Killing Abortion Doctor = Terrorism
Throwing acid in a young girl’s face to prevent her from going to school.
Strapping on a bomb and detonating it in a crowded restaurant.
Walking into a church and killing a man who performs abortions.
How is one of the above acts any different from the other? Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror or violence especially as a means of coercion.
Dr. George Tiller was killed today. The goal was not only to end his life, but to send a clear message to abortion providers all over the country.
And the rest of us, too.
Free-thinking and rational people who want to live by the rule of law should be alarmed. This act of terrorism by a radical anti-abortion wingnut must remind us to be ever-vigilant when it comes to extremists in our own country as well as overseas.
The fact that Dr. Tiller was murdered during a church service is mind-boggling. The anti-abortion movement that advocates stalking doctors and harming them is, at its core, motivated by religious fanatics (as well as hatred for women.) Can’t wait to hear how the murderer justifies such actions in a house of God.
I used to work in a health center that performed abortions. I am adamantly pro-choice – abortions during the first trimester should never have any restrictions. As the weeks progress, reasonable restrictions are acceptable as long as late-term abortions remain available for instances where the health of the mother is at stake. Such procedures should also be available for women who choose to terminate due to fetal abnormalities.
Obviously, once a fetus is viable outside the womb, abortions should remain illegal.
Dr. George Tiller’s Kansas clinic was one of the few places in this country where women could go for safe, late-term abortions.
Those women are victims today, too.
7 Comments
Leave a Reply
Disproportionately blessed...
Catherine Durkin Robinson
-
Snapshots
Learning Curves
Olivia’s Kiss
Ether Books
Find my short stories and columns on your iPhone, iPod, and iPad. Click here to download the app for free:
Circle Me Now
Socially Inappropriate
JOIN ME ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
Awful.
You know, you have a point. It is terrorism, isn’t it? It’s an action committed partly in anger, but mostly to influence the actions of others out of fear or peril to their lives.
And yet, something tells me, this will not be how it’s perceived or punished.
Lot of hypocrisy in the world at the moment.
This act of terrorism by a radical anti-abortion wingnut must remind us to be ever-vigilant when it comes to extremists in our own country as well as overseas.
It is a terrorist act. I agree.
The anti-abortion movement that advocates stalking doctors and harming them is, at its core, motivated by religious fanatics (as well as hatred for women.).
Again, I agree.
I am adamantly pro-choice – abortions during the first trimester should never have any restrictions. As the weeks progress, reasonable restrictions are acceptable as long as late-term abortions remain available for instances where the health of the mother is at stake.
Now we disagree. Why the three month rule? Seems kind of arbitrary. At three months and one day a woman loses certain rights to terminate pregnancy? Why? and according to whom? And who decides what is reasonable? You?
Obviously, once a fetus is viable outside the womb, abortions should remain illegal.
Science is answering this question every day (as seen with the survival rates of premature birth babies). If a fetus is viable outside of the womb at two months, through scientific breakthroughs, do these fetuses have any rights?
It does get into some murky territory, that’s for sure. I’m definitely not the one to decide.
I’m uncomfortable with restrictions, but it does stand to reason that as the pregnancy continues, and scientific advances are made, that certain restrictions apply.
I do believe that in addition to safe and legal abortions, we should also have programs in place to help educate women, encourage adoption, create a culture of life where women can have a baby and receive the help they need if necessary, etc. There should be a variety of choices and education so if abortion is necessary, it’s done in the first trimester where there are fewer complications.
And these scientific advances that allow babies born as early as 26 weeks? They scare the shit of out me. So many of these babies grow into children with severe problems, health issues, learning disabilities. Just because we can, doesn’t always mean we should.
I know a woman who had a baby with severe retardation. Couldn’t hold her head up, digest food, really tragic. The baby had a seizure and instead of using extraordinary measures to bring her back, the mom held her until she passed. It was awful and sad and heartbreaking.
But how is that any worse or better than a late term abortion?
Oh well. I suppose that’s another post for another time.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Again some disagreements.
I’m definitely not the one to decide.
But you did. You said three months was the cutoff point on restrictions for abortions.
it does stand to reason that as the pregnancy continues, and scientific advances are made, that certain restrictions apply.
So it might go to two months if certain scientific advances are made.
And these scientific advances that allow babies born as early as 26 weeks? They scare the shit of out me. So many of these babies grow into children with severe problems, health issues, learning disabilities. Just because we can, doesn’t always mean we should.
How many? How many don’t? Full term babies have all of those problems.
I know a woman…
Very sad but one anecdote is not an argument. I know a woman who delivered prematurely who now has a healthy and happy child.
I don’t think I was clear. When I’m talking about restrictions on abortions after three months, I was talking about the cost at first.
Abortions done in the 2nd trimester cost more. That’s a restriction. The fetus is bigger and other medical issues require the higher cost. I’m not deciding that, just saying that for physicians there are complications and so cost is a factor when getting a pregnancy terminated.
Very few babies born before 26 weeks survive. From 26-28 weeks, about 25% have serious long-term medical disabilities and half have long-term learning and behavior problems.
After 28 weeks, the survival rate goes up to 96% and the incidents of disabilities go down. They continue to go down for babies born closer to and at term.
There is no argument that children born prematurely have complications and problems. The question is – should that preclude doctors from using extraordinary measures to deliver and sustain these infants. And should such increasing survival rates, without taking into account the quality of life these babies and children experience, be used as an argument against safe and legal abortion.
I don’t think it should.
Finally, my anecdote was an afterthought. Just wondering what you thought about it because the woman who did it was anti-choice and I, for the life of me, couldn’t understand why one was okay and the other is murder.
I don’t think I was clear. When I’m talking about restrictions on abortions after three months, I was talking about the cost at first.
Abortions done in the 2nd trimester cost more. That’s a restriction. The fetus is bigger and other medical issues require the higher cost. I’m not deciding that, just saying that for physicians there are complications and so cost is a factor when getting a pregnancy terminated.
I liked the unclear version from your post better:
abortions during the first trimester should never have any restrictions. As the weeks progress, reasonable restrictions are acceptable
That sounds like a moral judgment on when restrictions should be applied (after 3 months) to me. I can respect that (I don’t agree with it but at least you draw a line).
This new cost “restriction” has no moral judgment and is simply an ecomonic cost. So when you said “reasonable restrictions are acceptable” you really meant to say later term abortions cost more so they are more restricted. Using that logic, any abortion (at any time) that costs money is restricted.