Gods is one of the cult-like cherry-pickers. Like most such troll-like persons, he just likes to argue. All you do is feed him, which is why I hadn't posted here for six hrs.

Or, if you will, the old-fashioned term "village idiot atheist" describes him to a T.

It's also why I noted on my blog, with this thread as an example, that atheism does NOT guarantee rationality or critical thinking.

Strange gods is the "village idiot atheist"?? I think it's you who's the village idiot.

And we don't need the shameless promotion of your blog, thank you very much.

Posted by: Monado | June 1, 2009 3:27 PM

Dr. Tillman was recently aquitted on all 10 counts of consulting a fellow doctor who was not truly independent.

Doctors used to informally consult one another on doing an abortion, and that practice was formalized in Canada for

some years as a way of avoiding being accused of doing "frivolous" abortions, e.g. just because a woman was

unmarried, couldn't imagine how to raise more children, had three children already, etc. However, consulting an

abortion committee for more opinions was dropped because it endangered women by making abortions later and thus

riskier—if they could be got at all. (Only 1/3 of hospitals had abortion committees that ever actually met.)

Since the criminal law controlling abortion was struck down in Canada, twenty-one years ago, the number of abortions has dropped and abortions are done earlier. Late abortion is both extraordinary and rare.

The law governing abortion is part of the Canada Health Act, which mandates good medical practice. There is no

criminal law that applies to a voluntary abortion by a competent doctor in an approved health care facility. However,

there is plenty of policy about the stage of Pregnancy for elective abortions and what can justify an later abortion

as medically necessary. Late abortions are almost vanishingly rare. Baying "frivolous women will have late

abortions unless we make it a crime" is a red herring. If you look at your own health regulations, you'll find the

medical circumstances under which a doctor can perform late abortions without getting tossed out of the AMA. That is

the law that you need.

If a person is doing something that the law of the land considers to be legal, but that a group of people consider to

be a heinous, immoral act that deserves the death penalty (such as eating beef), outraged group members are not

justified in committing murder.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 5:01 PM

Marc Abian, sorry for the delay. Long day.

Let's call this what it is: slavery. If the person cannot leave freely and is effectively in the possession of the violinist, that's slavery. If their work is being forcibly extracted for another's benefit -- and metabolism is work -- that's slavery. So the question we're asking is whether enslavement of one person can be justified, even temporarily, to preserve another person's life. This is fundamentally different from any mere inconvenience.

It's no good to say that the brutality is not comparable. American slavery had little in common with Roman slavery, house slaves little in common with field slaves. What's consistent between them is the forced work, and this is in common with the violinist, or forced gestation.

Slavery, to whatever degree, removes the individual's ability to make her own choices. She no longer decides for herself who she wants to become; she becomes what someone else wants her to be. We, the state, are taking away her self, her identity. It's supposed to be an inalienable right of people to make the decisions that make their lives; when we take that away, we take away much of what it means to be a person at all. In demanding slavery, we are demanding a little suicide.

And don't forget that sometimes we are demanding a complete suicide, unpredictably, so unavoidably.

What happens when our society permits slavery? If after week X abortion is the murder of a person, and if we permit these abortions, there is still a "bright line" at birth that coherently limits anything later; the baby is out of the mother's body and directly subject to the intervention of the state (rather than indirectly through the mother as intermediary). But if we permit slavery instead for the preservation of others' lives, where is the bright line? If forced gestation then why not organ harvesting or The Handmaid's Tale or good old chattel slavery? We could produce more medicine if line workers were forced to live in the pharmaceutical factories. We could feed more hungry people if fieldhands could not enter labor negotiations for time off to rest.

Birth, because it's when bodies separate, allows us to draw that bright line between abortion and infanticide; regardless of the moral implications of late term abortion that a woman ought to consider, it's valuable to society that the bright line cannot move arbitrarily.

If we are faced with this stark choice, between murder for personal autonomy or slavery for another's survival, I think we have to choose the one that is less potentially devastating to society. In the immediate future, women have more to lose than do fetuses. In the potential consequences, murder with a bright line appears preferable to slavery without.

Then, death for a million? I'd have to allow yes, since the alternative would ultimately permit slavery for even more. Of course, given the public response to the heroism of volunteering part of one's own life for a million others, I don't think we'll be short on volunteers. Death for one violinist? Yes, even though the thought experiment was flawed in that it did not take note that forced birth can mean death for both. 45 minutes? I don't think you're going to have a problem as long as there's plenty of money on offer; make it a paid voluntary gig and you'll get the result you're hoping for.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 1, 2009 5:04 PM

I wouldn't have joined this thread if it weren't for that one. So just so much:

DoctorDefense must be an agent provocateur, because nobody sane has ever had the morality of that Yahwe character in, for example, the Book of Job: the certifiably insane idea that it's somehow OK to kill innocent children in order to teach their parents a lesson.

I mean, if he/she/it/squid means this seriously, it is stupider than Britney Spears, who famously argued for the death penalty by saying "this way they hopefully learn their lesson for next time".

Posted by: Dark Jaguar | June 1, 2009 5:08 PM

"Doctor" defense, assuming you aren't a troll, I must disagree with your entire idea there. Firstly, all it will achieve would be to solidify the resolve of those who would bomb abortion clinics. You know, endless cycle of violence and all that? Sheesh, watch some Bruce Lee some time. Everyone else here learned that basic lesson in grade school.

Secondly, attacking those who merely think it's wrong and vote to enact it is completely amoral, for the same reasons why them bombing the houses of people who believe in abortion rights would be horrific.

The only real justifiable killing would be in defense of another's life that they are actively endangering. I mean, you stumble on them holding a gun right to their head or on the trigger to a bomb. If you merely discover their plans to do so, there's time for a resolution involving the police. By "another's life" I also mean your own, self defense is fine too. Note that when I say justifiable, I don't mean that it won't still be a tragedy, killing is killing.

However, I can't even understand why you or those that think like you would consider it acceptable to kill someone's LOVED ONES. What purpose does that serve? Just to hurt them? Well, you just stole the rights of those loved ones to live! You're saying that the actions of someone close to a person can directly rob that perosn of their own rights. They had nothing to do with it. At best, you could only claim they "stood by and did nothing". Well, in the case of a child, they can't do anything! What do you expect? Plus, in the household of an authoritarian family model, any disagreement or disobediance, even percieved, is not tolerated. In those households, kids are property of sorts, with a roof over their heads only by the good grace of their parents which deserves to be paid back by total loyalty. To punish them is unconcionable. Someone's decendants, in no way shape or form, ever, will EVER be culpable for the crimes of their parents. Explain how that could even work, save some sort of borg collective conciousness.

That said, my own views on abortion are somewhat in the middle. I don't believe in the "potential for conciousness" doctrine of the pro-lifer as that results, at the end of that logical path, in the moral requirement to constantly clone myself from as many harvested cells as I can remove without killing myself, a ridiculous scenario. So, I can only be against abortion in so far as a concious entity is actually being killed. That rules out the majority of the pre-birth life cycle. I don't consider it immoral in the least to kill an egg, a zygote, or most of the initial stages. 3rd trimester or so where the baby is considered aware and awake for the first time, that's where I draw the line and consider it as immoral as killing it just after it's birth. I will shift this view as new data emerges about brain development in the womb. Before that, stay out of a woman's personal business. I hold the same view in the case of some man making a clone in a simulated room in some lab. Conciousness is where the fetus gains rights, and it's got nothing before that. That said, pregnancy allows for some pretty strong extenuating circumstances, like either the mother's life or the baby's, that sort of thing. In those emergency situations, it's too fuzzy for the law to get involved and I think it should be left to the mother, informed by her doctor, to make that decision.

All in all, current laws regarding abortion are pretty much right there, except that I think the legal requirements should be changed from 3rd trimester to specifically allow for a scientific concensus on if there's awareness at that stage to be the determiner.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 1, 2009 5:12 PM

It's ok, they got the retard's numberplate, he'll be in jail soon.

not only are you way behind on the news (they have him in custody and have released his name), but "Retard"?

I'll even leave beside the obvious offensiveness of using that word for some people. But this person made a conscious decision to murder an innocent person in cold blood. Let's not give him a pass by suggesting he is not capable of making his own decisions and being informed of the consequences of his actions.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 5:18 PM

Back for another whipping, Krystal?

I find myself agreeing w/T_U_T for the most part.

That's nice. Half TUT's audience can't figure out quite what he's trying to say. Maybe you'll explain.

Wow, just more misdiagnoses.

I asked you "Are you now saying instead that you do support some restrictions on abortion?" and you replied "About 3rd trimester, unless the woman's life is endangered."

So now you want to claim you didn't actually mean restricting abortion, even though you clearly said you did.

No I'm not, & fuck you. I'm what your little messiah Singer calls a 'speciesist' - that is, I tend to value human life. & if someone tells me a chicken or a goat or a cow rates higher than a human fetus, I'm going to tell them they're fucked in the head. Right to their face. & if you want to arrange a FTF, I'll be happy to do the same courtesy for you.

Come on now, this shouldn't be as hard as you're making it.

What is it that makes a fertilized human egg, or an embryo without a functioning brain, morally significant?

You've been blindly asserting that they're morally significant. And all you've been using so far is your DNA-soul magic.

I am amused that you're getting so angry with me as to yell across the internet "you want to arrange a face to face?" You're not the first such immature bully, but your type is always good for a laugh.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 5:27 PM

Ooh, you didn't want to mention that. You really didn't. But you did, so here goes.

Ooh, Dianne! Let me add autoimmune diseases resulting from fetal chimerism! (Fetal chimerism, incidentally, may lower the fitness of future pregnancies.)

Posted by: T_U_T | June 1, 2009 5:34 PM

So, overall, your claim is not supported by looking at either the immediate or the long term risks of pregnancy versus renal donation.

Posted by: Dianne | June 1, 2009 5:53 PM

Long term death risk of pregnancy vs long term death risk for kidney donors.

Quick reference on survival in kidney donors. Money quote: "The survival rate of kidney donors was better than the age- and gender-matched cohort from the general population, and the patterns and causes of death were similar" A decreased risk of death and no increase in renal causes of death. So the long term risk of kidney donation appears to be theoretical. Sure you don't want to go back to talking about risk of delivery versus donation? With proper population seletion you could make a case for pregnancy being immediately safer.

Posted by: Stu | June 1, 2009 6:30 PM

Ironically, Dr. Tiller's web site specifially states that he does NOT perform purely elective abortions past the first trimester.

Oh you've got to be shitting me. Thanks, Dianne... that turns the bad argument into a non-argument. What a bunch of filthy lying vermin these "pro-lifers" are.

Posted by: T_U_T | June 2, 2009 12:44 AM

that was a good one, dianne, but study with just 481 people is just too small to make comparison with childbirth risk. Try another one.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 1:12 AM

I asked you "Are you now saying instead that you do support some restrictions on abortion?" and you replied "About 3rd trimester, unless the woman's life is endangered."

So now you want to claim you didn't actually mean restricting abortion, even though you clearly said you did.

What is it that makes a fertilized human egg, or an embryo without a functioning brain, morally significant?

You've been blindly asserting that they're morally significant. And all you've been using so far is your DNA-soul magic.

I am amused that you're getting so angry with me as to yell across the internet "you want to arrange a face to face?" You're not the first such immature bully, but your type is always good for a laugh.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 2, 2009 7:49 AM

The sickness lies in the head of the individual who can't distinguish between a sperm cell, which - by itself - will never be anything other than a sperm cell, and a human fetus at, say, 6 months gestation.

A human fetus, by itself, will never be anything but a human fetus, as it will die.

I was pointing out the problem I have w/Singer. Try working on your reading comprehension.

Yes, and I'm disagreeing with you that Singer or anyone here is making the argument that "a chicken or a goat or a cow rates higher than a human fetus".

Maybe you should take your own advice and work on your reading comprehension?

I didn't say that, so again, work on comprehension.

I didn't say you said that, if you look carefully, I was actually quoting SocraticGadfly, so again, work on reading comprehension.

Sorry, didn't see the poll on people advertising their blog here. Oh wait - there wasn't one.

Again, quoting SocraticGadfly, not you.

Nor did I say there was such a poll, nor does there need to be such a poll for me state such an opinion.

For someone that complains about other people's reading comprehension so much, you could really use learning how to fucking read.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 9:30 AM

shoulda asked this before: what exactly do you mean by 'restrictions'? My original impression was that I was being asked about outlawing it. There are restrictions already in place - so no, don't want to add to them.

And what the hell do you think I meant by restrictions? There, you finally clearly answered the question. You want the restrictions in place, so you do want to limit abortion. Finally.

And why don't you care that those restrictions inevitably kill women?

What is it that makes a fertilized human egg, or an embryo without a functioning brain, morally significant?

You already have my answer on this. It's of my own species. Try reading posts in their entirety. Try not cherry-picking what you feel like.

That's not an answer, it's handwaving. Why is a fertilized egg or embryo without a functioning brain, of your species, morally significant?

If I ascribe a value to a fetus, then it has to be a 'supernatural' code?

If the fetus doesn't have a mind yet, how can it be morally significant? You are putting a soul into it.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 9:59 AM

Marc, I don't know how that happened:

Slavery in the past has always been about the benefits to society. The American South was prosperous due to slave labor. Rome built much of its empire on slave labor. I'm not convinced of the strong claim that lot here) that if we permit slavery in any instance the consequence isn't just the enslavement for the slave, but a more permissive society for slavery, that's something I can accept. A million deaths might seem like the lesser of two evils when the alternative is our modern civilization would not have been possible without Roman slavery, but undoubtedly life would have been worse for most Roman citizens. To say "ah, but this slavery is for the good of society" would separate us not at all from the slave-holding societies of the past.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 10:42 AM

Stranger:

And what the hell do you think I meant by restrictions? There, you finally clearly answered the question. You want the restrictions in place, so you do want to limit abortion. Finally.

And why don't you care that those restrictions inevitably kill women?

That's not an answer, it's handwaving. Why is a fertilized egg or embryo without a functioning brain, of your species, morally significant?

If the fetus doesn't have a mind yet, how can it be morally significant? You are putting a soul into it.

You have the mind of a child or a brainwashee if you think a simple yes/no answer to any moral question is instructive or wise.

If anyone would let a living animal suffer and burn to death in agonizing pain, preferring instead to retrieve clumps of cells with no minds or feelings, then that person would be a psychopath.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 1:51 PM

Soul? What's that? Care to define it?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 2:02 PM

So, you don't use @ signs? Makes comprehension difficult for anyone.

It's easy, really. Read the words quoted, ask yourself did you write those words? If not, then the following words are not a reply to you.

I don't 'want' to do any such thing. They're already there. Didn't poor Dr. Tiller have restrictions in place? I think that's up to the folks w/a medical degree.

Can you provide some form of citations? That's just a comment of yours making an absolute demand.

Really, what the hell DO you mean by restrictions?

Can you provide some argument why my logic is not sound? The conclusion follows from the arguments unless you can demonstrate that it does not.

Restrictions means any legal restrictions. Tiller's own consensually-imposed limitations on his work were not "restrictions," they were the choices of a moral agent.

Tiller was of course allowed to dictate which procedures he would perform and which he would not, because he is an individual who gets to determine his own consent.

But the law restricts abortions regardless of what doctors would like to do, so the ultimate decision is most certainly not up to people with medical degrees. It's up to politicians.

In 2000, the pre-Bush Supreme Court noted that "the record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, D&X [dilation and extraction] would be the safest procedure. ... (1) it reduces the dangers from sharp bone fragments passing through the cervix, (2) minimizes the number of instrument passes needed for extraction and lessens the likelihood of uterine perforations caused by those instruments, (3) reduces the likelihood of leaving infection-causing fetal and placental tissue in the uterus, and (4) could help to prevent potentially fatal absorption of fetal tissue into the maternal circulation."

In 2003, Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits the D&X procedure. That means doctors are now forced to use other procedures that put women's lives at greater risk.

And you say you support the current restrictions. So you support a restriction which, the medical community agrees, causes more women to die.

If you had a choice between saving an 8 month old fetus or a dog or cat, I would assume that you would save the former?

That depends. See, this comes up in the context of a particular discussion: is the fetus living inside the body of a woman who does not consent to being occupied? You keep ignoring the woman and her consent.

And you started off here by claiming a fertilized egg merited moral consideration. It does nothing for your case to posit that an 8 month old fetus merits moral consideration.

Because if you'd save the latter, I could behave like an idiot & claim that you think the house pet has a soul.

If you did, then you would be an idiot, because the cat or dog has mind and feelings, and so is a morally relevant entity regardless of any soul.

A fertilized egg, on the other hand, has no mind or feelings or interests to consider. We cannot assign it moral significance unless it has interests for us to take into account.

Because it's of my species. It is that simple.

You haven't claimed to be smart, have you? I don't recall that you did. So, okay, you're stupid but you aren't claiming not to be. I guess I can't fault you for that.

Here, let me draw you a diagram:

A -> ??? -> B

"A" is your starting premise, "a fertilized human egg is of my species."

"B" is your conclusion, "a fertilized human egg is morally relevant."

A does not automatically equal B, because A -> B is not a tautology. So you have to make a logical argument for why B must follow from A. If you can, you will do that with one or more valid logical arguments, and possibly other sound premises.

So, what are your arguments?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 2:24 PM

Because it's of my species. It is I am that simple stupid. - Krystalline Apostate

Fixed for you. No, really, no thanks needed. Every time you ejaculate (if you are a fertile male), hundreds of millions of members of your species die. Remember: "every little sperm is sacred"!

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 2:35 PM

Strange:

It's easy, really. Read the words quoted, ask yourself did you write those words? If not, then the following words are not a reply to you.

Restrictions means any legal restrictions. Tiller's own consensually-imposed limitations on his work were not "restrictions," they were the choices of a moral agent.

Reasonable.

Tiller was of course allowed to dictate which procedures he would perform and which he would not, because he is an individual who gets to determine his own consent.

Reasonable.

But the law restricts abortions regardless of what doctors would like to do, so the ultimate decision is most certainly not up to people with medical degrees. It's up to politicians.

Point.

In 2000, the pre-Bush Supreme Court noted that "the record shows that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, D&X [dilation and extraction] would be the safest procedure. ... (1) it reduces the dangers from sharp bone fragments passing through the cervix, (2) minimizes the number of instrument passes needed for extraction and lessens the likelihood of uterine perforations caused by those instruments, (3) reduces the likelihood of leaving infection-causing fetal and placental tissue in the uterus, and (4) could help to prevent potentially fatal absorption of fetal tissue into the maternal circulation."

In 2003, Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits the D&X procedure. That means doctors are now forced to use other procedures that put women's lives at greater risk.
That needs to be changed.

And you say you support the current restrictions. So you support a restriction which, the medical community agrees, causes more women to die.

That depends. See, this comes up in the context of a particular discussion: is the fetus living inside the body of a woman who does not consent to being occupied? You keep ignoring the woman and her consent.

And you started off here by claiming a fertilized egg merited moral consideration. It does nothing for your case to posit that an 8 month old fetus merits moral consideration.

If you did, then you would be an idiot, because the cat or dog has mind and feelings, and so is a morally relevant entity regardless of any soul.

A fertilized egg, on the other hand, has no mind or feelings or interests to consider. We cannot assign it moral significance unless it has interests for us to take into account.

So, what are your arguments?

You're all over the place. We're talking about developed fetuses. I never, EVER inferred or said anything about fertilized eggs.

Again, your bullshit about 8 month old fetuses has nothing to do with your bullshit about fertilized eggs.

I think you've confused me w/someone else.

The fetus can deserve moral considerations, because it has a brain and likely a mind.

So it's B. We actually agree on something?

Further, bringing this up as a relevant question that affects the real world, requires you to assume that women are so stupid that they are regularly unable to make up their minds before 8 months. Very sexist.

Ummm...no. I gave you a hypothetical that could possibly occur. By no means was anything near to a broad generalization, it was an illustration where 'unconditional' would likely no longer be an operative word.
You keep harping on as if there should be 'unconditional abortion'. That example was to illustrate where it might not be conducive.
SO - for the record, I don't care about fertilized eggs - so your strawmen are pretty much burnt to the ground.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 2:58 PM

Liar, you have said multiple times that fertilized eggs deserve moral consideration because they are "potential people".

Anyone who claims a fertilized egg is a person is invoking the concept of a soul, whether they admit it or not.

I go along w/that, but I happen to be pro-life as well as pro-choice.

You go along with what, that a fertilized egg is a person? And yet, unsurprisingly, you present no naturalistic explanation of how that could be.

See, didn't say that @ all. It's a potential person.

But if I were to say that the loss of potential life doesn't sadden me, then I would be less than human.

What is it that makes a fertilized human egg, or an embryo without a functioning brain, morally significant?

You already have my answer on this. It's of my own species.

That's not an answer, it's handwaving. Why is a fertilized egg or embryo without a functioning brain, of your species, morally significant?

Because it's of my species. It is that simple.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 3:12 PM

Liar, you have said multiple times that fertilized eggs deserve moral consideration because they are "potential people".

I go along w/that, but I happen to be pro-life as well as pro-choice.

See, didn't say that @ all. It's a potential person.

But if I were to say that the loss of potential life doesn't sadden me, then I would be less than human.

You already have my answer on this. It's of my own species.

Because it's of my species. It is that simple.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 3:20 PM

Potential being the operative word - again.

Potential being meaningless.

Well, the loss of a possible future for another potential human - sorry, maybe I'm sentimental.

Who is being harmed in that situation?

You also never asked what degree of moral consideration I would ascribe to something like that.

Doesn't matter. More than zero is supernaturalism.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 3:47 PM

O fuck off Walton. There is absolutely nothing whatever inconsistent about a socialist consequentialist, such as me, saying:

"We should grant full human rights to any baby born alive. That includes the right to food, shelter and medical care. Until born, a fetus should have only the right to be spared unnecessary suffering."

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 4:07 PM

So strange, we on the same page now? Apologies for the miscommunication.
@ the risk of being a blog-whore, here's my take on the abortion controversy:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/search/label/abortion
Apparently I'm more coherent uninterrupted.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 4:22 PM

So strange, we on the same page now? Apologies for the miscommunication.

I don't know. This might be where you'll disagree with me: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/another_abortion_doctor_gunned.php#comment-1671747

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 4:29 PM

I don't know. This might be where you'll disagree with me:

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 4:52 PM

Then there's no one there who deserves moral consideration.

It appears you interpreted me as saying "don't think about what might have been" when what I was trying to get at instead was "don't imply to other people that they ought to feel bad for aborting anything without a brain."

I'm not telling you what to feel. But morals have a social dimension.

I can't tell much from a short interaction on the internet anyway. Understand that I'm just having a go at you for a joke, but you still get the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 2, 2009 5:34 PM

Slavery in the past has always been about the benefits to society. The American South was prosperous due to slave labor. Rome built much of its empire on slave labor.

I think in both of those cases the benefits are completely, utterly dwarfed by the costs. There has to be instances where that isn't the case.

As for the 45 minute question response, I'm shocked. You wouldn't force someone to stay in a bed for 45 minutes so that another person could live?

I try to judge moral questions using the categorical imperative or the idea or a society which you would make knowing that you would be born into it randomly, and 45 minutes of slavery would certainly be something I'd put in.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 2, 2009 6:26 PM

I think in both of those cases the benefits are completely, utterly dwarfed by the costs.

Not for the slaveowners. For them the benefits were very high, the costs very low. Like the violinist, or the fetus.

As for the 45 minute question response, I'm shocked. You wouldn't force someone to stay in a bed for 45 minutes so that another person could live?

I thought about it again, and still I would not. I believe that slavery makes life substantially less worth living. We are not just taking time and work, we are taking part of the self.

45 minutes isn't much. But how will it stop there? If we can do it today, why can't we force that person into slavery tomorrow, and the next day, for the rest of their lives? There are a lot of people who could use 45 minutes of your time, often more productively than you would like to spend it.

A woman in a society where abortion is illegal does not have to give only 9 months of slavery. She is likely to have several pregnancies over the course of her life. Every time she has sex, she must do so in fear; if the condom breaks, if the pill doesn't work, she will become a slave again. She can barely have the opportunity to enjoy sex; it's hard to have an orgasm when you're stressing out and your mind is racing through consequences.

And how can we enforce pregnancy? It would require imprisoning pregnant women who are suspected of trying to arrange illegal abortions, until they give birth.

I try to judge moral questions using the categorical imperative or the idea or a society which you would make knowing that you would be born into it randomly, and 45 minutes of slavery would certainly be something I'd put in.

I don't think your own feelings about it give you the right to decide that for others. You might feel differently if you were of a race or caste of people who'd historically been slaves, or a gender who still effectively treated as property of the other gender.

From behind the veil of ignorance, you should ask yourself instead, if you were dying should you be permitted to point a gun at someone and demand that they give you 45 minutes of slavery to save your life?

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 2, 2009 8:14 PM

Emotions impose a social imperative? I don't understand what you mean.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 10:37 PM

460

Certain comparisons are especially problematic, because of past abuses of groups of people treated as animals. If you have to approach this in a roundabout way, see my post at 12:57 PM for an example of how to "go there without going there," if you see what I mean.

Alex Deam,

Of course I'm aware this is a biology blog. I'm a biologist. I'm not making an argument that plants/fungi/algae suffer. My point was that anyone throwing around the term specieist (sp?) is just being obnoxious and I was being obnoxious in return. If you want to be all "biological" about it, my offspring will be more fit if I consume animal products than if I'm a vegan (see #460). Therefore I'm going to consume the animal products and encourage my offspring to do so too. Ultimately it's all about getting my DNA into the next generation. Hmmm...I really ought to think about procreating...

Anyway, back to suffering: I think an important aspect of suffering is the ability to think about it beforehand. Thus, I'm not going to eat animals that have shown an ability to do that. All of the evidence I have shows that cows (for example) don't have the ability to contemplate their own deaths and that as long as the slaughter conditions don't prolong suffering, there's nothing wrong with it. Chimps do have the ability to contemplate their suffering so I won't eat them.

BBBBBBBBBBBB

I wasn't talking about anyone here.

I know you aren't, you've already said that, that's why I said, "I'm disagreeing with you that Singer or anyone here is making the argument that "a chicken or a goat or a cow rates higher than a human fetus".

You are claiming that Singer has made that argument. I disagree with that. Find where Singer makes that claim, and I'll believe you.

So, you don't use @ signs? Makes comprehension difficult for anyone.

No, I don't use @ symbols to designate who I'm talking to. As strange gods says, "It's easy, really. Read the words quoted, ask yourself did you write those words? If not, then the following words are not a reply to you." Everyone else seems to do just fine with it.

I said the 1st paragraph, he didn't specify on the 2nd.

What are you talking about? Specify what? I assume you're talking about post #460, but I don't get what you mean at all.

As far as I can tell, I'm the only 1 thus far who's provided a direct link to my blog. Unless you would be so kind as to direct me?

As I said, I was quoting SocraticGadfly, and I didn't say anything about providing a "link" to their blog. SocraticGadfly said at post #267, "It's also why I noted on my blog, with this thread as an example, that atheism does NOT guarantee rationality or critical thinking."

That was sarcasm.

I know. I was being condascending.

Now sod off, please.

No thanks. I'm fine right here.

If you had a choice between saving an 8 month old fetus or a dog or cat, I would assume that you would save the former?

Surely an 8 month old fetus outside the womb would be known as a "baby"?

Btw, you were asked earlier:

"What is it that makes a fertilized human egg, or an embryo without a functioning brain, morally significant?"

You replied

"You already have my answer on this. It's of my own species."

Now you say:

"That doesn't mean I consider it a person."

So what? Whether you think it's a person or not is irrelevant to the fact that before (as I just quoted you), you thought a fertilized human egg is morally significant, yet you then lied and now say, "for the record, I don't care about fertilized eggs".

Right. Sure. Which is it then?

Posted by: Austin B | August 4, 2009 7:31 AM

You people that support these terrorist killers who provide a service to those who need it should be the victim. Its even worse that people bitch and argue that abortion is wrong and shove their snobby nose into other people's business and choices. You people are proof abortion is and will stay legal. Pro-choice, because we have the right to make that choice, and nobody else should be able to decide otherwise. These bombers/shooters are worse than all the abortions ever made and the doctors who do them...

Posted by: Fashion jewlery | November 6, 2009 9:49 PM

Jewelry from China

Posted by: funscience | February 8, 2010 1:29 AM

I'm expecting that you'll just keep running away from the challenge, but you're welcome to surprise me