What Exactly Were These Abortions Dr. Tiller Performed?

crustee
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 12:09 pm: [report]

Dear US Supreme Court,

Please stay out of my uterus.

Kindly,
crustee

EastCoastMale
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 01:44 pm: [report]

I have a question….

when I first saw the article the day it was posted, no lie, it said his name was Dr killer. I am not making this up or intending it to be a joke. Was it originally posted that way and the site made the person change it?

(this was in reference to the original piece, not this one)

snap
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 01:47 pm: [report]

Dear US Supreme Court,

Thanks for protecting my children.

Amelia
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]

@EastCoastMale I posted the piece—it was a typo and it was up for about, oh, five minutes before I fixed it. Obviously, an uncomfortable typo.

Kathls
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 01:51 pm: [report]

@crustee:  I second that!  motion passed!

EastCoastMale
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 01:57 pm: [report]

was just curious Amelia…didn’t mean anything by it I know that you arent the type to post off the wall things like that

moonblossom
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]

@um no….I assume you survived the birth of your children. And I assume your children were born as functional humans with working organs….not human shapes with fluid where a brain should have formed during gestation. Hmmmm. Lucky you. Were all women so lucky life would be just peachy, wouldn’t it?

I, for one, prefer Sam Alito and Antonin Scalia stay the hell out of my uterous.

retro chic
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]

I’m def pro-choice, but read this article with a lump in my throat and my knees weak. I guess I want better info on what subjective/objective criteria constitutes “at risk” (for either baby or mother), regardless of the low frequency of such abortions. The methods don’t just sound brutal, they *are.* I hope they’re exploring better methods, too. Until then, I’m therefore relieved I have the *option to choose* not to have this procedure.

Equally disturbing, I do not condone an-eye-for-an-eye vigilanteism against Dr. Tiller. The hypocrites behind these killings are “doing god’s work” and are glorified bullies and sore-losers. Most religions advise their parishioners to “live by the laws of the land,” as well as god’s. Alas, the rules/laws don’t seem to apply to them. Just like when their choice for Prez doesn’t get in—out comes the crazy talk and guns—all in the name of god.

Jennifer Jacobs
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 04:48 pm: [report]

Late Term abortions are particularly disturbing because after 22-25 weeks the baby is fully capable of living outside the womb without Mom.  Doctors in the UK have recommended measures to reduce the baby’s pain during the abortion.

Unfortunately, what passes as health concerns are not always clear cut.  My friend, a perinatalogist (high risk specialist) has never seen a case (40,000+ cases) where abortion was necessary to save a Mom’s life or preserve her health (induced early labor with a living baby - yes rarely necessary but never abortion) and she has seen plenty of cases where a baby was aborted because the gender was not preferred (boys are desired most often) or the family didn’t want to deal with a handicapped baby (perhaps we should just kill all handicapped children?).  In fact she has adopted three of the handicapped babies that her patients wanted to kill.

She presented me with the following…What would you suggest in the following situation?
A women has tuberculosis, and the father has syphilis. 
Together they had four children.
Their first child was born blind…
The second child was stillborn…
The third child was deaf & dumb…
and their fourth was born with tuberculosis.
They’re now pregnant with their fifth child.
Would you recommend that they abort this child?

Congratulations, you have just aborted Beethoven….how many Beethovens, Mozarts, Bob Dylans, John Lennons,John F. Kennedys, Martin Luther King Jrs and Barack Obamas have we lost to abortion (almost 50 percent of abortions are blacks and minority children)...something to think about after more than 40 million US abortions since 1973 (planned parenthood and AGI statistics)...???

marv3mania
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 05:33 pm: [report]

In my opinion, Carhart was wrongly decided, but that’s because the Court misapplied the means-ends review. Anyway, the Carhart Court did maintain that even bans on late-term abortions MUST include exceptions for when going to term would endanger the life or health of the mother. In fact, that is the post-viability standard for all anti-abortion statutes. Pre-viability, the state cannot place an undue burden on the woman’s right to choose, meaning that it’s almost impossible for a state to prevent a woman for obtaining a pre-viability abortion. The Supreme Court adopted that standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So to those of you saying “Court, stay out of my uterus”: it’s the Court who’s keeping the government out of your uterus.

Jessica
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 05:56 pm: [report]

I agree that these types of abortion sound pretty gruesome, but I still believe women should have the option to make decisions about their own health for themselves.

aries3_04
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 05:57 pm: [report]

@ Jennifer Jacobs,

Can you give a direct, non-biased citation (a weblink) for that statistic that 1/2 of all aborted children are black/minorities?

Fla_girl
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 06:50 pm: [report]

@JenniferJacobs… one you come across ignorant, I believe the term “deaf and dumb” went out of favor in oh the 1960’s as well as handicapped.

I highly doubt your “friend” if the person is real, has adopted 4 of her patients children, sounds like a huge moral conflict of interest, I’m sure they would have been investigated heavily by socail services as this seems more than extreme.

Further, the statistics you cite sound like they came out of your extreme christian handbook. Please cite concrete sources….

Capriccio72
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 07:21 pm: [report]

@ Jennifer Jacobs, also:
I’ve heard the Beethovan statement over and over again, but, can any rational, modern person actually state that the lives of the people who lived in those times were better than where we are now??  Are we as a society supposed to go back to poor health, no choices,  etc.???  Your argument is that we should be so that we have another Beethovan or the like, but, currently, we do have great talent and intellect.  And I personally sleep better at night when I know that the people who are in this world were wanted and the woman/mother CHOSE to have/carry them/take on that responsibility as opposed to regretting with bitterness, etc. 
Back to the topic at hand, though;  I had my tubes tied many years ago, so I really don’t need to be fighting for any pro-choice rights, I just sincerely believe it is better to have that choice than not(for so many reasons I can’t outline them all, here).  I do feel Dr. Tiller’s death is a tragedy and believe that even though there are MANY more choices in birth-control than there were when I was in my 20’s and able to conceive, the right should still exist and I do believe that we should have a better (Retro Chic) method at this point, but understand that with all the hate and obstacles generated from Pro-lifers this may not be easily attained or impossible any time soon.

Shasta
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 07:46 pm: [report]

The Frisky typically provides a rational view to topics, but this discussion serves to highlight that abortion is a lightning rod everywhere.

I live in Chicago and see the things desperate women do to their children. Abortion isn’t the answer, but sometimes it’s a better alternative than the suffering I see unwanted children endure.

Having said that, I also believe late-term abortion is gruesome and unnecessary; however, many believe its outlaw would lead to the elimination of all reproductive choice.

From the Guttmacher Institue:
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

37% percent of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.

sam04
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 08:29 pm: [report]

@umno:  “Thanks for protecting my children”?  For real?  The whole pro-choice argument is that you have the right to make reproductive CHOICES.

LadieBug
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 08:36 pm: [report]

Or the woman could have the baby and put it up for adoption…  There are SO many couples that want to adopt because they can’t have their own biological children.  I am not at a place in my life that I am ready to have children, but if something did happen that I got pregnant, I would totally give the baby up for adoption.  Sure it would be hard, but it’s better than having the baby sucked out of you.

puck
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 09:12 pm: [report]

@LadieBug: Really? You know some of these “many couples” that want to adopt American babies? How about the kids sitting in foster homes their entire lives because they were “too old” to be adoption desirable. Or how often American couples go to another country to adopt because the system here takes too long and/or will not allow some couples to adopt.

Please. Come back with that argument when you’ve adopted or know anything about the system.

hanabira
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 04:16 am: [report]

to go through such a horrific procedure just shows how dire the alternative is. if these were “silly” women taking their decisions on abortion lightly there’s no way they would have waited that long to abort. clearly something would have to be terribly wrong to put yourself through that, and i think its important to try and understand what people could be going through…

friskyman68
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 05:46 am: [report]

they are only illegal for the purposes of birth control.  To save the life of the mother, they are still permitted.

LadieBug
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 11:40 am: [report]

@Hanabira,

First, I never said that I was against abortion; I just said that I wouldn’t do it.  I had a best friend who aborted her baby.

Second, I would NEVER judge someone for what choices they made in their lives.  Obviously it would be hard for them to abort the baby, and it would be just as hard to give the baby to another family.

Third, I know of one couple that could not have children and wanted ANY child to raise as their own, but as you said, the adoption system in North America takes too long.  Your quote is below, and I agree with you 100% that the North American adoption rules are absolutely absurd:

“Or how often American couples go to another country to adopt because the system here takes too long and/or will not allow some couples to adopt.”

Also, I know two single women who just want a child to love, but since they are single it is much harder for them to adopt a child.  If I end up single I hope the adoption rules change so that it is easier for single women to adopt.  One woman that I know was considering faking being a lesbian because she wanted to make a child’s life better so that they had a permanent home.

Many couples end up splitting up after naturally having their children and have one is responsible to raise the child.  I believe that one parent can raise a child just as well as two parents, if not better since there is more pressure to have the child well behaved, etc.

hanabira
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 01:42 pm: [report]

@LadieBug

i think your referencing and replying to puck

LadieBug
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 01:44 pm: [report]

Oops!!  I’m sorry!!  It looked different in the e-mail I received…

marv3mania
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]

@LadieBug, pointing out examples of how difficult the adoption process is supports the beliefs of those who would rather have an abortion than put a child into the system. Putting more kids up for adoption doesn’t make it any easier for the people who do want to adopt to actually find a child to adopt. And unfortunately, the number of kids in the system far outweighs the number of people actively seeking an adoption. While I will certainly support (and possibly even encourage) a woman who chooses to go to term and put her child up for adoption rather than opt for an abortion, that doesn’t change the fact that those decisions further stress an already overburdened system.

LadieBug
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]

@Marv…

I was pointing out that the system should be changed - which is a totally different topic…  Personally I don’t believe that the system would be overburdened if those who desperately wanted an opportunity to love the child could.  A single woman could be a better parent that a couple that is looking for a child.

Two parents do not make a home for a child, it is the love they receive from the parental figure.  A single parent could provide a better atmosphere for a child than a couple.

As I said before, I do not judge someone if they decide to get an abortion, but I do believe that it should be done before the second or third trimester.  Everyone is different and has their views on abortion - which to everyone is a sticky subject.

kimba999
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 08:57 am: [report]

These comments about how wrong abortion is show a huge ignorance about late-term abortion and Dr. Tiller in particular. Most people who have late term abortions do so because the fetus is so severely deformed, it would not survive for long once born. Please do some research on anencephaly, for example. Dr. Tiller did not perform these late abortions unless there was no chance of the child being viable. Most of the time, these are planned and wanted pregnancies - which is why they are aborted so late term. One could argue, I suppose, that the mother should just let the child be born and then die. Some do exactly that. If I were in that situation, I wouldn’t want to continue to carry a fetus to term (perhaps for another two months!)that I knew would be born without a brain and would die within a short time and that the hospital would be obligated to put on life support. Dr. Tiller was a brave man who performed a service for heart broken parents that few others have the courage to do. He dedicated his life to help these people and was murdered because of it.

Laineylew
wrote on June 3 2009 @ 11:33 pm: [report]

@Fla_girl
Thank you for pointing out the misuse of the term deaf & dumb.
I was mortified by her post, full of misguiding statistics and babble.
@ Kimba.
Thank you for giving clear information and guidelines for these types of procedures.

brandyalexander
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 01:08 pm: [report]

What I would like to point out to the vehemently pro-life types is that CHOICE cuts both ways.  It is a CHOICE to be able to have an abortion, just as it is a choice to be able to have children.  In some countries (Ireland), the choice of abortion is restricted.  In others (China), the choice to have more than one child is restricted.
Both are anti-choice.  When someone else is controlling your reproduction, either way, its a bad thing.
I’d also like to add that this whole partial-birth thing is gruesome and sad.  OBviosly.  No one WANTS to have to go through that.  There are good reasons why this procedure is so very rarely performed.  Fundamentalists would like us to think they are rampantly performed on women who are eager to go out and get pregnant again just so they can come back for another one.  The website http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com has stories from women who have ACTUALLY had to make this decision.  Let’s all have a little empathy, shall we?

Sonic
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 07:09 am: [report]

Maybe if late-term abortions were more acceptable and legal, then people could find ways to make it less “gruesome.”  Why would scientists and researchers devote time to finding out ways to do something more acceptably when it’s such a touchy subject and legally tricky? 

I agree with kimba999: Late-term abortions are usually for planned pregnancies and it is not an easily-made decision because I am sure those women hoped very badly for a healthy child.

I have always hated the “Well, what if you had aborted X-amazing person?” argument because one can easily fire back with “Well, what if the fetus becomes a serial killer?” or some other equally horrific future.  Neither argument is a convincing case for or against choice.   

If you don’t trust women with choice, with the power to control our own reproduction, how can you trust us to raise children?  It makes no sense to me.

brandyalexander
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 10:54 am: [report]

Sorry, the word “gruesome” was probably a poor choice.  What I mean to get accross to pro-lifers is that abortion is always a sad decision.  Maybe we could work together on ways to reduce abotions (better sex ed, cheaper birth control, more affordable childcare, less stigma for single parents), as well as refine the procedure like Sonic says.  Fighting and simplistic arguing (like the Beethoven thing, which is first of all illogical, and secondly, has almost no historical merit) are surefire ways to derail ANY kind of progress.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]

I think its the parents’ right to decide not to bring a pregnancy to full term if the fetus is severely deformed or will die upon birth, or if the health of the mother is at risk. That a decision I trust them to make for themselves.

And @brandyalexander I agree with your latest comment about how there are better ways to reduce the kinds of abortions more likely to happen in earlier trimesters. I like how the Obama administration has been focusing on areas where antichoicers and prochoicers have “common ground,” i.e. preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

reticentdiarist
wrote on June 5 2009 @ 07:01 pm: [report]

I had an abortion and I am living with the consequences. No one who gets an abortion makes that decision lightly; and the one who has to live with the decision should be person who gets to CHOOSE no matter how late.

It was hard for me to abort at ten weeks—I can only imagine the agony of choosing to terminate at a later time.  Whatever the reasons that lead a woman to terminate a pregnancy, they are valid reasons and none of anyone’s business.

loveitlala
wrote on June 6 2009 @ 09:22 pm: [report]

@Jennifer Jacobs… inducing <24 weeks = abortion.  The baby will not survive.  People don’t focus on this because you’re giving drugs to start labor and not pulling the fetus out, but it’s the same damn thing.  No one talks about because thank god people who aren’t in medicine don’t and won’t ever get it.  The less people know about what really happens in medicine the better.  Suffering and death are way more complicated than we all like to let on and they aren’t things that can be regulated in Washington.

IAMME
wrote on June 8 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]

Someone said they didn’t need to be in this arguement bc they had had a tubal ligation….While that it a very good birth control option with a extremely low failure rate, there is still a failure rate therefore even if you have had a tubal ligation, are on the pill, the patch, the shot, have an IUD, have a partner with a vasectomy, religiously use condoms, or any other birth control method you are still at risk for having to make this choice (assuming of course you have sex).

Also the link that provided minority abortion statistics, I realize the site is specific to induced abortions as opposed to spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) but the way that sentence and the ones near it are worded make me question weather the site makers included all abortions in those statistics…...

Also in addition to decreasing unwanted pregnancies, wouldnt better pre-pre-natal care for ALL women reduce the incidence of not only 1st and 2nd trimester abortions but also the rate of late term abortions? How many of these severely deformed pregnancies could have been prevented with pre pregnancy intervention?

I have been faced with this decision and struggled very hard with the choice, i did choose to continue the pregnancy and have abeautiful daughter, but I am very thankful that I did have a choice and would never want that choice taken away from my daughters.

Biologist
wrote on June 17 2009 @ 12:41 am: [report]

Just to add to the something else to the discussion:

I am a single male, who does want to have children.  When do I get my say?  I understand the complications here, it isn’t my body carrying the child-but thats not my fault!  I don’t get a choice at all.  Your uterus, your choice, but OUR child.  I won’t argue with abortions because of danger to the mother or the whole ‘diminished life capacity’ of the child, but I am completely against abortion as a form of birth control.  I think that most people agree, judging by the posts here, but I see some that appear to believe that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. I would be curious to know if any women who think that abortion is their choice to make(in cases where the child is healthy and poses no threat to the mother’s health) also would support that the father has the choice to support that child for the next 18 years?  Can he just say I am having a paternal abortion and walk away?  Does he get to drop all responsibility for his mistakenly getting someone pregnant?  Also, the reverse, I want a child but I am dating a girl who doesn’t.  We don’t have protected sex, she gets pregnant, and it is still completely her choice?  I know that is the part that scares me, and may scare other men who “selfishly” believe women should not be able to decide to have an abortion.  Just some male perspective—like I said, medical reasons for abortion I am not arguing against, just the use as a form of birth control.

lawyrgrl
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 08:24 pm: [report]

@Biologist - I know that I will get flack on this but no, you do not have a “say” unless she gives it to you.  Yes, that is harsh but it is the truth.  Unless she tells you of the pregnancy and allows your imput into her decision, there is simply nothing that you can do about her determination to carry the child to term or terminate the pregnancy.  I suggest that you wear a condom and request that your partner use reliable birth control as well.