One more thing to think about.
Jun. 8th, 2009 09:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillFor 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.
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 05:41 am (UTC)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.