50 years for abortion doctor killing

April 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am by David Farrar

AFP reports:

A BORN-AGAIN Christian who said he killed a prominent US doctor to save the lives of unborn babies has sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 50 years.

, 52, was pulled out of the courtroom screaming “you have the blood of babies on your hands”‘ after the sentence was handed down.

Mr Roeder should be more concerned about his own blood. He is obviously totally unrepentant and would kill again if released, so it is good he will effectively never be freed.

In a move that critics feared could provide cover for acts of political violence, Roeder had sought to convince jurors he was only guilty of voluntary manslaughter.  Under Kansas law, voluntary manslaughter can apply when actions are taken based on an unreasonable but honest defence that he or she is preventing a greater harm.

Now does that sound familiar? Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their religious beliefs place them above the law.

Tags: , ,

66 Responses to “50 years for abortion doctor killing”

  1. menace (407 comments) says:

    It was still good and apropriate to see those guys in the top of the south go free….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,811 comments) says:

    Really Menace? You are reason number one hundred and umpteen why New Zealand is f****d.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Judge Warren Wilbert also sentenced Roeder to an additional two years in prison for threatening two ushers who tried to stop him as he fled after shooting Dr George Tiller to death in the foyer of a Kansas church last May.

    Would Judge Wilbert like a job in NZ?

    It’s interesting to note that this doctor performed the very abortions which many anti-abortionists cite as the exception; e.g. where the mother is likely to die and the child will not survive. Mr Roeder’s point may have been better made if he picked a more run-of-the-mill abortionist. That’s the problem with nutters – you can’t reason with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    It’s interesting to note that this doctor performed the very abortions which many anti-abortionists cite as the exception; e.g. where the mother is likely to die and the child will not survive

    Malcolm, actually the abortionist was one of the few who still performed late term abortions, in which the fetus is bigger and even more apparent as a baby. Click HERE if you have the stomach to see the results.

    I also do not think that because something is legal that it is moral or right and that Christians can and should protest against these evils. This is not to say that I approve of the taking of anyone’s life or the destruction of spy bases.

    As Chesterton once said, “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jaba (2,092 comments) says:

    has the Govt announced if they will appeal the ridiculous not guilty verdict of the 3 Waihopai dorks?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MT_Tinman (3,033 comments) says:

    ‘t ain’t just religious nutters who are dangerous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David in Chch (510 comments) says:

    Well, Fletch – your choice then is obviously for both mother and fetus to die. That WAS the only other option in these cases. That is what Malcolm was doing – making the choice to save the mother.

    Ultimately, I think better education and promotion of birth control, safe sex, etc., are the better options than abortion. The biggest problem is that often the most rabid anti-choice proponents are also the most rabid opponents of sex education and birth control.

    Now that wouldn’t have changed these late term terminations – these were almost all due to impending serious health issues that would have led to the deaths of both mother and fetus, as I noted already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    Taking another’s life is murder and is IMO is wrong under any cirumstances. This man deserves to go to jail.

    However I find it interesting that so many New Zealanders will loudly protest against the killing of whales
    while babies are being slaughtered (17,000 per year) in their mother’s wombs right here in our own country.

    How did we get to a stage as a society to believe that this wholesale murder of society’s most vulnerable
    is morally justifiable?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    why is it always guys that get so upset about abortion? fuckin fruitloops.

    hope he enjoys being someones girl friend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Fletch, this doctor was performing the very sort of abortions which are often cited as exceptions by anti-abortionists. For that reason he was a good example of the evil of abortion only if you think about it in the most dogmatic and shallow way – which appears to be how Mr Roeder’s mind works.

    I know you’re not in favour of abortion, but I’d guess that there are situations where you would permit it as the only reasonable action. I understand that many of the abortions performed by this doctor were those exceptional situations, which is why he was legally performing late-term abortions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. MIKMS (164 comments) says:

    I won’t get involved with any argument on this thread but I find it rather funny that this man got 50 years where as in NZ he might of been let off as per the means that the Waipoi people were let off due to total belief that the course they were doing was right. I am not supporting his actions or even going to state my own views on this touchy subject but It is very interesting to note that he could have gotten off with manslaughter under NZ law r even walked free or into psychiatric care

    that is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. menace (407 comments) says:

    really adolf, i feel teh same about you mate.

    tuff luck buddy, get the fuck over it aye, a jury is a billion times more correct than you so bugger of and get some credability…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (4,229 comments) says:

    Now in some people’s eyes this is a justified killing. He is killing babies so he must be killed. The recent Waihopi defence could be used here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. menace (407 comments) says:

    and another thing adolf, seeing how you think new zealand is so fucked, i suggest you bugger of out of it and go live somewhere like, hmmm, nigeria perhaps aye? north korea maybe? teh last kind of peopel i want living in nz are people that think our country is fucked

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Angus (536 comments) says:

    George Tiller specialised in performing late-term abortions and there are only a handful of doctors in the USA who still do it. According to Kansas state statistics, he aborted 395 viable third-trimester babies in one year – 2001 – all for “mental health” reasons (which is in the category for all elective abortions). Not one of those abortions was for a mother’s physical health or for a medical emergency.

    By his own words “it is unplanned and unwanted motherhood that shipwrecks women’s lives, not unplanned pregnancy.” (George R. Tiller, Victory Rally and Declaration of Reproductive Independence, Wichita, Kansas, July 13, 2001)

    Make of it what you will.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    A couple of points here should be noted — Scott Roeder was not described as a “born-again Christian” in other reports, but as a “former militia activist”. Some of these fellows have a veneer of God talk, but should be more appropriately categorised as fringe elements of the far right. So I don’t think this fellow is a representative of Christianity. There may be liberal media bias here in describing him as a “born-again Christian”.

    Also this man is not part of a pro-life group. Every pro-life group wants to stop abortions but using peaceful means only. So he is very much an extremist acting on his own, rather than being part of the organised pro-life movement.

    Lastly George Tiller should not be viewed as the champion of anything. He was something of a showman who revelled in his notoriety. By his own admission he performed over 60,000 abortions.

    It is not correct to say that those abortions were performed solely to save the life of the mother. He performed abortions when there was fetal abnormality — presumably Down syndrome and suchlike. He also performed many purely elective late term abortions. In the course of his practice he would have killed many unborn infants who would be viable outside of the womb. He was a murderous abortion extremist. It is something of an irony that he was himself killed by a murderous anti-abortion extremist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Scott, are purely elective late term abortions legal in Kansas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Michael (898 comments) says:

    As it is easter, a time when the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is commemerated, let us remember the second commandment of Jesus. Love thy neighbour. And who is your neighbour? According to Jesus, it is everyone – including your sworn enemy.

    Anyone who claims to be killing in the name of the Christian God is disobeying the instructions of their Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,728 comments) says:

    Down’s syndrome and other fetal abnormalities can be picked up much earlier than the third trimester. I would be very interested to know from someone who knows the facts why these abortions were preformed so late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    meance, aside from being well named some spelling corrections from a dyslexic.

    you wanted “eh” not “aye”. Aye is pronouced “eye”, “eh” is pronounced “a”.

    Maths question. How are 12 random people working at the direction of one “a billion” times more right than someone else?

    Credibility question. Whta are you basing your claims of credibility on becuase you have taken a minority position and nothing you have ever spouted here has indicated anything but a hardline extremist plotical polarity with the far left. Thats not credibility.

    You have frequently expressed unhappiness with things. Yet you haven’t fcked off out of my country, why not? If you need a ride to the airport I’m happy to drive while you hold on to the bumper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    DPF: Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their religious beliefs place them above the law.

    How about:
    Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their IDEOLOGICAL beliefs place them above the law.

    While I have a problem with abortionists/Christians murdering unborn babies/abortionists, I ALSO have a problem with Progressives/Socialists/Marxists (fill in the blank) who believe themselves to be “above the law”. Feel free to include ‘moral law’ under the general heading of ‘law’.

    I guess we just have to work out WHO is the more evil – I know where my money’s going.

    [By including moral law, in with law, you prove my point]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    re: the Law (b it law of man or law of nature).
    Reminds me of some lyrics from a Joni Mitchell song –

    If you’re smart or rich or lucky
    Maybe you’ll beat the laws of man
    But the inner laws of spirit
    And the outer laws of nature
    No man can

    So true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Malcolm asked “Scott, are purely elective late term abortions legal in Kansas?”

    That is probably a fair question. Looking at Wikipedia they say the following, “Kansas law prohibits abortions after the beginning of fetal viability, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” The two consulting doctors must not be “financially affiliated” with the doctor doing the abortion. Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly “unaffiliated. ”

    He was found not guilty apparently. However investigations by Kansas authorities continued to be made.

    I suspect the situation with Tiller is similar to the situation in New Zealand. The letter of the law says one thing, but abortionists in New Zealand freely flout the law and perform abortion on demand, despite what the law says — which is abortion should only be performed in the case of serious health risks to the mother. In New Zealand, and I suspect also in Kansas, there are major business interests involved — abortion is a moneymaking “industry”.

    I would welcome an unbiased investigation of George Tiller. The idea that all of his 60,000+ abortions were legal ie they were purely performed to save the health of the mother, defies belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Lastly — just while we are on the Christian angle — George Tiller was himself a churchgoer.

    How he reconciled his 60,000+ abortions with the teachings of Jesus — “let the little children come unto me for to such as these belong the kingdom of God” — is almost incomprehensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    I suspect the situation with Tiller is similar to the situation in New Zealand. The letter of the law says one thing, but abortionists in New Zealand freely flout the law and perform abortion on demand, despite what the law says — which is abortion should only be performed in the case of serious health risks to the mother. In New Zealand, and I suspect also in Kansas, there are major business interests involved — abortion is a moneymaking “industry”.

    Where is some evidence to support such a claim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    heh a priest will tell you life begins at conception…. a priest will also tell you its ok to suck his cock when youre 12 years old… so maybe his timing is just off..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. bc (1,344 comments) says:

    50 years!! They sure don’t mess around there.
    Funny how Roeder, a born-again Christian apparently, has no problems breaking the 1st commandment. It’s always the “born-again” ones that are the worst.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    “I would welcome an unbiased investigation of George Tiller. The idea that all of his 60,000+ abortions were legal ie they were purely performed to save the health of the mother, defies belief”

    True, which makes me wonder why he didn’t go after the system instead of the doctor it would have been a better mode of operation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Bryla (263 comments) says:

    Jaba said at 11.45 “has the Govt announced if they will appeal the ridiculous not guilty verdict of the 3 Waihopai dorks?”

    Poor ol’ Jaba needs to get a little bit of media savvy. The so-called possibility of appeal was only a screen to allow the government to avoid both comment and accountability about the substantive issues of foreign intelligence, GCSB effectiveness and accountability – plus how 11 ordinary New Zealanders decided to use the power of Jury nullification to acquit the three peace activists.

    I came away feeling like the justice system of NZ was working alright, but the press (not so much TV and Radio) were down in the gutter pumping yellow muck into the minds of your citizens. I’ve never seen such ignorant opinion paraded as fact. Here’s an annotated list of media reporta. http://www.cairnspeacebypeace.org/?page_id=223

    No wonder so many of you are misinformed, and therefore misguided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MacDoctor (66 comments) says:

    There seems to be lots of heat in this debate, but very little light. Here are the facts (if anyone is interested)

    George Tiller performed late-term abortions on women with healthy foetuses on the grounds that carrying the foetus to term would cause the woman “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function”. This clause is used in the US in much the same way as New Zealand abortionist use the mental health clause.

    Less than 5% of Tiller’s late-term abortions were for foetal abnormalities. There is some evidence, but no proof, that many of these “abnormalities” were, in fact, very minor.

    Scott Roeder is always described in the media as a “born-again Christian”. His act of murder is not the act of a Christian, but of a seriously disturbed man. I find it hard to believe that he was allowed to be tried as a sane man as he had a clear history of mental illness. The defense attorneys accepted the prosecution psychiatrist’s judgement the Roeder was “of sound mind”. Yeah, right.

    Kris K is right when he says Few things are more dangerous than someone who thinks their ideological beliefs place them above the law. It is ironic that George Tiller, who championed abortion-on-demand, is encompassed by this phrase as much as his killer, Roeder. At least Roeder has the excuse that he is nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David in Chch (510 comments) says:

    For additional context, here is a quote from one of Tiller’s patients. _I_ am not saying he was a saint or that all of the terminations he did were fully justifiable. But I would say that he performed a needed function:

    “In 1994 my wife and I found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was difficult and unusually uncomfortable but her doctor repeatedly told her things were fine. Sometime early in the 8th month my wife, an RN who at the time was working in an infertility clinic asked the Dr. she was working for what he thought of her discomfort. He examined her and said that he couldn’t be certain but thought that she might be having twins.

    “We were thrilled and couldn’t wait to get a new sonogram that hopefully would confirm his thoughts. Two days later our joy was turned to unspeakable sadness when the new sonogram showed conjoined twins. Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants.

    “We were advised that our options were to deliver into the world a child who’s life would be filled with horrible pain and suffering or fly out to Wichita Kansas and to terminate the pregnancy under the direction of Dr. George Tiller.

    “We made an informed decision to go to Kansas. One can only imagine the pain borne by a woman who happily carries a child for 8 months only to find out near the end of term that the children were not to be and that she had to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy and go against everything she had been taught to believe was right. This was what my wife had to do.

    “Dr. Tiller is a true American hero. The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff. Dr. Tiller understood that this decision was the most difficult thing that a woman could ever decide and he took the time to educate us and guide us along with the other two couples who at the time were being forced to make the same decision after discovering that they too were carrying children impacted by horrible fetal anomalies.

    “I could describe in great detail the procedures and the pain and suffering that everyone is subjected to in these situations. However, that is not the point of the post. We can all imagine that this is not something that we would wish on anyone.

    “The point is that the pain and suffering were only mitigated by the compassion and competence of Dr. George Tiller and his staff. We are all diminished today for a host of reasons but most of all because a man of great compassion and courage has been lost to the world.”

    – An anonymous commenter on John Cole’s Balloon Juice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    # bc (17) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    50 years!! They sure don’t mess around there.
    Funny how Roeder, a born-again Christian apparently, has no problems breaking the 1st commandment. It’s always the “born-again” ones that are the worst.

    The 1st commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me”

    You shall not murder is number 6.
    The sanctity of life is not worth to be number one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Eszett-lots of evidence about abortion in New Zealand, if that is what you are referring too. A prominent judge in New Zealand over the last 12 months commented about New Zealand’s abortion on demand. Basically a baby is aborted if the mother wants it aborted.

    Abortion is a moneymaking industry, if that is what you are referring too. You don’t think doctors get paid to perform abortions? Apparently prominent New Zealand abortionist Margaret Sparrow has business interests in the abortion industry.

    Dime — your comment is disgusting and below any civilised discourse.

    BC — see my comments earlier. It is doubtful that the killer was a born again Christian and other newspaper reports do not refer to him as such. George Tiller was a churchgoing Lutheran. So I fail to see the relevance of your comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Shooting an abortionist is murder. So is abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Well David in Christchurch — for the other side of the story — you might like to have a look at Bill O’Reilly’s interview of a young woman (aged 14) who was a “patient” of George Tiller’s-

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Gulag1917 (764 comments) says:

    Scott Roeder would be excommunicated from most churches if they knew his intentions. How many abortions would actually occur without a monetary incentive for the practitioners?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. David in Chch (510 comments) says:

    I would think that one should have a more reliable source that Bill O’Reilly. (My fingers kept hitting the key next to “B” at first – at almost came out as “Nill”.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Gulag.

    One other thing related to the money. I believe that in NZ abortion is state-subsidised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bc (1,344 comments) says:

    “Thou shalt” not kill is not #1 – its #6. Really? I thought that would be the big one! That does say a lot.

    Scott, born-again christian or not, he clearly did not see the irony of a supposed religious man breaking one of god’s commandments. Nor do you apparently since you “fail to see the relevance of (my) comments”.

    And as for kiwitoffee equating shooting a man to abortionist – get real!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    Scott (544) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Eszett-lots of evidence about abortion in New Zealand, if that is what you are referring too. A prominent judge in New Zealand over the last 12 months commented about New Zealand’s abortion on demand. Basically a baby is aborted if the mother wants it aborted.

    Abortion is a moneymaking industry, if that is what you are referring too. You don’t think doctors get paid to perform abortions? Apparently prominent New Zealand abortionist Margaret Sparrow has business interests in the abortion industry..

    Can you provide a source?
    A prominent judge said so is not much of evidence.

    As for money making industry, the simple fact that they get paid for their services is hardly proof of a money making industry.
    You would have to have some serious return on investment plus high volume to make such a claim. And compare it with other medical professions, say dentists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Thanks Scott. I saw that as well and it rather contradicts your earlier statement “He also performed many purely elective late term abortions.” Given his notoriety I would imagine he was well tested in the courts and as you’ve noted he wasn’t convicted of anything. So shouldn’t we take that at face value and assume he took his job and responsibilities seriously?

    I assume you’re a reasonable person and would permit abortion in certain circumstances? If so, who would you have performing those abortions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Hi Malcolm — I’m sure he took his job and responsibilities seriously. But again he was an abortion extremist who would perform an abortion at any time up till the birth of the child. I’m sorry — I just do not believe that his 60,000+ abortions were all because of serious risk to the health of the mother. One example would be the interview on Bill O’Reilly — the link I cited in a previous post. The girl’s health wasn’t in serious danger — her parents just wanted her to have an abortion.

    In terms of your question about when I think we could allow abortion in certain circumstances, I would say those circumstances have to be fairly rare and have to do with the actual serious health risk to the mother, or as a result of rape or incest. If in New Zealand we actually applied the abortion laws as they are written then the number of abortions would be a fraction of what they are today.

    But remember the crux of the question is always about the status of the fetus or unborn child. If you believe that we are created in the image of God and therefore each person has rights and dignity and worth, then even the unborn child should have rights. So I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

    Eszett — a prominent judge saying so is lots of evidence that we have abortion on demand. The judge was Justice Forrest Miller, who made his ruling in 2008, not 2009 as I thought , my apologies there. The link to the story is http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/482862

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    As to who — very difficult question. How medical practitioners, who make an oath to save life, can perform abortions which take life, is difficult to understand.

    In fact with the advance of medical technology, which allows people to actually see what is going on in an abortion, there are a number of instances of doctors and nurses leaving the abortion industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    Scott, if you look at the stats (http://search.stats.govt.nz/nav/ct2/health_abortion/ct1/health/0) total abortion rates were on the rise until about 2003, after which they stabilised and are slightly falling. More importantly the crude and general abortion rates have been falling.

    I don’t disagree with you that NZ is fairly liberal with it’s abortion practices, but it is rather sanctioned by parliament. The MPs of course do not want to open up a can of worms, a corrosive debate around abortion, so I guess they are happy with the status quo.

    You could, of course, challenge it, as the pro-lifers did, and go further and force such a debate. But that could go either way, and most likely will just lead to more liberal laws, reflecting the current practices.

    But remember the crux of the question is always about the status of the fetus or unborn child. If you believe that we are created in the image of God and therefore each person has rights and dignity and worth, then even the unborn child should have rights. So I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

    That each person has rights and dignity and worth is certainly not derived from the believe that we are created in the image of God. Christians like to claim the bible and religion as a base of morality, which is nonsense.

    A fetus should have rights, but should they be above that of the mother and parents?

    You should accept the fact that abortions will always happen, regardless of their legal status. The aim should be to have as little amount of abortions as possible. Those that happen should be safe.

    To do that, as David in Chch previously argued, you have to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And the best method is sex ed and contraception.
    If someone is pregnant, unwanted that is, makes sure there are options available. Educate them on the possibilities. E.g. adoption, and how to cope with raising a child while working, how can institutions help where there is no amily to help, etc, etc.

    The problem with most religious pro-lifers is that they oppose abortion and sex ed and contraception. They are so obsessed with the unborn, but once you are born, hey, you are on your own.

    Abortion is not something that anyone wants, but the outlawing it is certainly not the answer and mostly counterproductive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I would say those circumstances have to be fairly rare and have to do with the actual serious health risk to the mother, or as a result of rape or incest.

    ….and therefore each person has rights and dignity and worth, then even the unborn child should have rights. So I believe the unborn child has a right to life.

    You can’t have it both ways, Scott. But you acknowledge that. My question about who you’d have performing these abortions was intended to make you acknowledge that for the cases where you think abortion is the right action, you would need someone like Dr Tiller.

    But again he was an abortion extremist who would perform an abortion at any time up till the birth of the child. I’m sorry — I just do not believe that his 60,000+ abortions were all because of serious risk to the health of the mother.

    Why is he an extremist? If the abortion was necessary and for good reason, why does it matter when it was performed? Presumably it was done as soon as possible. You also seem to be using the 60,000 number as proof of this extremist. Given that he was one of only a few who would do these unpleasant procedures in the US, it’s likely that the 60,000 (over many years) came from a very large population base (300 millions divided by the small number of doctors prepared to do this). So they were very rare indeed.

    You’ve acknowledged that abortion is necessary in some cases, and at a late stage. So would you agree that Dr Tiller was courageous to volunteer to perform such a necessary but unpleasant job?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Scott – sorry I haven’t watch the Billo video but I will take your word for it. There’s also plenty of testimonial on the web from people who are very grateful that he was able to help them out of a wretched situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    The aim should be to have as little amount of abortions as possible. … To do that, as David in Chch previously argued, you have to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And the best method is sex ed and contraception.

    As opposed to education around the apparently unthinkable option of abstention?

    Sad to say, as Einstein once said, scientific advancements have proceeded at a pace that outstrips our ability to deal with them through commensurate ethical advances and this issue is yet another of myriad examples. While science exploded in the late 19th century, as a species, we haven’t moved much ethically, since then.

    The thing which makes me gape in aghast amazement is why don’t more people realise it doesn’t have to be this way? High ethics are freely available right here right now and always have been. All it takes is a little discernment and a recognition of the difference between the physical world and the spiritual world and by that I don’t mean religion I mean wisdom and with wisdom come timeless principles like moderation in all things which apply regardless of spacetime position.

    People these days are OBSESSED with aethical practices such as instant gratification but the thing is, just because most people are morons doesn’t mean YOU have to be one as well. It’s not a popular view, but it’s the correct one.

    And I don’t give a fuck if you think it’s self-righteous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Interesting points you make Malcolm-I can see in your eyes I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. I offer some concession to the abortion debate-limited in the case of incest and rape and serious danger to the mothers health and you turn it against me?! And presumably if I said no abortion ever,in any circumstance-you would say I am a narrow minded bigot who only cares about fetuses and not mothers?!

    But anyway-I am trying to be a fair minded person-but you??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Eszett-it is even more hopeless with you I think.Once we get on to Christian thought you deny everything-as if western civilization arose in a spiritual vacuum?

    On the philosophical level-human rights were derived from Christianity.I appreciate people try and find other sources but lets be fair and reasonable – the notion of human rights comes only out of the Christian West. This created in the image of God thing is the philosophical basis for human rights.

    Now the right of the fetus seem to have no weight whatsoever with the pro abortion crowd.And Dr Tiller was an extremist-abortion at any time up until the time of birth.That baby(and by now it was a baby)was murdered by Tiller without any compunction whatsoever. Like you might like to stick up for the guy-as for me I would suggest we look for other martyrs to concern ourselves with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    # reid (3840) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    The aim should be to have as little amount of abortions as possible. … To do that, as David in Chch previously argued, you have to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And the best method is sex ed and contraception.

    As opposed to education around the apparently unthinkable option of abstention?

    Not unthinkable, but unrealistic. Problem with those who advocate abstention is that they advocate nothing else. I have no problem with that as an option, but as the trial in the US has proven it is unrealistic and harmful if it is taught on it’s own,

    Sad to say, as Einstein once said, scientific advancements have proceeded at a pace that outstrips our ability to deal with them through commensurate ethical advances and this issue is yet another of myriad examples. While science exploded in the late 19th century, as a species, we haven’t moved much ethically, since then.

    Einstein as talking about the development of nuclear weapons. To say we haven’t moved on ethically since the 19th century is bollocks.

    The thing which makes me gape in aghast amazement is why don’t more people realise it doesn’t have to be this way? High ethics are freely available right here right now and always have been. All it takes is a little discernment and a recognition of the difference between the physical world and the spiritual world and by that I don’t mean religion I mean wisdom and with wisdom come timeless principles like moderation in all things which apply regardless of spacetime position.

    People these days are OBSESSED with aethical practices such as instant gratification but the thing is, just because most people are morons doesn’t mean YOU have to be one as well. It’s not a popular view, but it’s the correct one.

    What aethical practices? Why is instant gratification aethical?
    What exactly are you refering to here?

    Just because you disapprove of something does not make it unethical

    And I don’t give a fuck if you think it’s self-righteous.

    self-righteous people seldom do

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David in Chch (510 comments) says:

    Scott:
    I would note that almost every society since the year dot has had some sort of underpinning ethical code, and that the vast majority have NOT been “western” or “christian”. I personally don’t think that religion or a belief in a supreme being (or beings) is required for such a code. Given that the majority of humans have generally had to live in communities for millenia, it makes sense to have such codes of behaviour for survival.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    Ps, if anyone is interested in the numbers dying by abortion, check out the site HERE. It’s based on the World Health Organization stats. I’ve watched it for a while and the number of abortions seems to ticking over about two abortions a second. The total number stands at 11,700,00 at this time.

    In case you missed it in my earlier post, check HERE for the results of late term abortion 9if you can stomach it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    opps, that should read 11,700,000

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    Scott (548) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Eszett-it is even more hopeless with you I think.Once we get on to Christian thought you deny everything-as if western civilization arose in a spiritual vacuum?

    On the philosophical level-human rights were derived from Christianity.I appreciate people try and find other sources but lets be fair and reasonable – the notion of human rights comes only out of the Christian West. This created in the image of God thing is the philosophical basis for human rights.

    So, do you hold slaves and stone adulterers? Do you advocate the killing of the blasphemous, the ones that don’t hold holy the sabbath?
    Of course you don’t, yet your bible tells you to.

    Fact is you choose your morals from the bible which you can adhere to and the use your religion to justify them.
    Morals are born out of thought and reason. Morals have existed before Christianity and in places where other religions are dominant.

    The notion of human rights does not derive itself of christianity, but humanism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    eszett 5:08 pm,

    To say we haven’t moved on ethically since the 19th century is bollocks.

    Did you read that sentence back again after you wrote it the first time?

    Prior to 1977 (off the top of my head) we had no abortions in NZ; it was illegal and not on the statue books. Once the law was introduced abortion numbers quickly escalated and peaked at around 18,500 per annum – where it has hovered for the last 5-6 years. So ‘ethically’ we had a higher standard pre 1977 than we do now in the 21st century in this regard.

    And of course you obviously ignore the ethics of Nazi Germany, her allies, and Japan during WWII; and Germany in WWI.
    Or that 20th and 21st century Western society is pretty much now devoid of any form of ABSOLUTE moral foundation.

    BUT APART FROM THAT, do you have any other examples to support your view that we have “moved on ethically since the 19th century” ? – and by ‘moved on’ I presume you mean ‘improved’ or ‘hold to a higher standard’ ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Hey, if we’re talking the bible, what about Exodus 21:22?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Steve (4,517 comments) says:

    Good idea DPF. A post to keep all of the religious nutbars in one corner. Then they don’t cause a double or triple subject interchange on General Debate.
    Roeder is insane IMHO, but there are many like him.
    While Religion is part of the post here, wasn’t it clever for Jesus to pass so we could have an Easter Holiday?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Repton 5:59 pm,

    Hey, if we’re talking the bible, what about Exodus 21:22?

    Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    My understanding of this verse is that it speaks of at least two men who are fighting/struggling together. As a result a pregnant woman is accidentally drawn into the confrontation, and while not hurt herself, her unborn child is injured resulting in a miscarriage. The husband subsequently brings charges against the guilty parties, and the judge rules the appropriate penalty.

    While perhaps not as severe as manslaughter, we get the impression it’s a pretty close second. And of course the circumstances would likely determine the severity of the judge’s ruling – perhaps he may require the man/men’s lives in certain cases where the baby is lost?

    But this is clearly not parallel to the case where an unborn infant’s life is ended via abortion – a deliberate, premeditated act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    # Kris K (1926) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    eszett 5:08 pm,

    To say we haven’t moved on ethically since the 19th century is bollocks.

    Did you read that sentence back again after you wrote it the first time?

    Of course I did. Maybe you should read it again. Are you saying that we have the same ethics as in the 19th century today?

    Prior to 1977 (off the top of my head) we had no abortions in NZ; it was illegal and not on the statue books. Once the law was introduced abortion numbers quickly escalated and peaked at around 18,500 per annum – where it has hovered for the last 5-6 years. So ‘ethically’ we had a higher standard pre 1977 than we do now in the 21st century in this regard.

    So you measure ethics solely on the stance to abortion? Interestingly narrow view as usual.
    But of course there were abortions before that. Illegal back-alley abortions where women died at the hands of some quacks. And if she did have a baby, say one out of wedlock, it was the likes of you that condemned her.

    And yes, we have come a great step ahead when it comes to that. That you don’t see it that way, I have no doubt.

    And of course you obviously ignore the ethics of Nazi Germany, her allies, and Japan during WWII; and Germany in WWI.
    Or that 20th and 21st century Western society is pretty much now devoid of any form of ABSOLUTE moral foundation.

    You forget to mention the dropping of the atom bomb, pol pot, Vietnam, etc.
    There never was an ABSOLUTE moral foundation. I know you will say the bible, but that is bullshit, as I have pointed out before. You merely choose what you like in the bible.

    After all, slavery is advocated in the bible, you don’t seem to advocate it.

    BUT APART FROM THAT, do you have any other examples to support your view that we have “moved on ethically since the 19th century” ? – and by ‘moved on’ I presume you mean ‘improved’ or ‘hold to a higher standard’ ?

    We defeated Nazi Germany and it’s atrocities, and the Germans now stand up to their history.
    We have moved on from the dark ages of religious oppression of science and thought, we have a secular world where reason, logic and philosophy rule

    Yes, we have come a long way forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    eszett 6:54 pm,

    You do realise the 19th century is from 1800-1899?

    And so you’re saying everything post 1900 is ethically ‘better’ than pre 1900.
    The things I cited all occured post 1900.

    Anyway, your ‘filters’ are obviously a lot different to mine – I think we’re going off the chart ‘ethically/morally’, and will continue to get worse in this regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Eszett- for your information human rights is generally understood to come out of a religious,more specifically Christian world view. For example – The American declaration of independence starts out with “Imbued by the Creator with certain inalienable rights” and goes on from there.

    I think the argument about slavery and stoning has been covered many times and it is irksome to go over that ground again.

    However with regard to the topic at hand- because each person is created in God’s image and each person is valuable then this applies to babies and unborn babies. Therefore in Christian nations abortion is not permitted because it involves the taking of innocent human life.

    Now as nations like NZ and to a lesser extent USA become “de Christianized” , we find the killing begins. Today abortions and tomorrow euthanasia and after that probably infanticide. We are not moving forward-we are heading in a great leap backwards to pagan barbarism.

    The only thing that will stop our slide back into pre Christian barbarism,which is what we are facing,is a revival of the moral and spiritual fabric that once made our country great.

    With Easter Sunday tomorrow may I suggest we go to church and remember the foundation of our civilization and the hope for the future. God bless to everyone-yes even Malcolm and Eszett.

    Scott -out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. eszett (2,346 comments) says:

    # Kris K (1929) Says:
    April 3rd, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    eszett 6:54 pm,

    You do realise the 19th century is from 1800-1899?

    And so you’re saying everything post 1900 is ethically ‘better’ than pre 1900.
    The things I cited all occured post 1900.

    Anyway, your ‘filters’ are obviously a lot different to mine – I think we’re going off the chart ‘ethically/morally’, and will continue to get worse in this regard.

    Nobody ever said anything like that.
    What I said that generally, as humanity, today in 2010, we have advanced ethically since the 19th century.
    Ethics and mores change over time.

    No one says or claims that abhorrent moral and ethical things didn’t happen in the past century.

    But if you choose to measure ethics on the lowest possible level of events that happened currently is absurd.

    That you morals and ethics and mine are different is beyond question. But you have to accept that your views are by no means the norm. (neither are mine).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I offer some concession to the abortion debate-limited in the case of incest and rape and serious danger to the mothers health and you turn it against me?! And presumably if I said no abortion ever,in any circumstance-you would say I am a narrow minded bigot who only cares about fetuses and not mothers?!

    But anyway-I am trying to be a fair minded person-but you??

    Scott it’s just a debate. I’m sorry if you find it upsetting but I was just trying to point out an inconsistency in your position. You can’t be in favour of abortion in certain circumstance, yet be against abortionists. I think you’ll find Dr Tiller was performing (by and large) the very sort of abortions which you approve of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Andy Moore (74 comments) says:

    huh. how many doctors do you know who’s job it is to kill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    Scott Roeder was just pro-choice on late-term abortionists.

    It’s interesting to note that this doctor performed the very abortions which many anti-abortionists cite as the exception; e.g. where the mother is likely to die and the child will not survive.

    Actually Tiller aborted viable fetuses. These are babies that, were they outside the womb, would be granted protection under the law (no thanks to Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). If terminating the pregnancy is necessary for the life or health of the mother then delivery can be induced wthout killing the child. Otherwise it’s delivered anyway – just in pieces.

    Make no mistake: the purpose of these abortions was to deliver a DEAD CHILD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. somewhatthoughtful (455 comments) says:

    abortion is != to murder. go fail somewhere else

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.