Murder of abortion provider George Tiller

[otseng]

http://www.kansas.com/946/story/834444.html

With one bullet, a gunman ended the life and the controversial career of abortion doctor George Tiller, killing him as he stood in the foyer of his church Sunday.

Tiller, 67, was shot once just after 10 a.m. Sunday as he stood in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church, 7601 E. 13th St., where he was serving as an usher. The gunman threatened to shoot two men who tried to apprehend him.

Although Wichita police would not name the suspect, the Johnson County Sheriff's Office identified him as Scott P. Roeder, according to the Associated Press.

For debate:
Was Roeder justified in killing Tiller?

[bernee51]

It isn't wrong because the foetus is a full human being and entitled to the same legal rights,...

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

...it's wrong because the relationship a good parent is supposed to have to her child is cut off by abortion, ...

Perhaps the 'relationship' was never 'good'?

....and often for reasons of convenience (which I find repugnant).

Perhaps the convcenience was the likelihood of the child (or other children)starving to death

I can understand if it's like the situation in Brazil a couple of months ago where the mother was probably going to die if she carried the foeti to term and the foeti would not have survived in any case, ...

And what of the case of the child who was raped and impregnated by by her (step?)father? Should she have abortion avialable to her?

...and I'm not about to take an absolutist line against abortion,/...

You opening line seems rather absolutist.

..... but neither am I going to take up the position that abortion should be available as an absolute right (without consideration of other responsibilities).

What absolute right have you got to dictate to others on what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

[MagusYanam]

Yeah, see, this is exactly why I don't like discussing abortion much. The discussion in the wider society has gotten so polarised that someone with views like mine is daemonised from one side as a baby-killer and from the other as a tyrannical misogynist who sees women as 'incubators', or as an 'absolutist'.

To start with, kayky, the government interferes in all our lives to some extent regarding what our responsibilities are with regard our own bodies (for example, wearing seat belts, not driving drunk and not smoking in certain places), and I generally don't take issue with any of those. The analogy in this case is limited because I don't think another person's life is at stake in abortion beside's the mother's - rather something else of moral weight is (as per virtue ethics). Because I don't think abortion is murder, I don't think the government can or should ban it, but they should do everything else in their power to discourage it, as in the 95-10 plan and the PWSA.

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

Perhaps the 'relationship' was never 'good'?

I don't pretend that all relationships are good - most we can do is try. But I think that people have certain prima facie moral obligations to their own family that they don't to people outside of their family, as per what we may see as behaviour definitive of a 'good parent'. (Maybe that's the Confucian influence on me, though.)

Perhaps the convcenience was the likelihood of the child (or other children)starving to death

Which is why I support changing the boundary conditions of the society and economy along the lines of the 95-10 plan.

And what of the case of the child who was raped and impregnated by by her (step?)father? Should she have abortion avialable to her?

That was the case I was talking about. And yes - abortion in her case (even if I thought foeti were people) could be considered self-defence.

You opening line seems rather absolutist.

Then you weren't reading carefully enough.

What absolute right have you got to dictate to others on what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Was I trying?

[bernee51]

Yeah, see, this is exactly why I don't like discussing abortion much. The discussion in the wider society has gotten so polarised that someone with views like mine is daemonised from one side as a baby-killer and from the other as a tyrannical misogynist who sees women as 'incubators', or as an 'absolutist'.

Taking any position on any issue automatically brings the possibility of being painted as being at one pole or another.

For some reason 'you are either with me or against me' is assumed.

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

Perhaps the 'relationship' was never 'good'?

I don't pretend that all relationships are good - most we can do is try. But I think that people have certain prima facie moral obligations to their own family that they don't to people outside of their family, as per what we may see as behaviour definitive of a 'good parent'. (Maybe that's the Confucian influence on me, though.)

It is not possible then to devise a law that can see behind every closed door.

Perhaps the convcenience was the likelihood of the child (or other children)starving to death

Which is why I support changing the boundary conditions of the society and economy along the lines of the 95-10 plan.

Yes - an interesting proposition (from what I have read of it). How is it going to pan out in Zimbabwe?

You opening line seems rather absolutist.

Then you weren't reading carefully enough.

I often don't... obviously the way I interpreted your "...because the foetus is a full human being and entitled to the same legal rights..." was in error.

What absolute right have you got to dictate to others on what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Was I trying?

It surprised me that you appeared to be.

Again I was making assumptions from a hastily read post - apologies.

[Goat]

To start with, kayky, the government interferes in all our lives to some extent regarding what our responsibilities are with regard our own bodies (for example, wearing seat belts, not driving drunk and not smoking in certain places), and I generally don't take issue with any of those. The analogy in this case is limited because I don't think another person's life is at stake in abortion beside's the mother's - rather something else of moral weight is (as per virtue ethics). Because I don't think abortion is murder, I don't think the government can or should ban it, but they should do everything else in their power to discourage it, as in the 95-10 plan and the PWSA.

I see no problem with that.. I think it is overly optomistic.. but the direction is the proper way to attempt it.

A key part is

Preventing pregnancy is an important part of reducing the abortion rate in America. There are several ways to address prevention, but there is no clear consensus because of ethical, religious or personal reasons.


Preventing pregnancy. You will not get the 95% reduction as long as there are people out there that push 'abstinence only'. That is just not a realistic approach

[MagusYanam]

Whooops! Drat - that's a 'my bad'. Sorry, bernee51.

I should have made clearer that I don't consider a foetus a person in my original post. Sorry about that - I can see how you might think my position was far different than it was if that was the going assumption.

It would be contradictory of me to take the stance that a foetus is a person, but that killing it would not be murder...

[otseng]

At what stage in gestation does the foetus become a 'full human being'?

If pressed on the issue, I would argue that it is not until a baby is able to understand some form of language with explicit lexical content that it attains the full status of personhood with all the rights due to it. But that would take far too long to explain here.

I am tending toward a detemination based on when the complex neo-cortex develops to a stage where it supports self aware consciousness.

Excellent question. I started a thread on this: At what stage does the foetus become a person?

[kayky]

Yeah, see, this is exactly why I don't like discussing abortion much. The discussion in the wider society has gotten so polarised that someone with views like mine is daemonised from one side as a baby-killer and from the other as a tyrannical misogynist who sees women as 'incubators', or as an 'absolutist'.

To start with, kayky, the government interferes in all our lives to some extent regarding what our responsibilities are with regard our own bodies (for example, wearing seat belts, not driving drunk and not smoking in certain places), and I generally don't take issue with any of those. The analogy in this case is limited because I don't think another person's life is at stake in abortion beside's the mother's - rather something else of moral weight is (as per virtue ethics). Because I don't think abortion is murder, I don't think the government can or should ban it, but they should do everything else in their power to discourage it, as in the 95-10 plan and the PWSA.

Arguments can be made that seatbelt or smoking laws are justified because of the cost of the subsequent damages to society. We all pay through higher insurance rates and government programs. The same argument cannot be made regarding abortion. This is only a case of governmental interference in an individual's reproductive choices. Doing "everything in their power" to discourage abortion can become a virtual ban. I don't think you're a misogynist, I just think you're a man and have no idea how disruptive and physically trying even a wanted pregnancy can be. Women absolutely must have the right to decide if they want to submit their bodies to the ordeal or not.

[Jonah]

The peril of this kind of discussion/debate is that it so easily goes from a very fine specific issue to a much broader...to the point you end up debating all forms of abortion at any point in pregnancy.

To get back to Tiller. No, we don't want vigilante justice. No.

The question of whether Tiller was doing something wrong with late term abortions is another question.

My reading of his specific practice turns up that some of his late term abortions were in the context of a mother's health/fetus's health....and some were purely elective...and some involved not so serious health issues/risks.

The other thing I stumbled into were photos of one mother and her dead fetus which Tiller arranged as a grief counseling method. After the abortion, the mother can spend time with her baby and have their picture taken as a therapeutic separation experience. The mother who released these photos is a person who now regrets going through this process with Tiller. She aborted the baby due to a medical condition which she now deems not worthy of abortion. She went on to conceive and deliver a subsequent child who had the same condition.

It would be a "choice" to make these late term oddities legal. It would not be my choice.

[MagusYanam]

Arguments can be made that seatbelt or smoking laws are justified because of the cost of the subsequent damages to society. We all pay through higher insurance rates and government programs. The same argument cannot be made regarding abortion. This is only a case of governmental interference in an individual's reproductive choices. Doing "everything in their power" to discourage abortion can become a virtual ban.

Well, in the former cases, it isn't just the cost of the subsequent damages to society. People die from second-hand smoke, accidents with drunk drivers and not wearing seatbelts; they die because someone made a bad decision, and the society pays for it in more than just insurance rates. I'm definitely of the opinion that there must be reasonable limits to privacy and individual liberty in the interest of public safety and welfare.

With regard to the second part of the argument, I'm going to break it down a bit. I agree with you that the same argument cannot be made regarding abortion, at least on the direct level since I'm working under the position that what dies in abortion is not a person. But becoming pregnant does usually involve more than one person and more than one relationship (not in the same way, I realise); but something else is at stake besides an individual choice whether or not to reproduce.

I don't think you're a misogynist, I just think you're a man and have no idea how disruptive and physically trying even a wanted pregnancy can be. Women absolutely must have the right to decide if they want to submit their bodies to the ordeal or not.

If by 'have no idea', you mean that I am physically incapable of having that experience and am only able to deal with issues regarding pregnancy on a conceptual or second-hand basis, I agree. I do have co-workers and students who have had unplanned pregnancies and I try to listen respectfully - I don't talk at them and I don't judge them (I can't).

I am aware, however, that on the broader scale we as a society don't really discuss 'rights' very well. This is particularly the case with gun rights, privacy rights and property rights, but I worry that it carries over into other discourses as well. I don't think the common weal has been well-served as a whole by people (mostly economically-secure white men, I've noticed) insisting on having their own inviolable atomistic little bubbles within which they are free to do anything they please, without having any discussion about what the relevant social responsibilities are.

So, here - do women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies? They do and should, absolutely. In this case, the right to reproductive autonomy has been hard-fought. But the society (government, NGOs and community organisations) should give women every recourse to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and make the necessary provision for supporting them (health-care wise) if they do face pregnancy.

[kayky]

Well, in the former cases, it isn't just the cost of the subsequent damages to society. People die from second-hand smoke, accidents with drunk drivers and not wearing seatbelts; they die because someone made a bad decision, and the society pays for it in more than just insurance rates. I'm definitely of the opinion that there must be reasonable limits to privacy and individual liberty in the interest of public safety and welfare.

Of course it's more than insurance rates--especially if they leave dependents behind. Or if they become disabled--who pays the bills? I'm not trying to sound crass--I just saying that these are legitimate societal concerns.

With regard to the second part of the argument, I'm going to break it down a bit. I agree with you that the same argument cannot be made regarding abortion, at least on the direct level since I'm working under the position that what dies in abortion is not a person. But becoming pregnant does usually involve more than one person and more than one relationship (not in the same way, I realise); but something else is at stake besides an individual choice whether or not to reproduce.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

If by 'have no idea', you mean that I am physically incapable of having that experience and am only able to deal with issues regarding pregnancy on a conceptual or second-hand basis, I agree. I do have co-workers and students who have had unplanned pregnancies and I try to listen respectfully - I don't talk at them and I don't judge them (I can't).

I am aware, however, that on the broader scale we as a society don't really discuss 'rights' very well. This is particularly the case with gun rights, privacy rights and property rights, but I worry that it carries over into other discourses as well. I don't think the common weal has been well-served as a whole by people (mostly economically-secure white men, I've noticed) insisting on having their own inviolable atomistic little bubbles within which they are free to do anything they please, without having any discussion about what the relevant social responsibilities are.

It's more difficult to discuss the pros and cons of a particular issue if it involves you personally. It's much more difficult to be objective when it's your rights on the line. I'm not just speaking as a woman here. I'm speaking as the mother of a daughter who just happens to be the same age as you...

So, here - do women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies? They do and should, absolutely. In this case, the right to reproductive autonomy has been hard-fought. But the society (government, NGOs and community organisations) should give women every recourse to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and make the necessary provision for supporting them (health-care wise) if they do face pregnancy.

That sounds reasonable as long as any "provision" does not become an impediment.