One more thing to think about.

[catsittingstill]

For those on my f-list who are pro-Life but would make an exception in cases where a woman would be harmed by carrying a fetus to term.

Dr Tiller only did late-term abortions on women facing harm if they carried to term.

How do I know? Because that's the only circumstances under which late term abortions were allowed in his state. You may recall that Tiller was tried for being "too close" to a second physician who had to sign off on the abortions he did.

The second physician is supposed to validate whether the mother will face "substantial and irreversible" harm to "a major bodily function" without the abortion -- the lone times when a late-term abortion can be done legally. Lifenews.com

(I picked Lifenews because they're pro-Life so they have no reason to try to make Dr Tiller, or laws permitting abortion, sound more reasonable than they actually are.  Hopefully you're comfortable with the choice.)

Now, first, the trial verified that he wasn't, in fact, in a position to influence that second physician's determination and was therefore operating legally.  And second, and mostly, he was only allowed, by the laws of his state, to perform late-term abortions on women who were in serious danger, as determined by not one, but two, independent doctors.

So, I don't understand what more a reasonable pro-life person could want.  Do you not believe that these abortions were conducted only because they were medically necessary, despite these precautions?  If not, how do you propose to eliminate late term abortions where a healthy woman wants a healthy fetus aborted while still retaining the option of late term abortion for women who are in danger?

If we are ever to come to any kind of common ground, it would honestly be helpful to know.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Worse. It's about keeping uppity women in their place. In the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant with the sons that will rise up and take over the world in the name of GAWWWWD!

There *is* *no* *common* *ground* for these people. You either is, or you ain't. (Breaking grammar for emphasis, as I often do.) Abortion (for them) is an ABOMINATION before the LORD and to be stamped out at all costs. Even the mother's.

Bastards.

There are a *few* people out there that don't believe in it but also don't believe in forcing it on others. Neal Boortz used to be one of them; I don't know whether that view has slid along the rest of him... (I know his view on drugs hasn't, much to the apoplexy of the likes of Hannity and the glee of Colmes :) :) :) They don't belong to much of any organization, because their views are so rare.

Personally? I'd go back to outfits like the Dave Thomas Foundation. Their political view is that adoption ought to be easier than it is. Nothing is ever said about the hot-button issue.

But, yeah. Common ground? It's what they make their coffee out of. Ptui. Pleah. (Yeah, I know, I used to think Maxwell House was a decent cuppa. I got better. :) (And I know, that's *another* religious war. :) But, no. I think you're hunting snipes here...

I think the proper tactic is to educate folks on the importance of not letting theology influence the law. Point'em at Salem.

The thought occurs to me, Cat, that you might have a specific example or three in mind. Care to elucidate?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If you mean I might have a couple of specific people in mind, I do, but I'm not going to "out them" here. If they aren't comfortable showing up on my LJ to comment they're free to send me private messages or whatever.

I'm also aware that many people on my f-list have never made their POV plain, so there may be others I'm not thinking of, and they're also welcome to respond to this in whatever format works for them.

I'm vividly aware that the people holding the reins of the pro-Life movement are, as antipope puts it, "murderous misogynistic religious fanatics." I'm well aware that reality has no influence on them, and I really don't care what they think on this issue.

I'm interested in real, sane, people who still think Dr Tiller aborted healthy late-term fetuses for the convenience of healthy women.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in real, sane, people who still think Dr Tiller aborted healthy late-term fetuses for the convenience of healthy women.

Which includes a whole lot of people who were listening to this news event via the right wing presses. Even reasonable people. It comes as a complete surprise to them, the news that the babies that Dr. Tiller was aborting often had no faces, no brains, or were already dead. They had "heard" that these were viable babies.

The honorable ones, when presented with this data (by me), step back and promise to rethink this through.
But I'm not talking to all that many people one-on-one about this.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I first encountered Boortz during the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and I was flabbergasted (and impressed) with his anti-theocracy stance on the case. It makes sense that he'd also be in favor of keeping religion out of women's uterii.

[(Anonymous)]

It's good to know that the ol' Talkmaster still has a *few* of his marbles left. I used to like that guy until he slid right along with Dubya and company.... .

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

drat it, that was me...