Abortion, the law and where you stand.

[Tinyclothes]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-death-sentence-for-abortion-doctors-1866129.html

In the US, one of four doctors who perform late term abortions has been murdered. The man who killed him is in custody and has admitted killing him, yet he has the potential to leave court a free man after the judge in the case accepted a defence of necesity whereby he can argue that by killing the doctor he saved the lives of countless unborn babies.

What does everyone think about that?

[Woody1985]

That's a joke for a couple of reasons IMO.

It's a bit 'minority report'. What if the doctor planned to stop practicing the day after he was killed (plans obviously made in advance. :greengrin)?

Using the same concept they should have placed the doctor under arrest for the 'crime' of previous abortions.

I've not read the full article so have made the assumption that abortion is legal in Kansas.

[New Corrie]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-death-sentence-for-abortion-doctors-1866129.html

In the US, one of four doctors who perform late term abortions has been murdered. The man who killed him is in custody and has admitted killing him, yet he has the potential to leave court a free man after the judge in the case accepted a defence of necesity whereby he can argue that by killing the doctor he saved the lives of countless unborn babies.

What does everyone think about that?

I think that he should get the chair. But then, i'm an "accessory to murder" according to these far right, pro life lunatics.

[Tinyclothes]

I think that he should get the chair. But then, i'm an "accessory to murder" according to these far right, pro life lunatics.

Eye for an eye.

[lapsedhibee]

"Army of God"

[Marabou Stork]

I just can't stop laughing at the irony of a 'pro-lifer' murdering a doctor.

[Tinyclothes]

I just can't stop laughing at the irony of a 'pro-lifer' murdering a doctor.

It's kind of the same as someone being so upset at a murder that they advocate the killing of the murderer.

[(((Fergus)))]

It's kind of the same as someone being so upset at a murder that they advocate the killing of the murderer.

Quite.

The guy committed murder, he could have prevented the deaths of those children by other means, e.g., kidnapping the doctor. Should be prosecuted for murder.

[Killiehibbie]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-death-sentence-for-abortion-doctors-1866129.html

In the US, one of four doctors who perform late term abortions has been murdered. The man who killed him is in custody and has admitted killing him, yet he has the potential to leave court a free man after the judge in the case accepted a defence of necesity whereby he can argue that by killing the doctor he saved the lives of countless unborn babies.

What does everyone think about that?

A misinterpretation of the law by the judge.

[sleeping giant]

If someone had killed Hitler before he killed millions , would they/should they have been charged with Murder :dunno:

[Pretty Boy]

If someone had killed Hitler before he killed millions , would they/should they have been charged with Murder :dunno:

Yes, because how could one prove in a court that they thought that Hitler would be responsible for up to 12 million deaths.

Most historians agree the 'final solution' was not Hitlers' idea, although the hatred behind it certainly was.

[sleeping giant]

Yes, because how could one prove in a court that they thought that Hitler would be responsible for up to 12 million deaths.

Most historians agree the 'final solution' was not Hitlers' idea, although the hatred behind it certainly was.

:greengrin

Touche:hnet:

[lapsedhibee]

how could one prove in a court that they thought that Hitler would be responsible for up to 12 million deaths.


A pedant writes

It would be quite easy to prove that in a court. If you were able to produce letters you'd written to your friends expressing fears that Hitler was a homicidal beast who would do away with non-Aryan peeps wherever and whenever he could, that would be good evidence of what you thought.

[Marabou Stork]

Surely on the same basis a person could kill a pro life nutjob on the basis that he was preventing harm coming to people who supported and assisted in abortion.

That's just plain bonkers. Having a strong belief in something does not justify in any way violent actions. Bin Laden could also use this defence but I suspect he would struggle a bit.

[(((Fergus)))]

That said, this doctor was clearly keen on ending life early so he should at least be able to sympathise with his killer.

[Pretty Boy]

A pedant writes

It would be quite easy to prove that in a court. If you were able to produce letters you'd written to your friends expressing fears that Hitler was a homicidal beast who would do away with non-Aryan peeps wherever and whenever he could, that would be good evidence of what you thought.

Fair point, well made.

It would however be far harder to prove it was a valid fear and reasonable grounds for murder.

[lapsedhibee]

this doctor was clearly keen on ending life early so he should at least be able to sympathise with his killer.

Yep, because a sperm, ovum, foetus and human being are all exactly the same thing. So much the same, in fact, that it's a wonder we bother to have separate words for them!

[Twa Cairpets]

That said, this doctor was clearly keen on ending life early so he should at least be able to sympathise with his killer.

Except, of course, that he is dead. I'm guessing his family aren't too overflowing with sympathy.

[Tinyclothes]

That said, this doctor was clearly keen on ending life early so he should at least be able to sympathise with his killer.

Would you class having a w*nk as genocide?

(Mark Thomas)

[(((Fergus)))]

Except, of course, that he is dead. I'm guessing his family aren't too overflowing with sympathy.

They lived off death for many years, he's probably left a wee nest egg for them too.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------


Would you class having a w*nk as genocide?

(Mark Thomas)

More suicide than genocide

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------


Yep, because a sperm, ovum, foetus and human being are all exactly the same thing. So much the same, in fact, that it's a wonder we bother to have separate words for them!

Big difference between sperm/ovum and foetus/human being.

[Tinyclothes]

They lived off death for many years, he's probably left a wee nest egg for them too.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------



More suicide than genocide

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------



Big difference between sperm/ovum and foetus/human being.

The only time you could really claim suicide is if you had a wet dream. But even then it would be tenuous.

[(((Fergus)))]

The only time you could really claim suicide is if you had a wet dream. But even then it would be tenuous.

No, wet dream isn't like suicide, masturbation is. It's like throwing life away. Wet dream is pathology though, but not conscious suicide.

[Tinyclothes]

No, wet dream isn't like suicide, masturbation is. It's like throwing life away. Wet dream is pathology though, but not conscious suicide.

It's more accurately like throwing ***** away.

My eyesight seems to be getting steadily worse though.

[--------]

Yep, because a sperm, ovum, foetus and human being are all exactly the same thing. So much the same, in fact, that it's a wonder we bother to have separate words for them!

Neither a sperm nor an ovum can be spoken of as a human being. The sperm fertilises the ovum, producing the embryo which develops into the foetus. At what point exactly the embryo/foetus can be considered to be human is debatable - however, since the Old Testament states that "the life of every creature is its blood", it would appear to me that a logical position for a conservative evangelical Christian would be that the foetus is human when blood-flow begins - around about the 2/3/4 week mark, I believe.

But where you're dealing with a continuum as in the development of a child from a foetus from an embryo, it's always going to be a debatable point.

The doctor was specifically engaged in carrying out late-term abortions - that is, abortions at a point in the pregnancy where the foetus (or unborn child?) is likely to survive if born prematurely.

In this country abortion is legal up to 24 weeks. In the US I think the limit is 18 weeks. There is evidence - a lot of it anecdotal, I admit - that these limits are disrespected relatively often, and that abortions sometimes take place illegally well after these points in pregnancy are passed.

In many cases late-term abortion involves the surgical dismemberment of the foetus - the foetus comes out an arm or a leg or a head at a time - a process which is extremely likely to cause acute foetal distress. I am reliably informed that late-term abortionists do NOT usually explain the details of the process to their patients. this may be interpreted as kindness or as moral dishonesty, depending on which side of the question one happens to stand.

All that said, while there are many people both in the States and in the UK who hrbour serious misgivings about the practice of late-term abortion and would like to see the law changed, I can see no way in the world to justify walking up to a man, putting a gun to his forehead, and blowing his brains out.

[steakbake]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-death-sentence-for-abortion-doctors-1866129.html

In the US, one of four doctors who perform late term abortions has been murdered. The man who killed him is in custody and has admitted killing him, yet he has the potential to leave court a free man after the judge in the case accepted a defence of necesity whereby he can argue that by killing the doctor he saved the lives of countless unborn babies.

What does everyone think about that?

Absolutely *** bollocks. Extremists come in all shades. A suicide bomber might claim that bombing a barracks is potentially saving the life of his countrymen.

It's a religiously motivated murder.

[Hibrandenburg]

I no longer know where I stand on this one. If you'd asked me 2 years ago then I'd definately say "pro choice". However after my son was born last year in the 27th week and he's a bundle of joy and now approaching his 1st birthday, then I'd no longer be able to say "pro choice" with complete conviction.

[Twa Cairpets]

Here's a couple of interesting links on this topic - gives an American view and also provided the actual data relating to where Tiller was active. If nothing else this latter shows that he wasnt doing thousands of late-term abortions.

NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09douthat.html)

Kansas data (http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf)

[Betty Boop]

I no longer know where I stand on this one. If you'd asked me 2 years ago then I'd definately say "pro choice". However after my son was born last year in the 27th week and he's a bundle of joy and now approaching his 1st birthday, then I'd no longer be able to say "pro choice" with complete conviction.

Your son is gorgeous! :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Neither a sperm nor an ovum can be spoken of as a human being. The sperm fertilises the ovum, producing the embryo which develops into the foetus. At what point exactly the embryo/foetus can be considered to be human is debatable - however, since the Old Testament states that "the life of every creature is its blood", it would appear to me that a logical position for a conservative evangelical Christian would be that the foetus is human when blood-flow begins - around about the 2/3/4 week mark, I believe.

But where you're dealing with a continuum as in the development of a child from a foetus from an embryo, it's always going to be a debatable point.

The doctor was specifically engaged in carrying out late-term abortions - that is, abortions at a point in the pregnancy where the foetus (or unborn child?) is likely to survive if born prematurely.

In this country abortion is legal up to 24 weeks. In the US I think the limit is 18 weeks. There is evidence - a lot of it anecdotal, I admit - that these limits are disrespected relatively often, and that abortions sometimes take place illegally well after these points in pregnancy are passed.

In many cases late-term abortion involves the surgical dismemberment of the foetus - the foetus comes out an arm or a leg or a head at a time - a process which is extremely likely to cause acute foetal distress. I am reliably informed that late-term abortionists do NOT usually explain the details of the process to their patients. this may be interpreted as kindness or as moral dishonesty, depending on which side of the question one happens to stand.

All that said, while there are many people both in the States and in the UK who hrbour serious misgivings about the practice of late-term abortion and would like to see the law changed, I can see no way in the world to justify walking up to a man, putting a gun to his forehead, and blowing his brains out.

Indeed to all that. Pretty much every part of the whole issue is debatable, but your reference to when the western bible considers that human life begins points up that the crux of the matter is whether the western bible, or the law of the land, is the ultimate determinant of what does and does not constitute murder/unlawful killing/etc. For me this is completely unambiguous, for in the US and UK we do not live in a religious dictatorship. Christians can argue like everyone else for changes to the law - until they succeed, if they act according to what they think the bible or God has told them is right, and that conflicts with the law, they can suffer the consequences. In this case, I'd do it masel and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

[ArabHibee]

Funny how they don't ever think about killing the females who have agreed to the abortions in the first place.

[hibsdaft]

.

[Woody1985]

Funny how they don't ever think about killing the females who have agreed to the abortions in the first place.

Perhaps they take the view that if you are willing to terminate that you may need support rather than whacking you.

It's also easier to kill 1 person than trying to kill the x amount of people that have terminated i.e. take out the source.

[(((Fergus)))]

Indeed to all that. Pretty much every part of the whole issue is debatable, but your reference to when the western bible considers that human life begins points up that the crux of the matter is whether the western bible, or the law of the land, is the ultimate determinant of what does and does not constitute murder/unlawful killing/etc. For me this is completely unambiguous, for in the US and UK we do not live in a religious dictatorship. Christians can argue like everyone else for changes to the law - until they succeed, if they act according to what they think the bible or God has told them is right, and that conflicts with the law, they can suffer the consequences. In this case, I'd do it masel and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

I don't know about any Biblical definition, but if a foetus isn't a human life, why do they bother killing it?

[Onceinawhile]

Bill hicks "if your so pro life do me a favour and stop linking arms and blocking abortion clinics, link arms and block cemetries"

[--------]

Indeed to all that. Pretty much every part of the whole issue is debatable, but your reference to when the western bible considers that human life begins points up that the crux of the matter is whether the western bible, or the law of the land, is the ultimate determinant of what does and does not constitute murder/unlawful killing/etc. For me this is completely unambiguous, for in the US and UK we do not live in a religious dictatorship. Christians can argue like everyone else for changes to the law - until they succeed, if they act according to what they think the bible or God has told them is right, and that conflicts with the law, they can suffer the consequences. In this case, I'd do it masel and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

At no point in my post did I advocate a religious dictatorship. I simply point out that it is possible to disagree as to when exactly the embryo ceases to be an embryo and becomes 'human life'. The Old Testament links the life of the creature specifically to the blood - so to be consistent, any pro-life advocate from the traditions of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam should base his or her belief and practice on that principle - that the circulation of the blood signals the point at which the embryo becomes specifically human.

Right now the law of the land allows us to do a whole lot of things, many of which would be beyond the bounds of my conscience as a Christian believer. The moral question, and it's a question that has stood since long before the birth of Christ, is at what point is the moral man or woman obligated to act outside the law to prevent evil when the law itself is evil, and how far is he or she allowed to go in opposing an evil when the law of the land allows it?

That's the moral question that lies behind this killer's defence - his defence being that the law regarding late-term abortions is evil; that the doctor, while practising his trade in an entirely legal way, nevertheless was perpetrating great evil; and that he, the killer, acted in order to prevent that great evil from being prolonged. And that although what he, the killer, did was illegal and itself evil, it nevertheless was justified in that it prevented the greater evil of the future termination of many human lives by the doctor he killed.

It's a defence that could, for example, be applied to the Stauffenberg plot to assassinate Hitler. It's an uncomfortable defence for a Christian to adopt, though, allowing that Caiaphas' justification for the judicial murder of Jesus of Nazareth was that it was "better for one man to die than that the people should perish...."

But provided I do so legally, I am still at perfect liberty to campaign to have the law of the land changed, as are others free to campaign for the status quo. That's democracy.

And I do find it difficult to understand how one can apply the principle of capital punishment as a defence of the sanctity of human life.....

[lapsedhibee]

At no point in my post did I advocate a religious dictatorship. I simply point out that it is possible to disagree as to when exactly the embryo ceases to be an embryo and becomes 'human life'. The Old Testament links the life of the creature specifically to the blood - so to be consistent, any pro-life advocate from the traditions of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam should base his or her belief and practice on that principle - that the circulation of the blood signals the point at which the embryo becomes specifically human.

Right now the law of the land allows us to do a whole lot of things, many of which would be beyond the bounds of my conscience as a Christian believer. The moral question, and it's a question that has stood since long before the birth of Christ, is at what point is the moral man or woman obligated to act outside the law to prevent evil when the law itself is evil, and how far is he or she allowed to go in opposing an evil when the law of the land allows it?

That's the moral question that lies behind this killer's defence - his defence being that the law regarding late-term abortions is evil; that the doctor, while practising his trade in an entirely legal way, nevertheless was perpetrating great evil; and that he, the killer, acted in order to prevent that great evil from being prolonged. And that although what he, the killer, did was illegal and itself evil, it nevertheless was justified in that it prevented the greater evil of the future termination of many human lives by the doctor he killed.

It's a defence that could, for example, be applied to the Stauffenberg plot to assassinate Hitler. It's an uncomfortable defence for a Christian to adopt, though, allowing that Caiaphas' justification for the judicial murder of Jesus of Nazareth was that it was "better for one man to die than that the people should perish...."

But provided I do so legally, I am still at perfect liberty to campaign to have the law of the land changed, as are others free to campaign for the status quo. That's democracy.

And I do find it difficult to understand how one can apply the principle of capital punishment as a defence of the sanctity of human life.....

I'm certainly not arguing for the sanctity of human life. That's a commandment in your bible, isn't it?

Take point about moral v legal obligations, and certainly didn't mean to imply that you were advocating a dictatorship of any kind, but not comfortable with discussing serious modern political issues in terms of "evil" - get enough of that in the redtops' headlines - and I can't make much sense of the point about the New Testament and defining a human by the point at which blood circulates. The circulation of the blood is an entirely modern concept (Harvey), and using it in the way you suggest seems arbitrary. It doesn't make any more sense to me than choosing the moment at which the egg is fertilised, or a hundred other developmental points available through modern medical knowledge.

[lapsedhibee]

if a foetus isn't a human life, why do they bother killing it?

A cancer cell isn't a human life, but medical people sometimes strive to remove those from the body also. Using your logic, it would be unreasonable to do so.

[--------]

I'm certainly not arguing for the sanctity of human life. That's a commandment in your bible, isn't it?

That rather clarifies a few things. And yes, it is.

Take point about moral v legal obligations, and certainly didn't mean to imply that you were advocating a dictatorship of any kind, but not comfortable with discussing serious modern political issues in terms of "evil" - get enough of that in the redtops' headlines - and I can't make much sense of the point about the New Testament and defining a human by the point at which blood circulates. The circulation of the blood is an entirely modern concept (Harvey), and using it in the way you suggest seems arbitrary. It doesn't make any more sense to me than choosing the moment at which the egg is fertilised, or a hundred other developmental points available through modern medical knowledge.

Sorry - I haven't been very clear perhaps. The point about the blood that I was trying to make without going on for three pages was that for a conservative Christian late-term or early-term abortions should really be no different - if they're going by the bible, the life is in the blood and since we now know that the blood begins to circulate very early in gestation, all abortion after about 2-4 weeks is (or should be) inadmissible unless there are clear medical reasons relating to the health of the mother. So why the guy was targetting a doctor who specialised in late-term abortions.... Just as well go after them all. Which is what some of the nutters do, as you and I know.

And THAT is entirely out of order.

But 'modern medical knowledge' may very well know more than the ancient Hebrews did, but we still can't put our finger on exactly at what point the 'embryo' becomes a person. or at what point a surgical procedure becomes the termination of a human life.

[lapsedhibee]

Sorry - I haven't been very clear perhaps. The point about the blood that I was trying to make without going on for three pages was that for a conservative Christian late-term or early-term abortions should really be no different - if they're going by the bible, the life is in the blood and since we now know that the blood begins to circulate very early in gestation, all abortion after about 2-4 weeks is (or should be) inadmissible unless there are clear medical reasons relating to the health of the mother. So why the guy was targetting a doctor who specialised in late-term abortions.... Just as well go after them all. Which is what some of the nutters do, as you and I know.

And THAT is entirely out of order.

But 'modern medical knowledge' may very well know more than the ancient Hebrews did, but we still can't put our finger on exactly at what point the 'embryo' becomes a person. or at what point a surgical procedure becomes the termination of a human life.

I never met the blokes what drew up the Old Testament [insert statutory Jonnyboy reference here], but - without provoking you into the three pages - did they think or would they have thought that abortion up to a certain point was ok, and thereafter not ok? Apologies if the question seems facile - as well as not being able to understand why nutters would target late-term abortionists and not early-term abortionists, I also can't get my head round choosing any particular point, or approximate point, along the way as being an acceptable cut-off. I suppose for the purposes of the main arguments on this thread, I can't see the relevant difference between embryos and foetuses.

[(((Fergus)))]

A cancer cell isn't a human life, but medical people sometimes strive to remove those from the body also. Using your logic, it would be unreasonable to do so.

To be clear: I'm saying a foetus IS a human life. If it wasn't, people wouldn't try to get rid of it.

[Tinyclothes]

To be clear: I'm saying a foetus IS a human life. If it wasn't, people wouldn't try to get rid of it.

Why wouldn't they? To-clarify a cancer cell isn't a human life but we strive to rid our bodies of these. A mole isn't a human life but people sometimes remove these. Your logic is monumentally flawed.

[lapsedhibee]

To be clear: I'm saying a foetus IS a human life. If it wasn't, people wouldn't try to get rid of it.

Yes, it's clear what you're saying - it just doesn't make sense.

You're implying that people only try to get rid of things if they are actually human. I've given you a counter-example to your argument (a cancer cell).

[I'm_cabbaged]

Why wouldn't they? To-clarify a cancer cell isn't a human life but we strive to rid our bodies of these. A mole isn't a human life but people sometimes remove these. Your logic is monumentally flawed.


Yes, it's clear what you're saying - it just doesn't make sense.

You're implying that people only try to get rid of things if they are actually human. I've given you a counter-example to your argument (a cancer cell).

I think you know what he's saying, to compare a life with a cancer cell just to pick holes in his argument is quite pathetic.

[lapsedhibee]

I think you know what he's saying, to compare a life with a cancer cell just to pick holes in his argument is quite pathetic.

You miss the point - spectacularly. The point about introducing cancer cells and moles is to demonstrate that his thinking is flawed. Nobody - except you - has compared a cancer cell with human life.

[egb_hibs]

I just can't stop laughing at the irony of a 'pro-lifer' murdering a doctor.I've seen a number of people saying this. But it's not really ironic at all is it. Most of us would kill to defend others. It's just that unlike the killer here, we don't view abortion as being on the same level.

I think the killer is guilty and should be sent to the pokey. Then again, whatever the arguments about abortion generally, late term abortionists are unambiguously killers as well. And should also go to jail.

[I'm_cabbaged]

You miss the point - spectacularly. The point about introducing cancer cells and moles is to demonstrate that his thinking is flawed. Nobody - except you - has compared a cancer cell with human life.

Maybe should've read the whole thread first, eh. :greengrin

[--------]

I never met the blokes what drew up the Old Testament [insert statutory Jonnyboy reference here], but - without provoking you into the three pages - did they think or would they have thought that abortion up to a certain point was ok, and thereafter not ok? Apologies if the question seems facile - as well as not being able to understand why nutters would target late-term abortionists and not early-term abortionists, I also can't get my head round choosing any particular point, or approximate point, along the way as being an acceptable cut-off. I suppose for the purposes of the main arguments on this thread, I can't see the relevant difference between embryos and foetuses.

Sorry - I got wrapped up in a rather obscure reference which has muddied the waters here more than somewhat.

I would say that it's pretty clear that OT law doesn't allow abortion at any point in the process of gestation. Discussion of when abortion would be permissible simply wouldn't be relevant - you shall not kill stands as the basic over-riding principle, and would be applied to the unborn child as to any other human life.

Also passages like the opening verses of Jeremiah - God's calling of the prophet - suggest to me that the OT sees human life as a gift of God, and that God has a purpose for each human life, a purpose determined before birth - even, indeed, before conception. (I know that you don't agree with this viewpoint, and I accept that - all I'm saying here is that that's how I believe the OT and the OT Jews saw things, so abortion would be out of the question. I think that answers your question about how the OT would see abortion.

So yes, there's no real Biblical reason that I can see why late-term abortions are inherently more wrong than early-term ones, except that the process is more gruesome and is very likely to cause a lot more pain and distress to the unborn child.

I know this is an emotive subject, and I really didn't want to be drawn in, TBH. As far as this murder is concerned (and I entirely agree that this is a murder and not justifiable homicide or mercy killing or whatever) I would say that as the law stands the doctor wasn't in breach of that law. According to HIS understanding, he isn't acting immorally - what he does he does, as his colleague said, to "help women".

Now I may disagree with his position - in fact, as you'll gather, I do disagree with him at a fairly fundamental level.

But the fact that I disagree with him does NOT give me carte blanche to kill him, or kidnap him, or cut off his hands so he can't operate. It doesn't give me the right to harass his nurses or patients, either.

I AM entitled to express my disagreement and deep disquiet, and to continue to do so provided I don't slander him, his staff or his patients, or utter threats against them, or become abusive. And I'd say that whether people agree with me or not, I'm entitled not to be abused, belittled, or misrepresented in turn. The sight of pro-life demonstrators abusing and yelling and waving placards at wee lassies outside abortion clinics disgusts me completely.

I'm not aware of any passage in the Gospels where Jesus is seen raging at and condemning anyone. Anyone, that is, other than the religious authorities of his day and the loan-sharks and con-men they allowed into the temple precincts to exploit the poor by selling them animals for sacrifice at exorbitant prices and changing money for the offerings at illegal rates of exchange.

He didn't bully women, and folks whose lives were in a mess found sympathy and understanding when they came to him, not condemnation.

And before anyone else says it, I'm well aware I don't measure up to that standard too well myself, OK? :devil:

[lapsedhibee]

Sorry - I got wrapped up in a rather obscure reference which has muddied the waters here more than somewhat.

I would say that it's pretty clear that OT law doesn't allow abortion at any point in the process of gestation. Discussion of when abortion would be permissible simply wouldn't be relevant - you shall not kill stands as the basic over-riding principle, and would be applied to the unborn child as to any other human life.

Also passages like the opening verses of Jeremiah - God's calling of the prophet - suggest to me that the OT sees human life as a gift of God, and that God has a purpose for each human life, a purpose determined before birth - even, indeed, before conception. (I know that you don't agree with this viewpoint, and I accept that - all I'm saying here is that that's how I believe the OT and the OT Jews saw things, so abortion would be out of the question. I think that answers your question about how the OT would see abortion.

So yes, there's no real Biblical reason that I can see why late-term abortions are inherently more wrong than early-term ones, except that the process is more gruesome and is very likely to cause a lot more pain and distress to the unborn child.

I know this is an emotive subject, and I really didn't want to be drawn in, TBH. As far as this murder is concerned (and I entirely agree that this is a murder and not justifiable homicide or mercy killing or whatever) I would say that as the law stands the doctor wasn't in breach of that law. According to HIS understanding, he isn't acting immorally - what he does he does, as his colleague said, to "help women".

Now I may disagree with his position - in fact, as you'll gather, I do disagree with him at a fairly fundamental level.

But the fact that I disagree with him does NOT give me carte blanche to kill him, or kidnap him, or cut off his hands so he can't operate. It doesn't give me the right to harass his nurses or patients, either.

I AM entitled to express my disagreement and deep disquiet, and to continue to do so provided I don't slander him, his staff or his patients, or utter threats against them, or become abusive. And I'd say that whether people agree with me or not, I'm entitled not to be abused, belittled, or misrepresented in turn. The sight of pro-life demonstrators abusing and yelling and waving placards at wee lassies outside abortion clinics disgusts me completely.

I'm not aware of any passage in the Gospels where Jesus is seen raging at and condemning anyone. Anyone, that is, other than the religious authorities of his day and the loan-sharks and con-men they allowed into the temple precincts to exploit the poor by selling them animals for sacrifice at exorbitant prices and changing money for the offerings at illegal rates of exchange.

He didn't bully women, and folks whose lives were in a mess found sympathy and understanding when they came to him, not condemnation.

And before anyone else says it, I'm well aware I don't measure up to that standard too well myself, OK? :devil:

Cheers for that. The bit about God having a purpose for every human life from a point even before conception is a bit of an eye-opener. There'll be unscrupulous peeps using that as a chat-up line every drunken Friday night ... "a higher power's got plans for us to get together and multiply, hen". :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

I've seen a number of people saying this. But it's not really ironic at all is it. Most of us would kill to defend others. It's just that unlike the killer here, we don't view abortion as being on the same level.

I think the killer is guilty and should be sent to the pokey. Then again, whatever the arguments about abortion generally, late term abortionists are unambiguously killers as well. And should also go to jail.

I posted this link (http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf) earlier. It shows the statistics for late term abortions in Kansas, the state where Tiller operated. In 192 out of 323 it was the opinion of the physician that the pregnancy, even at the late stage of 22+ weeks, was not viable. In 188 cases, the reason given was because "The patient would suffer substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she were forced to continue the pregnancy".

I'm making no claim as to whether this makes it wrong or right to have an abortion, but it certainly calls into question your use of the phrase "unambiguous killers", doesnt it? But then it's much easier to fire off a post without looking into any of the facts, isn't it?

[--------]

Cheers for that. The bit about God having a purpose for every human life from a point even before conception is a bit of an eye-opener. There'll be unscrupulous peeps using that as a chat-up line every drunken Friday night ... "a higher power's got plans for us to get together and multiply, hen". :wink:


And the answer to that is, "Naw he's no', and ye can awey and multiply yersel', pal...." :devil:

I'm trying to avoid getting into one of those long-drawn-out arguments (there's one going on right now on a thread near you :rolleyes: ).

I suppose my view is that abortion isn't something that a Christian should contemplate being involved in. What other people do is down to them - all I would say is that in my experience some doctors aren't exactly conscientious about pre-op counselling, and for some patients the post-op support leaves a lot to be desired. In many cases it turns out not to be the 'routine procedure' it's made out to be.

But if someone did approach me after an abortion with concerns and troubles, believe me, I wouldn't give her a sermon on the evils of loose living and start yelling 'infanticide' at her. I hope I and the folks in the congregation could offer her compassion, support, and hope for the future to whatever extent she was willing to receive it.

I wouldn't use the situation as a means to inveigle her into a cult either. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

And the answer to that is, "Naw he's no', and ye can awey and multiply yersel', pal...." :devil:

I'm trying to avoid getting into one of those long-drawn-out arguments (there's one going on right now on a thread near you :rolleyes: ).

But it is a very civil discussion Doddie :greengrin


I suppose my view is that abortion isn't something that a Christian should contemplate being involved in. What other people do is down to them - all I would say is that in my experience some doctors aren't exactly conscientious about pre-op counselling, and for some patients the post-op support leaves a lot to be desired. In many cases it turns out not to be the 'routine procedure' it's made out to be.

But if someone did approach me after an abortion with concerns and troubles, believe me, I wouldn't give her a sermon on the evils of loose living and start yelling 'infanticide' at her. I hope I and the folks in the congregation could offer her compassion, support, and hope for the future to whatever extent she was willing to receive it.

I wouldn't use the situation as a means to inveigle her into a cult either. :wink:

Thats a decent way of doing things. You've already said in this thread that Tillers murderer was wrong, which I agree with. I'm curious if you have any in your congregation who might agree with his killing on religious or moral grounds? How would you address this?

(No edge or hidden agenda, just curious)

[(((Fergus)))]

Yes, it's clear what you're saying - it just doesn't make sense.

You're implying that people only try to get rid of things if they are actually human. I've given you a counter-example to your argument (a cancer cell).

A cancer cell isn't a human, it is part of a human (as is an ovum or a sperm cell)

[--------]

But it is a very civil discussion Doddie :greengrin



Thats a decent way of doing things. You've already said in this thread that Tillers murderer was wrong, which I agree with. I'm curious if you have any in your congregation who might agree with his killing on religious or moral grounds? How would you address this?

(No edge or hidden agenda, just curious)


Well, I can't exactly do a sort of "Hands up those in favour of killing abortionists" on Sunday. I wouldn't even preach about the subject, frankly, because doing so could cause immense hurt to someone or no good reason.

If I did do a 'hands-up', I'd certainly be in the Daily Record on Monday....

.... and in deep whatsit with the Presbytery on Tuesday.

And having been there before, I'd rather not be there again, so I won't do the hands-up routine if you don't mind, TC.

The short (serious) answer is that without polling the folks, I can say that I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any of my congregration or colleagues approved of this shooting.

What do I do if someone expresses deep delight at the doctor's demise? I think all I could do would be to point out as forcefully as I could that we're commanded to love one another, to love our neighbours, to do to and for others what we would want them to do to and for us. That doesn't mean we go killing them.

I might remind them that we all live subject to the laws of the land (Romans 13); and that the Mosaic law as summarised in the Decalogue (Exodus 20.13/ Deuteronomy 5.17); the teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.21ff.) both take a clear stand against murder - Christ in fact declares that harbouring murderous thoughts, contempt and anger against others bring us into the danger of judgement.

I might also point out that when a woman was brought before him who WAS guilty (rightly or wrongly) of a capital offence under Jewish Law, Jesus didn't condemn her, but rather drew her accusers' attention to their own shortcomings and failings before sending her away with the strong advice that she should put her life in order (John 8). But even then he didn't stand over her and force her to sort herself out.

I might also suggest that the proper thing for this killer to have done was to make an appointment to see the doctor, to explain his (the killer's) view of what the doctor was doing, to do all he could to persuade the doctor to stop carrying out abortions. If he believes that abortion is murder, and that murderers are under the judgment of God and that murderers who die unrepentant go straight to hell (which I think is exactly what he does believe), then he has no right to condemn a fellow human being to eternal damnation without seeking to do everything he can to save him from that fate. In one sense, on that basis, what he did to the doctor is infinitely worse than anything the doctor has done in any of the abortions he's performed over the years.

I know that all this is a different mind-set and world-view from anything you'd accept, TC. I've always been extremely uneasy about 'state' religion and institutionalised 'faith communities'. As soon as a man (or woman) decides that he or she can use the power of the state or community to enforce his or her religious (or irreligious, or even atheist views) on other people, we have trouble.

I don't want to get into a long discussion here, and I wish I'd kept out, frankly. I believe that Christ offers the peace and forgiveness and mercy of God to whoever asks for it - and that his authority for doing so rests in his death on the cross and his resurrection from death on the third day.

'Whoever' means 'anyone', regardless of what we've done, if we acknowledge our fault to God and ask his forgiveness and trust him and seek to live our lives his way. His way? Best quick reference, Matthew chapters 5,6,7. The master's own voice. That doesn't mean forcing anything on anyone - as far as I'm aware, God doesn't force anything on anyone either. Religious (and anti-religious) people, however, often do. And that's wrong.

[Twa Cairpets]

Well, I can't exactly do a sort of "Hands up those in favour of killing abortionists" on Sunday. I wouldn't even preach about the subject, frankly, because doing so could cause immense hurt to someone or no good reason.

If I did do a 'hands-up', I'd certainly be in the Daily Record on Monday....

.... and in deep whatsit with the Presbytery on Tuesday.

And having been there before, I'd rather not be there again, so I won't do the hands-up routine if you don't mind, TC.

The short (serious) answer is that without polling the folks, I can say that I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any of my congregration or colleagues approved of this shooting.

What do I do if someone expresses deep delight at the doctor's demise? I think all I could do would be to point out as forcefully as I could that we're commanded to love one another, to love our neighbours, to do to and for others what we would want them to do to and for us. That doesn't mean we go killing them.

I might remind them that we all live subject to the laws of the land (Romans 13); and that the Mosaic law as summarised in the Decalogue (Exodus 20.13/ Deuteronomy 5.17); the teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.21ff.) both take a clear stand against murder - Christ in fact declares that harbouring murderous thoughts, contempt and anger against others bring us into the danger of judgement.

I might also point out that when a woman was brought before him who WAS guilty (rightly or wrongly) of a capital offence under Jewish Law, Jesus didn't condemn her, but rather drew her accusers' attention to their own shortcomings and failings before sending her away with the strong advice that she should put her life in order (John 8). But even then he didn't stand over her and force her to sort herself out.

I might also suggest that the proper thing for this killer to have done was to make an appointment to see the doctor, to explain his (the killer's) view of what the doctor was doing, to do all he could to persuade the doctor to stop carrying out abortions. If he believes that abortion is murder, and that murderers are under the judgment of God and that murderers who die unrepentant go straight to hell (which I think is exactly what he does believe), then he has no right to condemn a fellow human being to eternal damnation without seeking to do everything he can to save him from that fate. In one sense, on that basis, what he did to the doctor is infinitely worse than anything the doctor has done in any of the abortions he's performed over the years.

I know that all this is a different mind-set and world-view from anything you'd accept, TC. I've always been extremely uneasy about 'state' religion and institutionalised 'faith communities'. As soon as a man (or woman) decides that he or she can use the power of the state or community to enforce his or her religious (or irreligious, or even atheist views) on other people, we have trouble.

I don't want to get into a long discussion here, and I wish I'd kept out, frankly. I believe that Christ offers the peace and forgiveness and mercy of God to whoever asks for it - and that his authority for doing so rests in his death on the cross and his resurrection from death on the third day.

'Whoever' means 'anyone', regardless of what we've done, if we acknowledge our fault to God and ask his forgiveness and trust him and seek to live our lives his way. His way? Best quick reference, Matthew chapters 5,6,7. The master's own voice. That doesn't mean forcing anything on anyone - as far as I'm aware, God doesn't force anything on anyone either. Religious (and anti-religious) people, however, often do. And that's wrong.

Cheers Doddie.

[Dashing Bob S]

Maybe the Yams count embryo's as living beings- it could explain the riddle of the missing 390,000.

[Hibrandenburg]

Your son is gorgeous! :greengrin

Cheers Betty, he must get it from his mum's side :agree:

[Dinkydoo]

A cancer cell isn't a human, it is part of a human (as is an ovum or a sperm cell)


By the same level of logic an embyro hasn't fully developed whilst still in the womb so in theory isn't (yet) human either.

At this point it is classified as part of a woman's body, therefore it should be her decision.

Killing someone over thier own personal religious beliefs is basically why i like to have nothing to do with religion. I have my own beliefs, I tend to keep them to myself unless propmted to do otherwise, if I'm wrong I'm wrong - nobody is hurt in the process.

[Green_one]

So if you extrapolate that it does not really make any difference to losing a life if the pregnancy is 24 weeks or 1 week and you take in other potential areas outside pregnancy, you get a very odd list

1. Could he have shot a chemist handing out morning after pills
2. Could he go into a Swiss clinic dealing with assisting patients to terminate their lives and shoot the lot?
3. Could he shoot some soldiers on their way to Afganistan. Would that include only people who fired guns, or who loaded bombs or who fueled planes or who provided target intelligence or who served hot meals?
4. Good news - what about polititians - shoot Toy Blair - no war in Iraq?

And the list goes on. If I had seen this murderer could I have shot him knowing his views and probable actions. Presumably he can go and get the other 3 doctors?

If this guy gets off then they should throw the USA out of the list of civilised and rational nations. Assuming they are already on it. The Americans have something of a history of internal terrorism and failing to recognise it in its many forms.

[Betty Boop]

So if you extrapolate that it does not really make any difference to losing a life if the pregnancy is 24 weeks or 1 week and you take in other potential areas outside pregnancy, you get a very odd list

1. Could he have shot a chemist handing out morning after pills
2. Could he go into a Swiss clinic dealing with assisting patients to terminate their lives and shoot the lot?
3. Could he shoot some soldiers on their way to Afganistan. Would that include only people who fired guns, or who loaded bombs or who fueled planes or who provided target intelligence or who served hot meals?
4. Good news - what about polititians - shoot Toy Blair - no war in Iraq?

And the list goes on. If I had seen this murderer could I have shot him knowing his views and probable actions. Presumably he can go and get the other 3 doctors?

If this guy gets off then they should throw the USA out of the list of civilised and rational nations. Assuming they are already on it. The Americans have something of a history of internal terrorism and failing to recognise it in its many forms.

:top marks

[McIntosh]

Why lets facts get in the way of an argument.

According to Jewish, Islamic and Christian written tradition “Life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11) when blood enters the embryo on the 18th day after conception the heart begins to beat and life begins. According to this argument, there is an 18-day “grace period” when abortion should not be condemned.

Legally women rights to abortion are as follow:France: 12 weeks, Germany: 12 weeks, Italy: 13 weeks, Sweden: 18 weeks, UK: 24 weeks, US: limits after 26 weeks and Australia: No limit. You either believe in the rule of law or you don't.

I personally have always believed in abortion on demand, I have always been concerned with the rights of the born than the supposed rights of the unborn. It amazing reading the views of people who on other issues quite cheerful support the killing of innocent living people but get very upset on this issue, well it shows their priorities.

[McIntosh]

Well, I can't exactly do a sort of "Hands up those in favour of killing abortionists" on Sunday. I wouldn't even preach about the subject, frankly, because doing so could cause immense hurt to someone or no good reason.

If I did do a 'hands-up', I'd certainly be in the Daily Record on Monday....

.... and in deep whatsit with the Presbytery on Tuesday.

And having been there before, I'd rather not be there again, so I won't do the hands-up routine if you don't mind, TC.

The short (serious) answer is that without polling the folks, I can say that I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any of my congregration or colleagues approved of this shooting.

What do I do if someone expresses deep delight at the doctor's demise? I think all I could do would be to point out as forcefully as I could that we're commanded to love one another, to love our neighbours, to do to and for others what we would want them to do to and for us. That doesn't mean we go killing them.

I might remind them that we all live subject to the laws of the land (Romans 13); and that the Mosaic law as summarised in the Decalogue (Exodus 20.13/ Deuteronomy 5.17); the teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.21ff.) both take a clear stand against murder - Christ in fact declares that harbouring murderous thoughts, contempt and anger against others bring us into the danger of judgement.

I might also point out that when a woman was brought before him who WAS guilty (rightly or wrongly) of a capital offence under Jewish Law, Jesus didn't condemn her, but rather drew her accusers' attention to their own shortcomings and failings before sending her away with the strong advice that she should put her life in order (John 8). But even then he didn't stand over her and force her to sort herself out.

I might also suggest that the proper thing for this killer to have done was to make an appointment to see the doctor, to explain his (the killer's) view of what the doctor was doing, to do all he could to persuade the doctor to stop carrying out abortions. If he believes that abortion is murder, and that murderers are under the judgment of God and that murderers who die unrepentant go straight to hell (which I think is exactly what he does believe), then he has no right to condemn a fellow human being to eternal damnation without seeking to do everything he can to save him from that fate. In one sense, on that basis, what he did to the doctor is infinitely worse than anything the doctor has done in any of the abortions he's performed over the years.

I know that all this is a different mind-set and world-view from anything you'd accept, TC. I've always been extremely uneasy about 'state' religion and institutionalised 'faith communities'. As soon as a man (or woman) decides that he or she can use the power of the state or community to enforce his or her religious (or irreligious, or even atheist views) on other people, we have trouble.

I don't want to get into a long discussion here, and I wish I'd kept out, frankly. I believe that Christ offers the peace and forgiveness and mercy of God to whoever asks for it - and that his authority for doing so rests in his death on the cross and his resurrection from death on the third day.

'Whoever' means 'anyone', regardless of what we've done, if we acknowledge our fault to God and ask his forgiveness and trust him and seek to live our lives his way. His way? Best quick reference, Matthew chapters 5,6,7. The master's own voice. That doesn't mean forcing anything on anyone - as far as I'm aware, God doesn't force anything on anyone either. Religious (and anti-religious) people, however, often do. And that's wrong.

Excellent post, thoughtful and wonderful.

[(((Fergus)))]

By the same level of logic an embyro hasn't fully developed whilst still in the womb so in theory isn't (yet) human either.

At this point it is classified as part of a woman's body, therefore it should be her decision.

Killing someone over thier own personal religious beliefs is basically why i like to have nothing to do with religion. I have my own beliefs, I tend to keep them to myself unless propmted to do otherwise, if I'm wrong I'm wrong - nobody is hurt in the process.

Not sure what point you're making here, Dinkydoo.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why lets facts get in the way of an argument.

According to Jewish, Islamic and Christian written tradition “Life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11) when blood enters the embryo on the 18th day after conception the heart begins to beat and life begins. According to this argument, there is an 18-day “grace period” when abortion should not be condemned.

Legally women rights to abortion are as follow:France: 12 weeks, Germany: 12 weeks, Italy: 13 weeks, Sweden: 18 weeks, UK: 24 weeks, US: limits after 26 weeks and Australia: No limit. You either believe in the rule of law or you don't.

I personally have always believed in abortion on demand, I have always been concerned with the rights of the born than the supposed rights of the unborn. It amazing reading the views of people who on other issues quite cheerful support the killing of innocent living people but get very upset on this issue, well it shows their priorities.

Does it say in the Bible that you can have an abortion up to 18 days after conception? I doubt it since there is no certain way of knowing the exact moment of conception, nor is there any easily available means of procuring an abortion in the way that there is an easily available means of achieving conception. Could it be that this 18-day idea is a combination of a literal interpretation of indirectly related Bible text (i.e., to do with blood) combined with more contemporary medical data acquired from the examination of dead foetuses?

AFAIK in Jewish law you can only have an abortion if the child is considered to be a threat to the life of the mother, i.e., she may die in childbirth. Contrary to most abortions that take place today, even this abortion is designed to promote life as the woman can have many more children in the time that a motherless child takes to reach maturity - assuming it survives without its mother.

[Dashing Bob S]

Does it say in the Bible that you can have an abortion up to 18 days after conception? I doubt it since there is no certain way of knowing the exact moment of conception, nor is there any easily available means of procuring an abortion in the way that there is an easily available means of achieving conception. Could it be that this 18-day idea is a combination of a literal interpretation of indirectly related Bible text (i.e., to do with blood) combined with more contemporary medical data acquired from the examination of dead foetuses?

AFAIK in Jewish law you can only have an abortion if the child is considered to be a threat to the life of the mother, i.e., she may die in childbirth. Contrary to most abortions that take place today, even this abortion is designed to promote life as the woman can have many more children in the time that a motherless child takes to reach maturity - assuming it survives without its mother.

That book is nonsense.

[Dashing Bob S]

Why lets facts get in the way of an argument.

According to Jewish, Islamic and Christian written tradition “Life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11) when blood enters the embryo on the 18th day after conception the heart begins to beat and life begins. According to this argument, there is an 18-day “grace period” when abortion should not be condemned.

Legally women rights to abortion are as follow:France: 12 weeks, Germany: 12 weeks, Italy: 13 weeks, Sweden: 18 weeks, UK: 24 weeks, US: limits after 26 weeks and Australia: No limit. You either believe in the rule of law or you don't.

I personally have always believed in abortion on demand, I have always been concerned with the rights of the born than the supposed rights of the unborn. It amazing reading the views of people who on other issues quite cheerful support the killing of innocent living people but get very upset on this issue, well it shows their priorities.

Took the words out of my mouth.:top marks

[Dinkydoo]

:top marks

Agreed


Not sure what point you're making here, Dinkydoo.


It was in response to you rightly stating that a cancer cell isn't human; but part of a Human.

My point was that at the lawful point of abortion the foetus is still a part of the women's body and hasn't fully developed yet so could be argued that it wasn't a Human........yet.

I said embryo by mistake initially.

[NAE NOOKIE]

As far as I can see the second an egg is fertilised it has no option other than to become a human being. Acts of nature notwithstanding.

In view of that, to say that an embryo isnt a life is only true in as much as it has no cognative abilities. It is inevitable that in a few short months it will have and so if you abort it you may not be taking a life but you are certainly stopping one.

In my opinion there are many situations where a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion. But having said that, the option to choose this course because a baby would be an inconvinience, or get in the way of a career etc is a pretty poor show.

But then I am not a woman and thankfully will never have to agonise over such a choice. thank goodness.

[lapsedhibee]

In the US, one of four doctors who perform late term abortions has been murdered. The man who killed him is in custody and has admitted killing him, yet he has the potential to leave court a free man after the judge in the case accepted a defence of necesity whereby he can argue that by killing the doctor he saved the lives of countless unborn babies.

Now convicted of murder.

[ArabHibee]

Now convicted of murder.
:clapper:

[Dinkydoo]

Now convicted of murder.

Justice! :thumbsup: