• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man accused of killing abortion doc says he's being 'treated like a criminal'

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Posted this in another thread, but I thought it'd be more appropriate here:

Aside from the obvious differences between what an unborn fetus should have...

Is there or is there NOT a pretty significant difference between the rape and murder of an 8 month old and legal optional choice of a woman to abort her fetus.

I mean, besides the fact that, oh I don't know- one was definitely alive and the other could still have been stillborn. Besides the fact that one was legal and the other was illegal. Besides the fact that one had rape involved and the other didn't. Besides the fact that Rapist/Murderer A chose to end the life of a toddler and Doctor B did what he was legally obligated to do and what Paying Customer C paid him to do (this is a capitalistic society right?).

I don't understand why Doctor B should be justifiably murdered even though he wouldn't be "murdering fetuses" without the consent of Paying Customer C. I don't really think he enjoys "murdering fetuses" but we all do work our jobs to get money right? Why should Tiller be the target of violence when he's doing what is legally his right to do? Why shouldn't these insane psychopath confused Pro-life (irony?) murderers go after the women who choose to have the abortions? Why don't they use the same scare tactics on them?

Can we agree that, if ANYBODY (which I don't agree with, as I'm pro-choice) is to be morally blameworthy for these actions, shouldn't it be the women who make the decisions to go see the big bad abortion doctors? Also, if the Tiller killer instead killed the women who went to go see Tiller, would he be getting as much support from some pro-lifers as he is now?
Click to expand...

Would any pro-lifers actually like to respond to this? The only two responses involved derailing the entire point of my post to avoid answering the questions I asked.
 
Redress said:
He was ignored because he was not credible. There is still no credible evidence that Tiller did anything illegal, and plenty of evidence he did nothing illegal.

And yet you are glad he is dead, based on weak at best evidence of possible misconduct.
Click to expand...
Personally it is not whether he did anything illegal that I care about, although wishing him dead is the wrong term --thinking he was a monster is better, but whether he doing late-term abortions when the mother was not in serious danger.

Even the pro-abort BBC article implied he was although I have not seen conclusive proof so I will suspend my judgment.
 
Wessexman said:
Personally it is not whether he did anything illegal that I care about, although wishing him dead is the wrong term --thinking he was a monster is better, but whether he doing late-term abortions when the mother was not in serious danger.

Even the pro-abort BBC article implied he was although I have not seen conclusive proof so I will suspend my judgment.
Click to expand...

AS I understand it, isn't doing late term abortions illegal except under certain circumstances?
 
Redress said:
AS I understand it, isn't doing late term abortions illegal except under certain circumstances?
Click to expand...

Probably. What is needed is more info on the circumstances he was doing it under but even the pro-abortion Brussels broadcasting corporation seemed to be implying he was doing it for things wider than serious danger to the mother.

That would, if the proof was more conclusive, make him a terrible man in my book whatever the law of the particular state was. Although I would not wish him murdered or dead.
 
Last edited:
missypea said:
To me those are two separate issues. All the talk about him murdering healthy babies for no other reason other than being a murderer and that all of these women were complicit in aiding him makes me cross-eyed. It makes no sense to me for anyone to make a claim like that.

The legal issues he faced are a different issue in my mind but as far as I know, he was acquitted, yes?


:2wave:
Click to expand...

For lack of evidence. Lack of evidence because any law that would have brought oversite to his murder mill was vetoed by the governor receiving campaign funds from his clinic. And therein lies the rub...
 
Redress said:
I could not give 38 cents. What is your point?

I cannot find total campaign donations recieved for Sebilious, every search returns the numbers from Tiller. So I went with a search on governers in general:

Terry McAuliffe: 2.195 mil for 1 election cycle. source

Jennifer Granholm: 4.96 mil in 2005 source

So I ask again, do you really think that some one is going to risk their political life for a contribution that is less than 2 %(38k/2mil, to get a maximum percentage) of the money she raises in any one year?
Click to expand...

2% of total funds from one donor is a pretty sizeable amount...
 
jallman said:
2% of total funds from one donor is a pretty sizeable amount...
Click to expand...

That would be for one year, except it was spread over 7 years.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Frankly, there is no difference between those who cheerlead this behavior (or at the least, withhold their condemnation and pretend as if it is somehow justified), and those who do celebrate bombings directed at U.S. service personnel in the middle east.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can quote anyone on this forum or anywhere else that cheerleads both the Tiller murder and bombings directed at US service personnel in the middle east. If so, post it.
 
Redress said:
That would be for one year, except it was spread over 7 years.
Click to expand...

Regardless. It's still a considerable amount from one donor.

Even if it were 2 dollars over seven years, the governor should not be blocking oversight of a baby killing operation.
 
jallman said:
For lack of evidence. Lack of evidence because any law that would have brought oversite to his murder mill was vetoed by the governor receiving campaign funds from his clinic. And therein lies the rub...
Click to expand...

You don't need medical records of all the women to make a reasonable conclusion on whether or not Tiller ran a murder mill.

The bottom line for me is that people on this forum are calling Tiller a baby murderer, getting that emotional hoorah going. If that was Tiller's game than all the women he performed late term abortions for were in on it. That's hardly likely. It makes no sense and it's not a reasonable conclusion.


:2wave:
 
missypea said:
You don't need medical records of all the women to make a reasonable conclusion on whether or not Tiller ran a murder mill.

The bottom line for me is that people on this forum are calling Tiller a baby murderer, getting that emotional hoorah going. If that was Tiller's game than all the women he performed late term abortions for were in on it. That's hardly likely. It makes no sense and it's not a reasonable conclusion.


:2wave:
Click to expand...

That is the scariest part of all this.
 
talloulou said:
Dr. hired by the state to review records was Paul McHugh.
Click to expand...

It appears you where sonewhat correct. McHugh does not appear to have protested, but does appear to have gone on a crusade, and had a cease and desist order filed against him(source: http://operationrescue.org/pdfs/MorrisonThreat061207.pdf).

Don McKinney is the guy who protested outside Tiller's clinic, and was the special prosecutor assigned to the Tiller case, a clear conflict of interest(source: Kansas Abortion Prosecutor Fired - washingtonpost.com).

The attorney General who hired McKinney is Phil Kline. One of his wonderful acts in office was Limon vs Kansas: "During his tenure, in the case of Limon v. State, Kline defended a Kansas law which provided substantially[specify] higher sentencing guidelines for acts of homosexual statutory rape compared to equivalent heterosexual acts.(source: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phill_Kline]Phill Kline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame])
 
Paul Mc Hugh didn't go on a crusade. He was shocked by what he saw when asked to investigate and he wanted that shock and what he saw to be aired publicly. Hardly a crusade. Of course they want him to stop. It's embarrassing that Paul Mc Hugh is out stating that Tiller was doing late term abortions illegally and not meeting the irreversible maternal health threat criteria and yet nothing was being done about it.

It's shameful.
 
missypea said:
You don't need medical records of all the women to make a reasonable conclusion on whether or not Tiller ran a murder mill.

The bottom line for me is that people on this forum are calling Tiller a baby murderer, getting that emotional hoorah going. If that was Tiller's game than all the women he performed late term abortions for were in on it. That's hardly likely. It makes no sense and it's not a reasonable conclusion.


:2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't believe for one minute that all of the abortions he performed were inappropriate. However, I am highly suspicious of someone who tries that hard to hide something. In this case, he and his buddies were hiding the reasons for killing babies in utero. That's disturbing on any level. I don't think some oversight is too much to ask for and their intent to block that oversight is suspect at best, criminal at worst.
 
talloulou said:
Paul Mc Hugh didn't go on a crusade. He was shocked by what he saw when asked to investigate and he wanted that shock and what he saw to be aired publicly. Hardly a crusade. Of course they want him to stop. It's embarrassing that Paul Mc Hugh is out stating that Tiller was doing late term abortions illegally and not meeting the irreversible maternal health threat criteria and yet nothing was being done about it.

It's shameful.
Click to expand...

Also potentially illegal if you read the source.
 
Redress said:
Also potentially illegal if you read the source.
Click to expand...

Empty threats. Dr. McHugh never named names of women. He violated no HIPPA laws. Furthermore they didn't want his testimony in court. Didn't even want to have it heard so he was basically dismissed as being part of the case.

If Dr. McHugh has ever been considered a prolife nutter I've never heard of it.
 
missypea said:
You can't be serious.


This entire thing sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.


:?
Click to expand...

Of course there's a conspiracy.

A conspiracy to hide the fact that the man reached into cooters with a pair of gripped, baby skull sized forceps and a medieval instrument made to splinter baby skulls and deflate them before extracting the fetus piece by piece from the uterus. I cannot fathom the type of sickness that brings a man to do that for a living and anyone who has the stomach for it should be subject to oversight when he does need to perform the action for medically necessary reasons. And that oversight should be enforced with a strong amount of skepticism and advocacy for the baby inside who can't speak for itself.
 
talloulou said:
Empty threats. Dr. McHugh never named names of women. He violated no HIPPA laws. Furthermore they didn't want his testimony in court. Didn't even want to have it heard so he was basically dismissed as being part of the case.

If Dr. McHugh has ever been considered a prolife nutter I've never heard of it.
Click to expand...


I have not found any such reference to him being a "nutter", and I did look.

I don't know so much about embarrassing, but according to his cease and desist order, it does appear that it is highly likely he was possibly breaking HIPPA. The Kansas Supreme Court specifically ordered "all parties to resist any impulse to further publicize their respective legal positions..."(source already linked).
 
talloulou said:
Empty threats. Dr. McHugh never named names of women. He violated no HIPPA laws. Furthermore they didn't want his testimony in court. Didn't even want to have it heard so he was basically dismissed as being part of the case.

If Dr. McHugh has ever been considered a prolife nutter I've never heard of it.
Click to expand...

And just how the hell did you and I end up on the same side of an abortion debate? :2wave:
 
jallman said:
And just how the hell did you and I end up on the same side of an abortion debate? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Because in this case you both ended up being wrong? :2razz:

Smiley included to ensure you know I am joking...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom