The Five-Year Abortion

[Pepper]

Pepper,
What is elective about "detrimental to the pregnant woman's health"? Either it is "obviously harmful : DAMAGING" or it's "permitting a choice : OPTIONAL".

When a woman finds out that the pregnancy could cause her health problems, she can then decide to have a late-term abortion legally.

Do i really need to repeat what I said in the last post? It is elective because the mother chooses to have this procedure. But it can only be done late term if it is fround that continuing with the pregnancy is potential detrimental to the woman's health. If this is a risk however, the woman is not required to have the abortion which is why they say elective.

It's not the detrimental to the pregnant woman's health that is elective, it's the abortion that is elective, but can only be preformed if the pregnancy is found to be harmful.

When did this turn into arguing semantics?

Once again, all I'm saying is that he is not breaking any kansas state laws.

 

[Nineveh]

When a woman finds out that the pregnancy could cause her health problems, she can then decide to have a late-term abortion legally.

If your life was at risk, would you go to a clinic or a hospital?

It is elective because the mother chooses to have this procedure.

Chooses to have this "life saving" proceedure. Even though we have established with pictures even, the life of the mother does not have to be "at risk" to murder a late term baby. The only thing you can hang your hat on is tiller the killer has to approve the murder before he commits it.

BTW... "health at risk" can mean just about anything.

It's not the detrimental to the pregnant woman's health that is elective, it's the abortion that is elective, but can only be preformed if the pregnancy is found to be harmful.

We have seen pics of a baby that was not putting her mother's life in danger. But we will ignore all that so you can make your point. Anyway... What's detrimental to the pregnant woman's health is going to see tiller. Or shall we also ignore the emergency room trip of one such person as well?

Once again, all I'm saying is that he is not breaking any kansas state laws.

The only time I have ever seen the act of abortion be put on trial is when a man does it himself bypassing the murder tax collected by the likes of tiller and plannedbarrenhood. Approving a late term abortion on reasons of "health risk" is... well, I guess you and I won't see eye to eye on this.

 

[Pepper]

I never approved late-term abortions, I only said that he wasn't breaking any laws. I stated the kansas state laws and you ignored them. Tiller doesn't have to approve it, a physician not affiliated with Tiller's clinic needs to.

It doesn't matter if we see eye to eye or not. The only thing I'm saying over and over again is that he's not breaking any laws.

If you want to stop abortion, don't go after the abortion clinics...be active in changing the laws, not going "tiller the killer, tiller the killer, blah blah blah", write to congress, do what you can to get the laws changed. Until the laws change, he's not doing anything legally wrong.

 

[Nineveh]

Look, the guy uses the same loose definitions of "health risk" that "justifies" 99.9 % of all other murders.

 

[death2impiety]

Until the laws change, he's not doing anything legally wrong.

Are you saying that you agree with and stand by the law as an infallible identity?

He's saying:

"tiller the killer, tiller the killer, blah blah blah",

Because this is something that strikes him emotionally, when someone is angered they tend to get vocal, I'm sure you're no stranger to this.

So yeah, the law allows Tiller to murder children. Aren't you more concerned with the idea that these murders are neatly packaged under a veil of ignorance and apathy in such a way that a human being (you) would argue: "well...its legal." Legality doesn't mean much when the law is wrong.

Also, you mentioned that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm having trouble finding the second wrong in this equation...

Murder(wrong)+Justice(right or wrong?)=right
Choose justice to be wrong if you must, but I see it a different way.

 

[Pepper]

*sigh* Ok, let me say this one more time: I never said I agreed with what he was doing. I said he is doing nothing legally wrong, he is not breaking any laws. That's all.

 

[Pepper]

Are you saying that you agree with and stand by the law as an infallible identity?

He's saying:



Because this is something that strikes him emotionally, when someone is angered they tend to get vocal, I'm sure you're no stranger to this.

So yeah, the law allows Tiller to murder children. Aren't you more concerned with the idea that these murders are neatly packaged under a veil of ignorance and apathy in such a way that a human being (you) would argue: "well...its legal." Legality doesn't mean much when the law is wrong.

Also, you mentioned that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm having trouble finding the second wrong in this equation...

Murder(wrong)+Justice(right or wrong?)=right
Choose justice to be wrong if you must, but I see it a different way.

When I said two wrongs don't make a right, I was talking about something completely off topic, if you're going to say something about what I wrote, please actually read what I wrote and read the entire thread and take it in context.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

When I said two wrongs don't make a right, I was talking about something completely off topic, if you're going to say something about what I wrote, please actually read what I wrote and read the entire thread and take it in context.

I've read the entire thread, as well as your post in context, and I'm wondering the same thing death2impiety is wondering. Where's this second wrong you're talking about? I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death. Perhaps you do.

 

[Pepper]

I've read the entire thread, as well as your post in context, and I'm wondering the same thing death2impiety is wondering. Where's this second wrong you're talking about? I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death. Perhaps you do.

Yes, for the record, I do. I see something wrong with taking the life away from anyone. But the death penalty is not what this thread is about.

 

[Caille]

It is wrong for a person to take a life unjustly which is why God gave the commandment of "Thou shalt not murder" to Moses. If he meant never kill under any circumstances whatsoever, He wouldn't give the many instances where He requires that a person be put to death for committing certain crimes.

When's the last time you picketed to have those who work on the Sabbath put to death?




Hypocrite

 

[Caille]

I've read the entire thread, as well as your post in context, and I'm wondering the same thing death2impiety is wondering. Where's this second wrong you're talking about? I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death. Perhaps you do.

Even if he isn't legally a murderer? Are you advocating vigilantism?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Even if he isn't legally a murderer? Are you advocating vigilantism?

I advocate changing the law to recognize abortionists as murderers.

 

[Caille]

I advocate changing the law to recognize abortionists as murderers.

Very slippery - but you said "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death" in connection to a person who is not legally a murderer.

Confused?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Very slippery - but you said "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death" in connection to a person who is not legally a murderer.

Confused?

No. Are you?

 

[Caille]

No. Are you?

Only in this regard -

either you were referring to Tiller, who is not legally a murderer, in which case your statement "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death" appears to be advocating vigilantism,

or

You were not referring to Tiller with your statement "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death", in which case it was a statement unrelated to the discussion.


You have the opportunity to clear up any confusion that you have created. Go for it!

 

[Crow]

When's the last time you picketed to have those who work on the Sabbath put to death?




Hypocrite

Christians are not under the Law.

Ignoramus.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I think the answer to abortion is simple.

Ban it. It is morally wrong. As far as I am concerned, it is legalised murder. It is sick. I am 100% anti-abortion. And, yet, I am a liberal left winger!

Abortion isn't about politics. It's about the murder of one human by another, in accordance with the laws of a land, which should make abortion illegal. However, in the eyes of God, it is wrong.

What's more, as for abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Well, I think that for Christians, we need to trust God that the right thing will happen. Then again, we can't enforce a church-state. I think, therefore, that if someone is a non-Christian, and the mother's life is in danger, maybe abortion is ok. But only in those circumstances.

Pete

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Only in this regard -

either you were referring to Tiller, who is not legally a murderer, in which case your statement "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death" appears to be advocating vigilantism,

or

You were not referring to Tiller with your statement "I don't see anything wrong with putting a murderer to death", in which case it was a statement unrelated to the discussion.


You have the opportunity to clear up any confusion that you have created. Go for it!

You've created your own confusion. Figure it out yourself.

 

[firechyld]

Ninevah:

Oh, and from tiller the killer's own website:

"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable."

Weird. I've never before seen an advertisement for a clinic that used the name of one doctor, rather than the clinic itself, as the url.

Have you?

Do i really need to repeat what I said in the last post? It is elective because the mother chooses to have this procedure. But it can only be done late term if it is fround that continuing with the pregnancy is potential detrimental to the woman's health. If this is a risk however, the woman is not required to have the abortion which is why they say elective.

I must say, that's how the legislation in Australia (well, NSW) is stated. And it means the same thing.

An elective abortion is any abortion requested by a woman, even for reasons of health and safety. As long as she can elect not to have it, it's labelled elective.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Ninevah:



Weird. I've never before seen an advertisement for a clinic that used the name of one doctor, rather than the clinic itself, as the url.

Have you?

I have. It depends on which one is more popular: the clinic or the physician. Is Dr. Killer's case, the physician is more popular.