About Dr. George Tiller, Legality & Morality
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009I didn’t want to write about this topic. At. All. It’s absolute insanity. And it’s personal.
The procedure that Dr. George Tiller became expert at is absolutely gruesome and he was an “expert” over sixty thousand times. That is a medium sized city of people who died being pulled limb from limb or by chemical burn. The numbers make me want to throw up right now.
People need to know the facts. Bill O’Reilly gave the facts while sharing his personal opinion that abortion is wrong. It’s his right. More about O’Reilly and free speech and the Left’s hypocrisy at my Pajama’s Media article.
This topic is personal because my own sons were born at 24 weeks five days. Here is a picture of a baby a week older. There is no question in my mind, not even a shadow of a doubt, that what Dr. Tiller did, over and over, was murder. That is, an innocent life was taken. How the man lived with himself every day, I don’t know. How he distanced himself from his acts of barbarism is beyond me.
But a pox on all our houses.
This is America. We are a country of laws. The laws should be written that something like this procedure is illegal. There is no question it is immoral. 72% of Americans were against this procedure in a survey taken two years ago. I’d venture to guess the number is higher now. Each year that passes, the ability for doctors to understand these tiny babies increases. No one doubts that they’re babies. If born, with treatment, they survive. Just like grandma survives a stroke, if given treatment. Just because she’s on life support for a while doesn’t mean that she’s not alive.
The thing is, we all know this. We all know that the baby is alive.
The disingenuous left wanting to paint those who are pro-life as wackos know that the majority of Americans, and even they themselves, know the baby is alive. For them, it’s not about killing the baby. It’s about promoting the life of the mother–rarely literally, mostly metaphorically. This whole topic is about a woman controlling her destiny by controlling her uterus. They conveniently ignore the control she had when the baby was made.
This procedure should be illegal in all 50 states. A man like Dr. George Tiller should have committed maybe 20 of these procedures over the lifetime of his practice to save a woman who was going to die, imminently, because it was either her or the baby. It should be so rare and unique that we all agonize with the devastated family. I know a woman who had this horrible choice as her body marched toward death with leukemia. The moral choice was clear, but she will live forever with the loss of her child. It was not a fetus. It was her baby. And the choice was devastating.
Otherwise, we become a nation immune to the horrors of these deaths and all bear the guilt of allowing such a thing to happen.
Dr. Tiller was murdered. His profession and his expertise was legal. A raving lunatic took justice into his own hands and killed this man in cold blood. The killer should get the chair for an act so premeditated. He clearly planned this killing.
The rule of law rules all. A murderer should be brought to justice. When it comes to late term abortion, the law needs to be changed.
Kathleen Sebelius Will Let You Die
Tuesday, April 21st, 2009And why not? You, old person, do not fall within the parameters of the rules for saving. Neither do you, small child with degenerative disease. Nor do you, Lance Armstrong with your 10% chance.
Suck. It. Up.
And remember, you’re saving money for the people who are worth saving. From Matt Lewis:
Reading the Associated Press report, one would assume Tiller is the only problem, yet he barely draws a mention in Kyl’s press release on Sebelius. Instead, Kyl (who voted against Sebelius) singled out Sebelus’ views on “comparative effectiveness research”.
In English, that translates roughly as research to determine who is worth health care and who we should just let die. [Emphasis added]
Essentially, when you factor “comparative effectiveness” into medical decisions, it means that those decisions have to be made at least partially based on cost rather than the best interest of the patient.
She should receive no Republican support but she’s got two Senators in her corner. And some wonder why the Republican brand is crap.
My Latest Pajamas Media Column: Embryonic Stem Cell Research & Government Funding–UPDATED
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009Here’s an excerpt of my latest Pajamas column titled “Much Ado About Obama and Embryonic Stem Cells”:
In a move that shocked no one, President Barack Obama reversed President George W. Bush’s executive order to ban government-funded human embryonic stem cell [ESC] research on new embryonic stem cell strains. This decision has caused many to rejoice and many to lament.
Some question the timing: lifting the stem cell research funding ban is a political win for Obama at a time when he’s losing public opinion ground on the economy. It also puts Republicans on defense–moderates and Democrats favor embryonic stem cell research, while conservatives dislike it. Moderate Republicans welcome the policy shift because they view the issue as a political loser and want it off the table.
Go read the whole thing and give me your feedback here or on Twitter.
UPDATE:
I missed this part in the Stem Cell hub-bub:
Bioethcis attorney and watchdog Wesley J. Smith says the Obama decision to also reverse this executive order shows Obama is really the anti-science president, not his predecessor.
“Of course, the Administration didn’t have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work,” he said. “But the now dead order explicitly required funding for alternative methods such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness.”
“Alternative methods are one of the few areas in which we can all row in the same direction, which I thought this president wanted to do,” Smith added.
“I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration,” Smith says. “First, vindictiveness against all things ‘Bush’ or policies considered by the Left to be ‘pro-life’ and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.”
“So much for taking the politics out of science,” he concludes.
UPDATED AGAIN:
NeoNeocon says:
Many people have applauded Obama’s actions. But to agree with Obama’s new policy is it really necessary to distort history? Although it is indeed likely that the Obama directive reversing the Bush position will open up more opportunities for research with stem cells, it’s not as though under Bush things were not progressing, through the use of adult stem cells and other creative solutions (see this and this for two examples). But to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge that Bush wasn’t really against science, just a particular form of science that he considered unethical.
A 12 Year Old Speaks On Abortion, But Should She?
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009My friend and fellow blogger pointed me in the direction of this video by a 12 year old girl explaining her opposition to abortion. It looks like a school project where she either practiced using the video equipment or turned in her project on video. Go watch it and then come back.
While the content of the girl’s argument is sound and I personally agree with her perspective, my meta issue is the fact that she’s 12, a child herself. The video crawled all over me as a parent. Just as the kids made to sing Obama songs, pay fealty to Obama’s image in school, or in my daughter’s case, come home with homework that required her to describe a change she was going to make (this was a ready-made work-sheet by the way) in honor of Barack Obama’s presidential win, exploits a child ideologically, having a child discuss abortion and then post it on the internet seems…wrong.
A child under the age of 18 cannot enter a contract because he is not “of age”. That is, a person entering a contract must understand the provisions in the contract in order to be held to it. Likewise, a 12 year old child may have the moral clarity to feel a certain way about a topic, but does he have the understanding to comprehend the long-term consequences of having those opinions aired publicly?
This is, no doubt, a gray area. I immediately call to mind child actors, musicians, etc. Children can be mature and wise and change the world for the positive. Lots of kids have started charities, written books, etc.
What do you think?
Murder, Abortion, No Big Dif
Friday, February 6th, 2009It’s a fine line, isn’t it? I mean, really, an unwanted child shouldn’t be in this world because that’s bad. So, I think we should reframe this unfortunate event as a mercy killing. RedInkTexas notes that the mother might as well say, “I want you to murder my unborn child, I just don’t want to watch…” . He continues:
She WILLINGLY went to an abortion clinic to have a late term abortion. But when the child was born alive, she was aghast that the abortionist put the child in a plastic bag and suffocated it. Yeah, like that was any more humane than trying to kill it some other way… The fact that it was done by someone without a medical degree is in my mind kind of secondary. SHE INTENDED TO KILL THIS POOR CHILD! Now she is suing because the child died. What in hell is wrong with this picture? Who is the Murderer here? I say the woman who went to the clinic to kill the child is the proximate murderer here. She took the pills. She knew what they did. I say hang them both for first degree murder, they both conspired to do this.
It was a mercy killing. Sheesh! I don’t understand why people are so judgmental.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
LifeNet
Monday, February 2nd, 2009Thomas More Society Sues Abortion Clinic In Miami Infanticide Case
Lifenet
Monday, January 26th, 2009Funding Abortions Stimulates The Economy?
All sorts of stimulating funding in the Dem’s bill.
