Tuesday, June 09, 2009

A very good question, Dr. Hern

Of Tiller's late term abortion mill: "What doctor, what reasonable doctor would work there?"

The trouble is, Hern wasn't reflecting on Tiller's appalling practice of keeping supposedly deathly ill women in motel rooms for three days with their newly-killed babies rotting inside them -- something no reasonable doctor would do. He was referring to "the violence" that poor hapless Tiller had to endure from those mean old people who think that a live baby is preferable to a dead one.

Oh, well. The good news is, Tiller's mill will be permanently closed. LeRoy Carhart will have to go back to his converted muffler shop, Shelley Sella will have to go back to whatever rock she crawled out from under, and Kristin Neuhaus can go on unemployment, I suppose, since nobody in Kansas but Tiller would send any work her way. But I agree wholeheartedly with Troy Newman:

Troy Newman ... called the announcement that the clinic would close permanently "a bittersweet moment." ....

"Operation Rescue was just two months away from getting Tiller's medical license revoked, and that would have accomplished the same goal," Newman said in an e-mail.

A complaint before the State Board of Healing Arts, which licenses and regulates doctors in Kansas, alleged that Tiller violated a state law that required him to obtain a second opinion from an independent physician. It also accused Tiller of engaging in unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.

A spokeswoman for the board has said since Tiller's death that the case likely would be closed.


Again, secrets we had long prayed would come into the light were taken into the grave, thanks to that idiot Roeder. Schizophrenia is no excuse for either evil or stupidity, and he's guilty of both -- committing murder, and screwing up the investigation into exactly what went on behind closed doors in Wichita.

69 comments:

Tlaloc said...

""Operation Rescue was just two months away from getting Tiller's medical license revoked, and that would have accomplished the same goal," Newman said in an e-mail."

I suppose hope springs eternal. OR went after Tiller for decades with nothing to show for it. Maybe they would have had more luck with the latest charge but Newman's optimism seems unfounded.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, all we're asking you to believe is that a rich and powerful man with political, social, and financial connections through the medical board, the attorney general's office, and the governor's mansion could possibly weasel his way out of legal trouble. While you're expecting us to believe that thirty years of accumulated evidence against the guy, all medical evidence, and basic common sense simply don't apply when in the mystical aura that is Saint George the Fetus Slayer.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, all we're asking you to believe is that a rich and powerful man with political, social, and financial connections through the medical board, the attorney general's office, and the governor's mansion could possibly weasel his way out of legal trouble."

Meanwhile a huge amount of resources were being poured into getting the guy charged with something, anything. As I said before, in the question of influence the deck was probably stacked slightly against Tiller, all things considered.


"While you're expecting us to believe that thirty years of accumulated evidence against the guy, all medical evidence, and basic common sense simply don't apply when in the mystical aura that is Saint George the Fetus Slayer."

30 years of "evidence" based on hearsay and heavily biased viewing of the actual facts. Yeah that's precisely what I think doesn't hold a feather's weight to actual evidence (you know, what juries see).

You need learn that you are just not a good judge of what constitutes evidence because you are seeing what you want to see. There's a very good reason people with strong prejudices are excluded from juries; because it interferes with their ability to rationally evaluate evidence.

Tlaloc said...

BTW this...
"He was referring to "the violence" that poor hapless Tiller had to endure from those mean old people who think that a live baby is preferable to a dead one."

...really doesn't sound like someone horrified by the man's murder.

GrannyGrump said...

I was shocked. I was dismayed. I was hardly horrified. Given how much time I spent delving into what abortionists do to mothers and babies, it takes a lot to horrify me. And a simple shooting won't do the job.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, your entire "logic" boils down to "Tiller thought it was good idea, and his political allies backed him up on it." I find it hard to believe there'd be anything he could have done that you wouldn't have excused on those grounds. He could have raped a Girl Scout, stomped a puppy to death, dumped antifreeze in the water supply, desecrated a mosque, and jacked off on your cheeseburger, and you'd still have insisted that since Tiller thought it was a good idea, it MUST have been!

GrannyGrump said...

I'll use your logic in a way that might make you see it more clearly:

Well, since Rush Limbaugh and the Republican National Committee found nothing amiss with the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate, she MUST have been absolutely the most qualified.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, your entire "logic" boils down to "Tiller thought it was good idea, and his political allies backed him up on it.""

If the law and the medical community are "Tiller's political allies" then there's probably a reason for that.

You seem to be pushing the idea that there was some massive conspiracy to hide an obvious truth.


"I find it hard to believe there'd be anything he could have done that you wouldn't have excused on those grounds. He could have raped a Girl Scout, stomped a puppy to death, dumped antifreeze in the water supply, desecrated a mosque, and jacked off on your cheeseburger, and you'd still have insisted that since Tiller thought it was a good idea, it MUST have been!"

If you accused Tiller of all those things and then he was found innocent I certainly wouldn't accept your claims that they were still true.

I can't believe that's really so hard for you to get. Prolifers made a lot of wild claims. EVERY ONE was shot down by EVERY impartial authority that heard them.

It's a lot easier to believe that the pro-lifers were full of it than that all of these independent bodies all ruled the wrong way.



"Well, since Rush Limbaugh and the Republican National Committee found nothing amiss with the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate, she MUST have been absolutely the most qualified."

Do you really not understand the idea of impartial? I think you do and hence you know exactly why this example is BS.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, all I'm asking you to believe in is the reality of political corruption. You're expecting me to believe -- without a single medical study to back any of it up -- that:

1. That every ob/gyn in the country -- including doctors that are chief of high risk obstetrics at major medical centers -- was handling third trimester pregnancy complications wrong. That ONLY GEORGE TILLER, who was a PATHOLOGIST, not an obstetrician, knew the safest way to care for women suffering third trimester medical complications.

2. That the entire weight of all obstetric research, which established the standard of care for treating pregnancy complications, is totally trumped by George Tiller's innovation.

3. That a motel room far from home is a safer place than a hospital to treat a woman who is suffering third trimester pregnancy complications.

4. That laymen are better than obstetric nurses at monitoring the condition of a woman with third trimester pregnancy complications.

5. That the first step in treating a patient with third trimester pregnancy complications that threaten her health or life is not to stabilize her condition, or even to start an IV, but to jab a syringe full of powerful cardiac drugs into her fetus' heart (risking hitting a blood vessel or the placenta and getting this drug into the mother's system) so that somehow the rotting fetus in her uterus will (contrary to all obstetric knowledge, which considers a rotting fetus to be a sepsis risk) enhance her health and improve the outcome.

6. That it's better for a woman's physical and mental well being to rush from her bed during labor to make sure that her dead fetus lands in a toilet, than to have a woman give birth on a delivery table or birthing bed, attended by a physician, nurse, or midwife.

7. That the only reason that no other doctor adopted Tiller's methods -- including other doctors perfectly willing to kill babies after viability -- was that they're afraid of prolifers. That no doctor -- not even other late term abortionists -- would possibly reject his methods from concern for the patient or her unborn baby, because they were so clearly superior to what everybody else was doing. That all high risk ob/gyns routinely place their patients' lives at risk rather than treat third trimester complications in keeping with appropriate standards of care. That ONLY GEORGE TILLER cared about those women enough to want to do what was right for them.

That's a lot to swallow.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, all I'm asking you to believe in is the reality of political corruption."

Political corruption is one thing, but all encompassing political corruption sufficient to create an impenetrable conspiracy among such widely spaced independent actors?

No, not buying that for a second.


As for your list it's pretty much wrong from beginning to end, it assumes fact not in evidence (2, 5, 6) and constructs a number of strawman arguments (1, 3, 4, 7). It is in fact a perfect example of your skewed view of things that makes the idea that you are a better judge of the evidence so laughable.

Take number 7 for instance. You leap to the completely unsupported conclusion that there cannot be two accepted ways of treating a patient, that there must be one right way and every other way is wrong (without that your argument falls apart instantly). But that's just not the case. There are myriad different treatments for a single diagnosis. There are debates int he medical field about which approach is best.

Ultimately there are apporaches which meet the standards of the medical community and other apporaches that don't. Tiller's approach was put to the test far more than any other and it passed with flying colors. 100%. He could not have gotten a better score, Christina.

But instead of that promoting the slightest bit of pause on your part it only pushes your certainty into new levels of paranoia. Now not only was Tiller guilty beyond any doubt and requiring absolutely no proof (and no what you have is not proof, not even approaching proof, it is supposition backed supported only by medical ignorance) but he was protected from due process by some shadowy conspiracy with the power to manipulate the courts (plural) and the medical review board.

It's bad fiction, Christina. If it weren't for the man's murder, almost certainly due in part to this faerie tale, it'd be pretty funny. But that being the case it is sick, and sad, and you show not the slightest hint of having learned a lesson about it. I can only assume you'll do the same to the next poor slob who makes the mistake of practicing medicine you hate.

Lilliput said...

"Schizophrenia is no excuse for either evil or stupidity"

Christine you cannot be serious with that comment. Do you get no mental health education where you come from from?

Do you know what schizophrenia is?

Kathy said...

"You leap to the completely unsupported conclusion that there cannot be two accepted ways of treating a patient, that there must be one right way and every other way is wrong (without that your argument falls apart instantly). But that's just not the case. There are myriad different treatments for a single diagnosis. There are debates int he medical field about which approach is best."

Yes, but in obstetrics, doctors realize that they have two patients to treat -- which is why they do not prescribe certain medications to women at certain stages of pregnancy, since they would be harmful to the fetus. It is also why they will perform C-sections even against the mother's explicit refusal, even going so far as to secure a court order to force her to undergo unwanted surgery, if they deem the life of her fetus to be in jeopardy. I'm a childbirth educator, so I read an awful lot of birth stories and other related things. I've read numerous stories written by women who had third-trimester complications necessitating that their pregnancies be ended. Not one started off with a lethal injection to the baby. Not one included going to a hotel during the induction process under the care of their mother or some other friend or family member. Not one included giving birth outside a hospital. One of the stories I recently read was from a woman bewailing Tiller's murder, who had had an abortion at 21 or 22 weeks of wanted twins, when her health deteriorated to such a state as to make it necessary. Her blood pressure skyrocketed, and her urine output was zero; one twin was dead and the other was near death. Her doctor nearly cried during the procedure. At the hospital. Surrounded by medical equipment and staff that was necessary to keep this woman either alive or to maintain her health, particularly should complications arise. Not in a La Quinta with her mom.

"...widely spaced independent actors..." Since many of the Kansas medical board members were appointed by abortion proponent Sebelius, and since Sebelius received many financial contributions for her political runs from Tiller, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that these are "widely spaced independent actors."

GrannyGrump said...

Not to mention Tiller's buddy Larry, who had to step down as HEAD of the medical board because of a corruption scandal. Tlaloc would totally have us believe that though old Larry was corrupt in dealings with other doctors, he'd be totally above board and look only at medical issues when faced with charges against his friend.

SegaMon said...

Lilliput: "Do you know what schizophrenia is?"

You might want to take into consideration that we do not know exactly how severe Shroeder's symptoms of schizophrenia was at the time that he murdered Dr. Tiller. Also, medications that treat schizophrenia, if taken properly, can help return someone with that diagnosis to a semi-normal lifestyle.

Read up on Schizophrenics Anonymous. Their website has some stories about some severe schizophrenics that have returned to a quite normal lifestyle.

...their website is no longer online, but the archive is still available via http://web.archive.org/web/20071223101511/sanonymous.com/

Had this killer maintained a rigid treatment plan he could have possibly had his schizophrenia under control. Just maybe.

Purple Envelope Project said...

Segamom, I've read reports that he was not taking antipsychotics.

SegaMon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SegaMon said...

Purple Envolope, that certainly helps to explain just how he was able to do such a horrific deed. I hope that he repents and is able to receive proper treatment for his mental illness.

**My last comment I deleted because of a typo, lol

Tlaloc said...

"Yes, but in obstetrics, doctors realize that they have two patients to treat"

They're wrong. they have one patient. The fetus, as part of the mother, is part of the patient. And if the woman wants to be pregnant the doctor should certainly try to preserve that tissue, but that's all it is.


"It is also why they will perform C-sections even against the mother's explicit refusal"

I really hope you are joking or that such an irresponsible doctor would be stripped of credentials and jailed for assault. That's unconscionable.


"Since many of the Kansas medical board members were appointed by abortion proponent Sebelius, and since Sebelius received many financial contributions for her political runs from Tiller, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that these are "widely spaced independent actors.""

Okay so you think there's a reason, sans proof, that the kansas board may be compromised. Even if we take that as a given, it still leaves the people of the jury that acquitted and the grand jury that refused to indict. Yeah, I consider that "widely spaced independent actors."

Purple Envelope Project said...

No, Tlaloc, you're wrong. OBGYN's claim to have two patients to treat. In fact, when I was pregnant with my son, my perinatologist said "I have two patients, I will do my best to save both of you."

Hmm...

Kathy said...

Tlaloc,

The fetus is *not* part of the mother -- that's an absurdity from a genetic standpoint. From the time of conception until its death, there is an entirely distinct human in existence -- which is why the woman can die during an amniotic fluid embolism -- her body recognizes that the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby is not "her body" so it tries to target it as a foreign invader; it's also why women who are Rh- but pregnant with an Rh+ baby have certain risks of Rh sensitization should the baby's blood happen to cross into the maternal bloodstream (the biggest concern is that after the first sensitization occurs, then the woman is at risk for multiple miscarriages, since her body may reject every other implanted embryo). It's also why women are able to have boys. I've had two, which means by your logic that I've had four testicles and two penises over the course of my life, albeit only for two 9-month stretches -- but that's nothing -- my MIL had 4 boys, including one set of twins, so she had 8 testicles and 4 penises; and I won't even get into a discussion on how many different sexual organs Michelle Duggar (mother of 18) has had in her lifetime, if the fetus is merely an extension of the mother's body.

"I really hope you are joking or that such an irresponsible doctor would be stripped of credentials and jailed for assault. That's unconscionable."

At last we agree!! Yes, it's unconscionable (since in all but the rarest of cases the doctor was overreacting over some squiggles on an EFM strip), but yes, it has happened. Fortunately, it's rare, but you might find some enlightenment on the subject if you look up terms such as "birth rape", "birth assault", "forced C-section" and other similar terms, you will see that it can and does happen. Many of the stories I've heard personally have been in emails on birth-related lists, so are probably not available for a wider audience. You'll probably like a lot of these articles, because they are couched in veiled pro-abortion language. I have a love-hate relationship with the topic, because I don't think women should refuse treatment that will save the lives of their babies -- but of course, most women do *not* refuse unless they have pretty darn good reasons, and many women who have successfully refused the intervention have gone on to have perfectly normal babies. But I also know that about half the C-sections performed in America today are unnecessary, and in many of the stories that I read about forced or coerced C-sections (or other interventions), I see signs that the C-sections these women are refusing are not truly necessary, and they are not only within their rights to refuse the intervention for themselves, but also for their babies, since an intervention without benefit only increases medical risk. But to get you started, I'll give you a couple of links to get started: New York Academy of Medicine and National Advocates for Pregnant Women. But there are many other stories -- just like women who are raped may not come forward and press charges against their assailants, so women who are violated during labor or birth may not go public with their stories. But it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Tlaloc said...

"No, Tlaloc, you're wrong. OBGYN's claim to have two patients to treat"

I'm willing to accept that they make the claim, its just that the claim is false.

Tlaloc said...

"The fetus is *not* part of the mother -- that's an absurdity from a genetic standpoint."

No, its really not, Kathy. For one thing the incidence of human chimerism is not nearly as low as was once thought. plenty of people (quite possibly the majority) have cellular material in their bodies with different genetic codes (even leaving aside the obvious issue of haploid reproductive cells). Additionally if you insist that having foreign cellular material in your body makes you two different organisms then every transplantee is two people- an example of the kind of ridiculous result of your logic taken to its natural conclusion.

Tlaloc said...

more later.

Purple Envelope Project said...

Tlaloc, no the claim is true. My son was a seperate, unique human being. He resided within my body, but that did not make him any less of a human being. There are two (or more) human beings in every pregnancy.

Thus, two patients.

Purple Envelope Project said...

Tlaloc, There is a vast difference between an organ and an organism. Thus, there is a vast difference between a heart transplant and a fetus.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "The fetus, as part of the mother, is part of the patient."

...and then when the fetus pops it's head out, a miracle happens! It becomes human! Wow! I mean, it doesn't matter if the fetus was 24 weeks when born or 42 weeks when born! The head, when it is physically outside of a specific environment, it magically becomes human! I have never heard of such a miracle. I'm glad you brought up such a genius perspective, Tlaloc. :)

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, no the claim is true."

I disagree. More importantly than either of our subjective evaluations, I think that looking at the matter your way leads to far more preposterous results than looking at it my way.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, There is a vast difference between an organ and an organism. Thus, there is a vast difference between a heart transplant and a fetus."

The problem is you are saying the fetus is n organisim when it very clearly isn't. It is far closer to the organ than the organism. In fact in early development it's closer to a single cell or a tissue than even an organ (much less an organism).

Tlaloc said...

"...and then when the fetus pops it's head out, a miracle happens! It becomes human! Wow! I mean, it doesn't matter if the fetus was 24 weeks when born or 42 weeks when born! The head, when it is physically outside of a specific environment, it magically becomes human! I have never heard of such a miracle. I'm glad you brought up such a genius perspective, Tlaloc. :)"

Nice strawman you got there.... oh shame you had to go and crush it like that.

Meanwhile if you're interested in anything resembling my argument you're probably better off getting it from me instead of just making things up. I do believe the fetus eventually becomes an organism, this threshold is reached once it could, if removed from the womb, survive with no more care than any full term baby. If I had to guess that threshold would be reached sometime in the 30-35 week range (based very roughly off of development milestones and survival stats for preemies).

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc, I love the arbitrary way you define an "organism."

Tlaloc: "Reached sometime in the 30-35 week range."

Spoken like a spoken like a true genius.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, I love the arbitrary way you define an "organism.""

It's not arbitrary at all, the issue is simply that I don't have the requisite knowledge to pin it down precisely, and I recognize that (plus there's the issue that different pregnancies proceed at different rates).

Somatically it's quite simple- it's an organism once it can do all the things something has to do to be an organism. Specifically once it can breathe, digest, grow, react to stimuli, and so on. It can grow from the first moments of pregnancy and in early pregnancy it can show limited reaction to stimuli. Development of the lungs and digestive capability come substantially later.


"Spoken like a spoken like a true genius."

Maybe once you give up on your misconceptions my argument will seem to contain more wisdom. Give it a try.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, you're demonstrating a very limited understanding of the qualities of an organism. To say an organism can "breathe" misleading. Trees are organisms, but they don't "breathe", nor do fish or corals. What organisms do is exchange gasses -- oxygen and carbon dioxide. Organisms in the plant kingdom draw in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen; organisms in the animal kingdom draw in oxygen and put out carbon dioxide. Animals exchange oxygen even in the fetal stage, via the placenta.

And to say organisms "eat" is likewise misleading. What they do is provide nourishment to their cells -- plants via photosynthesis, animals via metabolism. A fetus metabolizes nutrients it gets via the placenta.

Reacting to stimuli, likewise, doesn't mean conscious or purposeful reaction. A plant will grow toward sunshine. An oyster will secrete nacre to coat an irritant, not because the oyster is thinking about it, but because that's how the oyster organism responds to irritants.

What makes an organism an organism rather than an organ is that it is a complete specimen of its own species. Which a fetus is.

GrannyGrump said...

Here we go, in a nutshell:

"In biology, an organism is any living thing (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one cell."

"In biology and anatomy, an organ (Latin: organum, "instrument, tool", from Greek ὄργανον - organon, "organ, instrument, tool") is a tissue that performs a specific function or group of functions within an organism."

An embryo HAS ORGANS. It therefore can not, itself, BE an organ.

SegaMon said...

My own words: "Spoken like a spoken like a true genius." lol. I love how eloquent I speak! :)

Tlaloc: "It's not arbitrary at all, the issue is simply that I don't have the requisite knowledge to pin it down precisely..."

Um... how do you know if it's arbitrary or not if you can't obtain the knowledge to know whether or not it is arbitrary?

Science has shown the beginning of human life to be at conception. I agree with this claim since it is absolutely the LEAST arbitrary moment in human development. All other moments are very much arbitrary IMO.

Thanks for your eloquent input, Christina. :)

Lilliput said...

Tlaloc you're being really stupid here. If you're pro choice - that's fine - but at least acknowledge what you are ok with doing. You are basically killing the possibility of a human life. Whether its 2 weeks after conception or 25 weeks after conception.

Saying it isn't so - doesn't make it so - it makes you floating down the river of denile........

I'm not against abortion at all but I'm not for a second deluded!

Purple Envelope Project said...

Christina already did a great job of explaining the difference between an organism and an organ, but I would just like to add one thing.

We know, definitively, when a new unique human life begins. It begins at amphimixis. At this point all genetic material is complete. The continuem of a human life begins here and ends at natural death. Nothing leaps into being. The structures for every system have been laid out since the beginning of this unique life.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, you're demonstrating a very limited understanding of the qualities of an organism. To say an organism can "breathe" misleading. Trees are organisms, but they don't "breathe", nor do fish or corals"

You're very wrong here, Christina. All of those organisms do in fact breathe. They do not use lungs but they do take in oxygen and release CO2 (trees also take in CO2 and release oxygen while photosynthesizing).



"And to say organisms "eat" is likewise misleading. What they do is provide nourishment to their cells -- plants via photosynthesis, animals via metabolism. A fetus metabolizes nutrients it gets via the placenta."

Yes that is how a fetus eats, but it is not how a human being eats. Hence the difference. Every cell in your body eats which is part of why the cells in your body are alive, but they are not separate organisms because the species they belong to is a large multicellular organism. That organsims eats with a digestive track and breathes with lungs. That the fetus can do neither at first precludes it being more than part of the organism.


"Reacting to stimuli, likewise, doesn't mean conscious or purposeful reaction."

I never said it did.


"What makes an organism an organism rather than an organ is that it is a complete specimen of its own species. Which a fetus is."

Which a fetus is not you mean. A fetus, until late development, lacks many of the critical aspects of a human organism, as I have detailed.

Tlaloc said...

"An embryo HAS ORGANS. It therefore can not, itself, BE an organ."

True it is not literally an organ. But neither is it an organism. It is a collection of tissues (some arranged into organs).

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc you're being really stupid here. If you're pro choice - that's fine - but at least acknowledge what you are ok with doing. You are basically killing the possibility of a human life."

Killing the possibility of human life? Yes absolutely. Pregnancy is a process, the end result of which, if successful, is a human being. If you choose to interrupt the process you certainly do preclude it resulting in a human being.

That's entirely different than killing a human being though. If I start an essay and throw it away after the outline stage or even the first draft,I have not thrown away an essay, but I have ended the possibility of eventually creating that essay.

Tlaloc said...

"Um... how do you know if it's arbitrary or not if you can't obtain the knowledge to know whether or not it is arbitrary?"

Because it is based on specific criteria, I just don;t know precisely when that criteria is passed.

Look if you look at your speedometer and see that you are driving 100 MPH right now in a car and you know you started from rest then obviously at at least one point you were going 50mph. If you weren't watching the speedometer you might not know when that point happened. But that does not make the idea of 50mph arbitrary.

If we were to write an abortion law based on my views I would rely on doctors to design a criteria for when the point of "true viability" is passed (either a specific date or, better, some series of measurments to determine the development of an individual fetus). I don;t know exactly when they'd set the limit. I suspect it'd be somewhere in the 30-35 week range. I might be wrong. Since no such law is going to be written I don't feel terribly bothered by the fact that I can't pin it down for you exactly.



"Science has shown the beginning of human life to be at conception."

Depends on what you mean by human "life." Tissue, sure. Organism, no.

Tlaloc said...

"We know, definitively, when a new unique human life begins. It begins at amphimixis. At this point all genetic material is complete. The continuem of a human life begins here and ends at natural death."

See above- new cellular material, sure. New organism, obviously not.

Look this isn't that hard- we can debate all manner of things about human beings but the human organism is definitively multicellular and a fertilized egg is not.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc, feel free to ignore the TRUE definition of organism. Feel free to ignore the TRUE definition of arbitrary. You make me laugh. :) No one will ever convince you otherwise that your off-base definitions are completely wrong and backwards.

So... there really is no point in debate with you. I'm sure others may have already realized this.

arbitrary
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. (Your definition is YOUR OWN. You state that doctors will have their own decision as well. There is no definite line here. "I suspect it'd be somewhere in the 30-35 week range." Um... "suspect"!? When you only can "suspect" something it is NOT arbitrary? Strange...)
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference (You have stated that doctors will make their own decisions based upon viability. Viability has become defined earlier and earlier based upon medical advances throughout the years. So... Let's just say that 35 weeks would be viability 100 years ago, and now 24 weeks would be viability today. I guess, to you, it matters what generation one was born in to be considered "human.")
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute. (Did somebody say... Roe v. Wade? The law actually DOES support your desire to protect fetuses following viability. And you can see just how unclear, undefined, and arbitrary laws have been to protect post-viable fetuses.)
4. Not limited by law (If each and every doctor can define his own definition of viable, then viability can change depending upon "opinion" and will not be limited to law. This is one reason why such late term abortions are legal based upon the loose definition of "health" in the law.)

Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering with it... your example of 50mph to 100mph is strange. You say that 50mph is not arbitrary. 50mph is objective and measurable. 30-35weeks gestation based upon A, B, C and the opinion of individuals is not so objective and measurable.

Anyways. I'm contemplating whether or not to continue responding to you. The only reason why I may is to show others that read these comments the fallacy of your arguments. I know you will never see anything that you will consider in any words that I speak.

Nonetheless, may God bless you. Let us hope that we all can have an open mind. See ya! :)

Purple Envelope Project said...

Tlaloc, you're wrong.

""The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]"

The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]"


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]"




"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]"

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]"


Care to ammend your statements to the contrary?

Kathy said...

PEP -- ***thank you***. I'm just waiting for Tlaloc's response to see how he's going to try to wriggle around this. He's so good at deferring to "the doctors" when it comes to a handful of them in the country wanting to kill babies; but then it comes to OB/GYNs having two patients, it becomes "...they *make* the claim....but the claim is false."

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, feel free to ignore the TRUE definition of organism."

Why would I? I've been using it all along.


"Feel free to ignore the TRUE definition of arbitrary."

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.


"No one will ever convince you otherwise that your off-base definitions are completely wrong and backwards."

You mean I don;t accept your version of words over the actual definitions? Gosh, I'm just so unreasonable.


"Of course, I don't know why I'm bothering with it... your example of 50mph to 100mph is strange. You say that 50mph is not arbitrary. 50mph is objective and measurable. 30-35weeks gestation based upon A, B, C and the opinion of individuals is not so objective and measurable."

Apparently you didn't really get the example. The point was that even if you aren't sure when it happens because you weren't paying enogh attention, it did happen, and someone who did pay attention can definitively say when. Similarly I may not know when precisely "true viability" is reached, but it is reached at some point, and I'm very happy to leave it to those with the training and the background to tell me when that was.

Again you are conflating a lack of information about when a specific threshold occurs with the threshold itself being nebulous. My position is not arbitrary, it is currently imprecise, because i lack the tools and frankly motivation to get the precision you might like.



"I know you will never see anything that you will consider in any words that I speak."

There's a concept called projection you may wish to read up on.

Tlaloc said...

"""The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]""

Exactly right. Notice what they say: the development of the human being. In other words the process of creating one. Not the finished product. If it were already a human being there would be no development.


""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]""

This author is simply sloppy and wrong. A new organism is not yet formed.



""Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]"

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]""

Again key term is development- the change from one thing to another. In this case from tissue into an organism.


"Care to ammend your statements to the contrary?"

No I'm pretty happy. I think you are being tripped up by mistaking the development of a thing with the thing itself. As I've said repeatedly- an outline is not an essay. Similarly a fetus is not an organism. It is merely a step in the process.

Tlaloc said...

"I'm just waiting for Tlaloc's response to see how he's going to try to wriggle around this. He's so good at deferring to "the doctors" when it comes to a handful of them in the country wanting to kill babies;"

I defer to doctor's in medical decisions. Calling a fetus a person is not a medical decision but a philosophical one.

SegaMon said...

"I defer to doctor's in medical decisions."

I wonder if you'd say the same thing about doctors complicit in the mass killings of the mentally retarded, pregnant, physically disabled, and others in Nazi Germany... I mean, they were doctors! They were making MEDICAL decisions!

Just had to say it. :)

GrannyGrump said...

It is kinda fun on the one hand to give him rope and watch him hang himself, but I'm starting to wish people would just ignore him so he'd go away.

"Of some delights, I believe, sir, a little goes a long way." -- Elizabeth, "Pride and Prejudice"

Kathy said...

GG -- you are too funny!

Yes, I had decided the same thing as you -- and he is rather like Lady Catherine, now that you mention it. Next I shall ask him how to properly play the piano, because of course you know, he would have been a great proficient, if he had ever learnt. :-)

Tlaloc said...

"I wonder if you'd say the same thing about doctors complicit in the mass killings of the mentally retarded, pregnant, physically disabled, and others in Nazi Germany... I mean, they were doctors! They were making MEDICAL decisions!

Just had to say it. :)"

I don't agree that those were medical decisions. They were political decisions brought about by the government's decision to engage in eugenics. I think that's a pretty easy proposition to establish.

Tlaloc said...

"It is kinda fun on the one hand to give him rope and watch him hang himself, but I'm starting to wish people would just ignore him so he'd go away."

Feel free, Christina. I had hoped you'd learn something from tiller's murder, but instead you withdrew into defensiveness and lashed out at everyone who played no role int he matter, while carefully ignoring the role you and yours did play.

That's tragic. It means you learned nothing from this and it will happen again. Maybe next time you'll be more open to dealing with the results of your irresponsible actions. It really sucks though that at least one more person will have to die for that to happen.

You could be pro-life and still refrain from launching incessant incendiary and ultimately unsupported attacks towards those you disagree with. This isn't about choosing between being responsible and your beliefs. It's about choosing between being responsible and your chosen tactic. You choose to say things that are untrue, to ignore the evidence that counteracts your supposition and innuendo. And so far you've chosen to deny any responsibility on your part for that slander.

Now tell me why I should have even an iota of sympathy for the prolifers and their cause. Tell me why I shouldn't cheer any effort to put you guys on a terrorist watch list. Tell me why I should regard you as anything but fanatics.

Remember, at the end of the day I don't need to convince you. Your side is the losing one. Abortion is already legal, and looks to be for a long time. You had total GOP control of government and didn't make any headway towards banning abortion, and now the Dems have strong control of government and are likely to only increase control in 2010 in the senate where SCOTUS judges are approved.

Take a lesson from the GOP: when you're in the minority, with a bad image, the last thing you want to do is to retreat into fanaticism. That leads to a death spiral.

Kathy said...

*yawn* -- you've already admitted that this man killed those whom even you consider to be babies, so who are you to complain that we say the same thing?

Tlaloc said...

"*yawn* -- you've already admitted that this man killed those whom even you consider to be babies, so who are you to complain that we say the same thing?"

If that's all you said there wouldn't be a problem. But you go on to call him a murderer, a quack, a conspirator, and many more names besides. The problem of course being you can demonstrate none of these claims sufficient to convince an impartial authority.

But you keep screaming epithets regardless.

And then you are shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out that someone who trusted you and listened to you decided to do something about this.

Kathy said...

Somebody who kills innocent babies *is* a murderer. I'm just calling a spade a spade. There is no medical reason to ensure a dead baby is born when a live baby could be.

I never called him a quack, nor really a conspirator, although it does seem he had a circle of friends to protect him -- whether that rises to the level of "conspiracy" is debatable.

Tlaloc said...

"Somebody who kills innocent babies *is* a murderer."

No, not even close. Killing the baby to save the mother is not murder. It's triage.



"There is no medical reason to ensure a dead baby is born when a live baby could be."

And what year dd you get your medical degree?

oh.

Kathy said...

Since you are still insisting that Tiller only performed post-viability abortions (including those that killed babies even by your definition) to save the life of the mother, this website with links to Kansas state documents may be enlightening.

Terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother is sometimes necessary -- I never said it wasn't. If the baby can't live, then that's an unfortunate occurrence; but if the baby *can* live (i.e., it is viable, past 24 weeks), and the doctor chooses to kill him or her instead of terminating with an induction or C-section, then that's unnecessarily killing an innocent human.

I provide more statements made by doctors to back up what I say on the other post we're commenting on.

Oh, and I got my medical degree the same year you got yours. But I have improved myself and my knowledge of childbirth and pregnancy and all things related since then, whereas you're stuck on "kill the baby, kill the baby, kill the baby," even when the baby could be saved.

Tlaloc said...

"Oh, and I got my medical degree the same year you got yours."

precisely, which is why I'm happy to accept the decisions of doctors, and have absolutely no intention of substituting your opinions for theirs.


"But I have improved myself and my knowledge of childbirth and pregnancy and all things related since then,"

I'm not terribly impressed with this "improvement." It seems more like you uncritically accepted anything said by a prolife source. There's a pretty significant chain of evidence here and it runs 100% contrary to your position int he matter. But we're supposed to ignore all that, for some reason.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "I don't agree that those were medical decisions. They were political decisions..."

Exactly my point, Tlaloc. Thanks for illustrating it so perfectly. :)

Tlaloc said...

"Exactly my point, Tlaloc. Thanks for illustrating it so perfectly. :)"

Um, okay. If that was your point then why did you call them medical decisions?

Alternatively if you want to show that abortion is a political decision then I think you have a long ways to go. The "Final Solution" was put in place by a particular political party. It did not exist before the national socialists created it. Thus its pretty easy to show it was not a medical decision. Abortion on the other hand has existed for millennia in various forms. It did not come into existence with Roe v Wade. The political aspect followed from the medical, not vice versa.

So that being the case how does this remotely support your point, such that it can be precisely your argument? I'm just curious.

Kathy said...

Opinions of doctors is what you want? Just check out AAPLOG's website and the pro-life MFM website for entire groups of doctors who state that abortion is not necessary after viability to save the mother's life, because both mother and baby can be spared.

"Killing the baby to save the mother is not murder. It's triage."

If the mother cannot be saved other than by terminating the pregnancy, and the baby is pre-viable, this is true. Although triage in a hotel as opposed to a hospital is still insane if the mother's life is truly at risk, particularly from something like preeclampsia which may turn into toxemia resulting in seizures which could kill her or seriously injure her brain -- in that case, the standard protocol is to admit her to the hospital and give her a drip of magnesium to bring down her blood pressure, and to have a trained nurse test her reflexes among other things to make sure the magnesium is not harming her or her baby; and if it is, then she can have the baby taken from her by induction or C-section. That is the protocol for dealing with such cases. It's that simple. That is the standard of care, not the La Quinta.

But you assert that all these post-viability abortions (or at least, I assume that you think a great number of the post-viability abortions Tiller did that were not done to kill imperfect babies were really done to save the life of the mother. Let's look at that.

Since I think my post with all the links disappeared (hopefully can be recovered from the spam folder) due to the high number of links, I will put in just one link: a website linking to Kansas state health records, which shows that in most cases if not every case of post-viability abortions (I read it last night, but only quickly scanned it right now, so I may have missed one out of the thousands), the abortion was NOT done to save the life of the mother; the typical case being to save the "health" of the mother, which the Supreme Court defined as including financial health and mental health (so broadly defined by Tiller as to include "I don't want a baby" as a mental disease).



CHRISTINA -- if you're reading this thread, do you have a "spam" comment folder you can check to see if you can find my comment? It's possible it just didn't post (I didn't close a tag or something, and I didn't check to see if it posted for sure before shutting down), but I had so many links in it that it may have been diverted to spam. If you could check and de-spam my comment, I'd really appreciate not having to go back and find and type all the tags again!

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "Alternatively if you want to show that abortion is a political decision then I think you have a long ways to go."

You are starting to amuse me. Kathy's most recent post illustrates just why therapeutic abortion is very much a political decision. It is a political decision because human lives are being destroyed in the interest of convenience.

Tlaloc said...

"Opinions of doctors is what you want? Just check out AAPLOG's website and the pro-life MFM website for entire groups of doctors who state that abortion is not necessary after viability to save the mother's life, because both mother and baby can be spared."

Fine but other doctors disagree, and those doctors are clearly in the majority.



"But you assert that all these post-viability abortions (or at least, I assume that you think a great number of the post-viability abortions Tiller did that were not done to kill imperfect babies were really done to save the life of the mother. Let's look at that."

I do not assert any such thing. you made a universal statement that was wrong. I corrected it. I never said the universal was the only case. However I will point out that your side consistently failed to prove any wrong doing.



"the abortion was NOT done to save the life of the mother; the typical case being to save the "health" of the mother, which the Supreme Court defined as including financial health and mental health (so broadly defined by Tiller as to include "I don't want a baby" as a mental disease)."

Again logic is your friend. "Health" includes "life" so your argument above is specious. You cannot say that those abortions done for health were NOT done to save the life of the mother.

Tlaloc said...

"You are starting to amuse me."

Only starting?



"Kathy's most recent post illustrates just why therapeutic abortion is very much a political decision. It is a political decision because human lives are being destroyed in the interest of convenience."

That doesn't make it a political decision at all. It is not a solution to a political issue, nor is it the particular province of a political party (despite the ludicrous "party of death" stuff it turns out that plenty of people in both parties and independents support abortion rights). Again- the final solution was created by a political party for a political purpose. On the contrary abortion has been a medical practice fro millennia. It occurred even when illegal. The politics followed after, rather than being causal.

SegaMon said...

I am using the term "political" to mean something that you are not grasping. I am using the definition of "based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives" with emphasis on self-serving (The American Heritage Dictionary).

Purple Envelope Project said...

Tlaloc I'm really starting to feel bad for you.

You say "Exactly right. Notice what they say: the development of the human being. In other words the process of creating one. Not the finished product. If it were already a human being there would be no development."

Um, did you miss the pertinent part of the quote? Here I'll post it again "the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

Hmm. NEW ORGANISM. ZYGOTE.

You're wrong.

Then you say that the author of an embryology text is wrong. You don't actually give any biological evidence to back up your claim. I thihk I'll go with the man writing the text, not an internet tough guy.



You continue by saying "Again key term is development- the change from one thing to another. In this case from tissue into an organism." You say this in response to:

""Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]"

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]""


The problem, Tlaloc, is that these quotes don't say what you claim them to. You are simply wrong. Your absurd denial is scary.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "Exactly right. Notice what they say: the development of the human being."

I want to add another point to what Purple Envelope already stated. The statement "the development of the human being" can be completed in numerous ways:

"The development of the human being from ...

embryo to fetus."

fetus to neonate."

neonate to toddler."

toddler to school-aged child."

school-aged child to adolescent."

adolescent to adult."

adult to seasoned citizen (lol)."

Human beings are always developing and/or changing from conception until natural death. Fact.

Kathy said...

Tlaloc,

Fine but other doctors disagree, and those doctors are clearly in the majority.

Clearly? Says who? Where is your evidence?

But "majority opinion" is not always right -- particularly when not evidence-based. It used to be "majority opinion" that all women needed an episiotomy for a vaginal birth (cutting the vagina), and that pulling the baby out of the uterus by forceps was somehow better than him/her being pushed out by the uterine contractions. Hysterectomy is still one of the most frequent surgeries women have, although it is accepted by many authorities as being far overused -- but doctors were trained back in the 1900s "when in doubt, cut it out," as regards women's health issues -- if a woman had a "female" problem, the typical response was to perform a hysterectomy. And that's still the typical response, even though the evidence shows that there are frequently if not usually much milder ways of dealing with many female issues. These kinds of issues are why people get second opinions.

Let me put it to you this way -- if you went to a doctor because of a spot on your foot, and he told you that you needed to have your leg amputated, would you believe him? or would you consult with another doctor -- preferably someone who specialized in such spots (whether skin cancer or gangrene or whatever)? The problem with the majority is that many times they are actually wrong, simply because they don't know enough to know what is a better way of dealing with certain medical issues which are actually out of their range of knowledge. Perfect example and true story -- a man found out that his mother had a problem with her colon, and her only hope (according to her doctor) was that she have surgery; but her heart was so weak, the doctor had little hope of her surviving the surgery. The man called a friend on his cell phone to ask for prayer, but the number he dialed happened to be to a doctor who specialized in just the colon problem the woman had. He told the man about an alternative that would likely work to save his mother, that would not require life-threatening surgery to accomplish; it worked.

Tiller wasn't an OB, so he wasn't trained in helping pregnant women or their babies, much less save their life or health.

In the previously-linked website to the Kansas Dept. of Health, the abortion data summaries from 1998-2008 show that ZERO abortions done at or after 22 weeks were done to save the life of the mother. You have consistently said that Tiller saved women's lives, or that post-viability abortions are done to save women's lives -- perhaps not universal, but you have said that it happens. You have no evidence for that. Zero. It didn't happen; it doesn't happen.

You seem to be defining "wrong doing" by merely legal convictions. Christina has pointed out numerous times that it used to be legal to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri (I think); and that law was only repealed in 1974. Was it "wrong doing" to kill Mormons even though it was legal?

Again logic is your friend. "Health" includes "life" so your argument above is specious. You cannot say that those abortions done for health were NOT done to save the life of the mother.

Logic is my friend, and the ability to read would be your friend if you were to avail yourself of it! Look at the Kansas reports! There are separate data for abortions done to save the life of the mother and those done to preserve a major bodily function. Read, Tlaloc! Read!

Kathy said...

For your further enlightenment, I got in contact with a pro-life MFM (Maternal Fetal Medicine specialist -- a subspecialty of obstetrics & gynecology), who had this to say:

1) Dr. George Tiller was a family practice doctor. He had NO training in high risk pregnancies, fetal or maternal problems.

2) There is no need after 23-24 weeks to ever perform an abortion in the way that Dr. Tiller did, to save or protect maternal life or health in any way. If life or health is threatened all trained obstetricians and maternal-fetal medicine physicians can and would simply deliver the baby and place the baby in a neonatal intensive care unit. It happens every day, many times, all over the United States .

3) Sometimes before 23-24 weeks (rarely) a pregnancy has to be delivered because the mother’s life is clearly in danger. In this case, the labor can be induced, the baby delivered and the baby will not survive because of the early gestational age, but this can be done without intent of killing the baby.

4) The only reason abortions were done by Dr. Tiller was because the mother did not want a LIVING baby born. He induced their labor and delivered the baby, almost always killing the baby first, before inducing the labor, to achieve the real purpose for which woman came to him: they did not want to deliver a living baby.

5) If a mother’s life or health was really at risk from her pregnancy it would at least border on malpractice, if not be frank malpractice, for a family practice doctor without any special training in high risk obstetrics to induce the labor in such a woman in the outpatient setting. This alone should make it clear to anyone familiar with medical practice that none of the abortions he did were MEDICALLY necessary, at least not with the need to kill the baby before delivery.

You won’t find any “authoritative” voice that will say exactly what you are looking for. It would be like looking for an authoritative source that says if you jump out of an airplane and want to survive you need a parachute. In other words, it is so obvious, and there is no other way it is normally done, that you don’t need an authoritative source to state this in so many words. Any one in medicine who works in obstetrics would have to admit this.

On the other hand, every single text book on obstetrics or maternal-fetal medicine can be scoured and you will not find any description stating that killing a fetus before delivery is necessary to save the life or health of the mother, in any circumstance. This should be evidence enough. . ...

Nathan Hoeldtke, MD for the Pro-Life Maternal-Fetal Medicine Group.