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

[autopope.livejournal.com]

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?

You know better than to ask this question -- unless it's rhetorical. Right?

What they want is for the naughty women to keep their legs together; and if they don't, then a certain number of unfortunate deaths is an acceptable consequence, pour encourager les autres.

Dr Tiller's crime in their eyes wasn't simply that he was performing abortions (the pro-life wingnuts seem to be remarkably silent on the evils of the death penalty): his crime was that he enabled women to have sexual intercourse without fear of death as a possible eventual outcome.

We're not talking about sane people here, we're talking about murderous misogynistic religious fanatics.

[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]

Well, a couple of people on my friends list have expressed deep reservations about late-term abortion. One of them basically said she despises Dr. Tiller. I don't think either of them consciously hate women, so I'm wondering whether there was some misunderstanding over the circumstances under which Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions. Possibly deliberately fostered by the more extreme anti-abortion groups out-and-out lying about it.

So I'm trying to set the record straight, and asking if this means they don't despise Dr. Tiller after all, or, if they still do, what steps short of leaving women to die (which I don't think they actually want) will satisfy them.

[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.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Pretty much exactly 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.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

I can summarize the philosophy of these religious twits in four simple words:
"God has a plan"

It is not given to us to know that plan, nor to interfere in it. It is for God to decide when a child will be born, when a sperm will implant, when a mother will die giving birth, when a child will miscarry.

Which, of course, means that the fact said twits survived gestation, birth and childhood means God wanted them to. That must make them feel soooooo special.

[(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...

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I wonder how many of these "God Has A Plan" people are willing to use pain killers and antibiotics and, for that matter, plastic surgery?

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

In all fairness, there are sects that discourage the use of modern medicine. They prefer that members simply pray away the pain and illness.
"Prey-On. Apply directly to the gullible."

Myself, I prefer the take of Messrs. Pratchett and Gaiman: If the Plan is ineffable, who's to say what is and is not part of it? Sure, God has a Plan; maybe Tiller was in it. Maybe God's Plan is for Tiller's death to bring about a reform of some sort.

Hmm. Seems to me there's a word for that sort of thing. Six letters. Starts with 'M'.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

In my (probably limited) observations, members of the sects that discourage the use of medicine are usually not active and vocal in trying to get others to do everything their way. My theory is that they want the bigger world to let them be different, which happens best when the bigger world doesn't notice that they are, for instance, not taking their kids to doctors, so they're less willing to call attention to themselves than the run-of-the-mill Christian fundamentalists.

Amittedly, the real answer to my snarky question would require a demographic survey; I doubt anyone has done such a survey, however.

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I am glad you keep trying to find common ground. I'm tired of seeing, over and over, the "horror pics" and the slanted surveys and so on from the pro-life side.

We don't hear horror stories about women dying or being maimed by their pregnancies. I wonder if that is part of why people ignore information like this?

Not that I want the pro-choice people to use such ugly tactics, but the fact that womens' health and lives are at risk is generally ignored in this discussion, and that's frustrating.

ObKipl

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

From "The Female of the Species"

She who faces death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity, must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions; not in these her honor dwells.
She the Other Law we live by is that Law and nothing else.

[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.

Re: ObKipl

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of people for whom this concept isn't Real.
Including, surprisingly, some women who've given birth, but always with First World medical resources, that reduces maternal mortality profoundly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?ref=africa :

Maternal mortality is high in Tanzania: for every 100,000 births, 950 women die. In the United States, the figure is 11, and it is even lower in other developed countries. But Tanzania’s record is neither the best nor the worst in Africa. Many other countries have similar statistics; quite a few do better and a handful do markedly worse.