Christin was 19 years old when her parents brought her to Tiller. She was 28 weeks pregnant. Her baby had a greater than 90% chance of survival had it been delivered. And Christin was in good health. Kansas law required that post-viability abortions only be done if necessary to prevent the death or the woman, or if continuing the pregnancy would cause permanent loss of a bodily function. Again, Christin was in good health. Like all Tiller's third-trimester abortion patients, Christin spent most of the time at a motel, attended by her family. When she lost consciousness after the expulsion of her dead baby, her family loaded her up and took her back to Tiller's facility. While the abortionist du jour, LeRoy Carhart, was performing CPR, Tiller staffer Marguerite Reed told the 911 dispatcher that Christin was awake and conscious and talking. When medics arrived, they mistook Carhart for a bystander because of the amateurish attempts he was making to resuscitate his patient.
Christin Gilbert died of multiple organ failure caused by massive infection.
The rich, politically-connected abortion magnate whose cavalier practices and incompetent staff killed her? He didn't even get chided by the state. And he's being eulogized as a hero.
Not to Christin. And not to anybody who cares about girls like Christin.
8 comments:
The review board looked into the matter and cleared Tiller of wrong doing. Then Operation Rescue petitioned for a grand jury, which they got which found no cause to indict Tiller.
It should be noted that indictments are easier to get than convictions.
Again- what would it take for you to acknowledge the man was innocent?
If there wasn't so much evidence that he was guilty!
What part of that can't you get?
If Tiller and his staff had behaved in the Christin Gilbert case the way Curtis Boyd and his staff did in the Vanessa Preston case, I'd believe Tiller wasn't guilty.
Juries aren't infallible. Medical boards are often political hotbeds of cronyism. I go by the evidence and not by other people's opinions of the evidence.
"Juries aren't infallible. Medical boards are often political hotbeds of cronyism. I go by the evidence and not by other people's opinions of the evidence."
Juries and review boards are likely much more impartial, and use more stringent rules of evidence, than heavy partisans with a vested outcome in the result.
What part of that can't you get?
What makes you so sure that despite the fact that you had no immediate contact with this case you know so much better than all of the people who DID? What makes you so sure you've seen all the evidence or any of the evidence?
Do you remember the Schiavo fiasco? The prolifers put up hundreds of data points "proving" that Michael Schiavo had abused his wife, that she was actually not vegetative, and so forth. Problem was almost all of it was utter BS and the rest were badly misinterpreted or based on sloppy rules of what they accepted and what they discounted.
The believed the most horrible things about the man because they WANTED to. period. That was all. They wanted him to be a villain and if he didn't act the part they'd damn well pretend he did anyway and try to ruin his life.
Now give me one reason to believe that the hysteria about Tiller was any different.
See, Christina, this is another problem with your apparent answer (never) to "what would it take for you to believe the man was innocent?" It means people lose any regard for your objectivity, because you pretty clearly have no objectivity in the matter. The topic is just too close to home for you.
That's human, and it happens to everyone, but it's specifically a human failing.
"They believed the most horrible things about the man because they WANTED to. Period."
The most horrible thing about Tiller was that he killed children for a living. This is a fact.
Whether he sometimes did such a poor job of it that it got others killed is only an incidental horror.
It is my opinion that only a horrible person can take pride (like Tiller did) in being in such a horrible business.
"The most horrible thing about Tiller was that he killed children for a living. This is a fact."
No it's not. It's a subjective belief that fetus = child.
"It is my opinion that only a horrible person can take pride (like Tiller did) in being in such a horrible business."
Neat. Personally I can see exactly why someone would take pride in being willing, despite the evil perpetrated against them, to endure and continue helping women get a medical service they want.
YMMV.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/06/terror-in-the-heartland.html#comments
It's a subjective belief that fetus = child.But it's not subjective that fetus = human.
Tiller wasn't slaughtering chickens or frogs. Any reputable science text or scientist will tell you that a fetus carried in the womb of a woman is a human being, and was uniquely human from the moment of conception.
Tiller killed babies who could have lived outside the womb. So how is what he did any different than the mom who leaves her newborn to freeze to death in the elements? Why do we glorify Tiller's work and demonize the mother?
"But it's not subjective that fetus = human."
Depends on what you mean by human. If you mean "human cellular tissue" then that's true. If you mean "human being" then that's a subjective call. I say it isn;t before some stage of development is passed.
"Tiller wasn't slaughtering chickens or frogs."
Tiller wasn't slaughtering anything. Not anymore than you slaughtered a human the last time you shed some dermis.
"Any reputable science text or scientist will tell you that a fetus carried in the womb of a woman is a human being"
No, it won't. Again, "human being" is not a scientific term. It's a philosophical one.
"Tiller killed babies who could have lived outside the womb."
That's a contention put forward by peope explicitly trying to demonize him. The same people who tried again and again to see him persecuted but who each time stumbled over a small problem- when objectively viewed by an impartial judge their claims were groundless.
Post a Comment