Pro-Life Leaders Denounce Murder of Abortion Doctor George Tiller

[matt wade]

You are wrong, OldRegular. Stop defining the beliefs of others by your own personal convictions.

OldRegular is correct on this one. Pro-choice and Pro-abortion are the same thing. Both equate to advocating the murder of children.

If someone were "pro-choice" when it came to murdering adults (i.e., thought it was something that each individual should decide for themselves), wouldn't that person be representing a pro-murder position?

What if we became a pro-choice nation on the subject of murdering adults? What if that resulted in your murder because someone chose to do so? Would that make you any less murdered? No, I think not, so therefore pro-choice is pro-murder and so we can extend that to pro-choice and pro-abortion.

 

[LadyEagle]

Hey LadyEagle,

Hope all is well tonight with you and yours.

By your own source, each one is about 3 hours. Multiplied by an average of 4 per day, that is 12 hours - and that number is assuming that Tiller worked every day of the year. That number is a little hard to believe, especially given the fact that Bill O'Reilly is the source of the number.

And I disagree: there IS a difference in supporting abortion vs. supporting a woman's right to choose.

Regards,
BiR

Hi, BiR:

The actual procedures average anywhere from 5-15 minutes according to my source. Multiple patients can be in multiple rooms at the same time, all prepped by staff and ready for the procedure. That means, monitoring lines are placed (if used), IV sedation is already given, the patient is supine and the speculum has already been placed, the equipment made ready by ancillary staff. The "doctor" needs only to spend 5-15 minutes in each room doing the actual procedure, going from room to room, allowing time to change gloves (doctors can wear multiple gloves and layer gowns, so getting gowned and gloved up for the next patient is quicker). Clean up is done by staff. Doctors of death probably have the assembly line technique down to a fine art. :tear:

That means he can easily (conservative estimate) perform 4 abortions per hour and in an 8-hour day, that would be 32 per day or 160 per 5-day work week. Even if he works only 40 weeks per year, that is 6400 per year, x 35 years comes up to 224,000 lives he dismembered and snuffed out. If he works 50 weeks per year, that is 280,000 people he killed. In my book, that's a mass murderer.

You are assuming it is a long procedure. Sometimes the prep may be long, placing the laminaria, etc., but the actual D&C/D&E procedure time is acurately listed in my source, 5-15 minutes.

O'Reilly's number was very, very conservative. My figures are more realistic.

 

[annsni]

Hey LadyEagle,

Hope all is well tonight with you and yours.

By your own source, each one is about 3 hours. Multiplied by an average of 4 per day, that is 12 hours - and that number is assuming that Tiller worked every day of the year. That number is a little hard to believe, especially given the fact that Bill O'Reilly is the source of the number.

And I disagree: there IS a difference in supporting abortion vs. supporting a woman's right to choose.

Regards,
BiR

The doctor's part of the procedure is much shorter. I have had 7 D&Cs, 2 of them for miscarriages (one where I had already lost the baby and the other one after 3 ultrasounds confirming the baby had died) and the time I was in the OR was just about 20 minutes from what I could tell (I WAS put under but I was awakened about 30 minutes after going into the OR). However, there was stuff that needed to be done ahead of time so with each one, I was there about an hour and a half before the doctor did anything (nurses did all pre-care) and then he would just come in to see me after I had awoken and was almost ready to go home. But each time, I was in the hospital about 3.5-5 hours, depending on my physical health (5 of the D&Cs were for abnormal bleeding and in 2 cases, I was severely anemic so I needed some extra care after the anesthesia). A doctor can EASILY do numerous D&Cs in one day. Figure even 30 minutes for each one, which is being generous, and he can do 5-7 a day or more.

 

[LadyEagle]

OldRegular is correct on this one. Pro-choice and Pro-abortion are the same thing. Both equate to advocating the murder of children.

If someone were "pro-choice" when it came to murdering adults (i.e., thought it was something that each individual should decide for themselves), wouldn't that person be representing a pro-murder position?

What if we became a pro-choice nation on the subject of murdering adults? What if that resulted in your murder because someone chose to do so? Would that make you any less murdered? No, I think not, so therefore pro-choice is pro-murder and so we can extend that to pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Good post, matt.

Back to the OP - Tiller is no better than Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler.

I do not mourn his death.

 

[RAdam]

"A woman's right to choose"?

So, you support a woman having the right to choose whether or not to murder her child in cold blood?

I get so tired of seeing the term "pro-choice" and seeing the whole "woman's right to choose" argument thrown out. It's murder. That child is a living person and is being murdered in cold blood, yet it is defended on the basis of woman's rights. The sad part is we Americans have the audacity to call ourselves intelligent, enlightened, and civillized. The "woman's right to choose" is one of the dumbest arguments ever put forth by a human being to justify sin. If you are really ok with women murdering their children in the womb, we might as well legalize women murdering them after they are born. Oh, I forgot, our society is horrified by that. What a sick joke of a nation we have become.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion. Either you are ok with the murder of infants or you are not. I, as an individual, don't have the right to choose who lives and dies. A mother doesn't either. If our Supreme Court and if our citizens weren't so willfully ignorant they would recognize this to and make abortion illegal.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Excellent first post.

 

[Marcia]

I am posting this again. No matter how horrific the actions of Dr. Tiller, believers should not in any way endorse his murder. The link is in my previous post. I am extremely pro-life, especially after having been pro-choice for most of my life and almost aborting my son. But we cannot let passion for pro-life causes blind us to actions such as this murder, which is against God's word.

Tiller’s career was more horrifying than any horror movie ever produced, because there was nothing pretend about his bizarre and diabolical practices. On Sundays, George Tiller worshipped in his Lutheran Church where he served as usher. But on Monday through Friday, he chopped up children — and he did so in the name of Jesus. He even boasted about it. Because of Tiller, Wichita, Kansas became the destination of choice for women all over America to come and have Dr. Tiller take care of their “problem.” These are the facts.

And yet his death is tragic. It is not a tragedy that Tiller will never be a killer again. Will anyone argue that it is a tragedy that the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will never again be dishonored by this church-going Sweeney Todd of the medical profession?

The tragedy is two-fold: First, by breaking the law of God (murder) in order to advance the law of God (punishing a murderer), the shooter demonstrated that he was a lawless individual and that, whatever his motivations, his cause was unholy. He cannot expect the blessing of God on his efforts, but rather the contrary. God was certainly capable of shutting down George Tiller without private individuals breaking His law by taking matters into their own hands. The ends do not justify the means. Pragmatic responses to evil produces short term victories and long-term heartaches.

Second, Tiller’s executioner has played into the hands of the community of abortion apologists.......

....It means that we must embrace a 100% pro-life apologetic, rejecting all forms of abortion and refusing to embrace “ends justifies the means” reasoning. It means that we need to be serious about not voting for individuals who sanction the murder of even one child. It means that we need to embrace a life-ethic which is different from the world — we must love life, love children, and embrace them as God’s gift.

Moreover, we must view the cause of Christ as more important than the pro-life movement. This means that our duty to obey Christ and to honor His name is more important than defeating abortion in America, as badly as we may desire that outcome. <MORE>

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
That there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is a myth created by those who believe it is acceptable to slaughter unborn children!!

Response Posted by BiR
You are wrong, OldRegular. Stop defining the beliefs of others by your own personal convictions.

Call the slaughter of the unborn pro choice if you choose, that doesn't change the reality. Will GOD accept the excuse of pro choice vs pro abortion; I think not. The choice is made when the woman gets pregnant.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Your president "bho" is pro slaughter of the unborn. While an Illinois state senator he voted against a bill that would require medical treatment for a child born alive after a "botched" abortion. He has promised to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act which would eliminate all restrictions on the slaughter of the unborn including the Ban on Partial Birth Abortions.

Response Posted by BiR
Is he not your President, OldRegular?

He is not my president, he is a sadistic killer of the unborn.

 

[Robert Snow]

Call the slaughter of the unborn pro choice if you choose, that doesn't change the reality. Will GOD accept the excuse of pro choice vs pro abortion; I think not. The choice is made when the woman gets pregnant.





He is not my president, he is a sadistic killer of the unborn.

Too bad, but Obama is your president. And he is someone you are commanded to pray for.

 

[gb93433]

My first thought was that God took care of the baby killer going to church. Doesn't that seem just like the only folks Jesus condemned in the Bible?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Call the slaughter of the unborn pro choice if you choose, that doesn't change the reality. Will GOD accept the excuse of pro choice vs pro abortion; I think not. The choice is made when the woman gets pregnant.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. Once the choice is made, only she can answer for it.

I am personally opposed to abortion, just as I am opposed to the death penalty. I do, however, support a woman's right to choose.

He is not my president, he is a sadistic killer of the unborn.

Wow: this is turning into an integrity issue for you. Do you have any proof that he has killed anyone? That is quite an indictment, even for you. Please provide us with the evidence that he is a "killer of the unborn."

I would exhort you to be careful in what you write, OldRegular.....

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

OldRegular is correct on this one. Pro-choice and Pro-abortion are the same thing. Both equate to advocating the murder of children.

That is your opinion, and you too are wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Regards, hope you are well,
BiR (in St. Louis)

 

[matt wade]

I am personally opposed to abortion, just as I am opposed to the death penalty. I do, however, support a woman's right to choose.

So, you support a woman's right to choose to murder her child, even though you think that abortion is wrong. I assume you think that murder of a teenage child is wrong. Do you support a woman's choice to murder her teenage child?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

So, you support a woman's right to choose to murder her child, even though you think that abortion is wrong. I assume you think that murder of a teenage child is wrong. Do you support a woman's choice to murder her teenage child?

No - I don't. I support a woman's right to choose.

Regards,
BiR

 

[matt wade]

No - I don't. I support a woman's right to choose.

Regards,
BiR

So, then we must assume that you think the value of a teenage child is more than the value of a child in the womb.

Why is that? Why would it be OK with you for a woman to choose to murder her unborn child, yet it is not OK for her to choose to murder her teenage child?

 

[Alcott]

No - I don't. I support a woman's right to choose.

A woman has a right to "choose" to have an abortion, but not to "choose" to murder her teenage child? I don't see how that analysis of your position is incorrect. But it must follow that you do not think abortion is murder. So if abortion is not murder, then what is it that's wrong with it such that you oppose it?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

So, then we must assume that you think the value of a teenage child is more than the value of a child in the womb.

Why is that? Why would it be OK with you for a woman to choose to murder her unborn child, yet it is not OK for her to choose to murder her teenage child?

Again, I support a woman's right to choose. If she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that is between her and Almighty God. You are the one who is discussing the murder of teenage children. That is not the topic of discussion.

A woman has a right to "choose" to have an abortion, but not to "choose" to murder her teenage child? I don't see how that analysis of your position is incorrect. But it must follow that you do not think abortion is murder. So if abortion is not murder, then what is it that's wrong with it such that you oppose it?

Easy answer: I have not referenced teenagers in any of my posts, other than to answer a direct question. I have stuck to the issue of abortion, not the murder of teenage children. Why is this being introduced into the discussion anyway?

My opinion on this subject is really not relevant to the discussion, so I am not sure why the questions are centering on it. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter what I think - especially if you believe in the rule of law. As it stands right now, women have the right to choose. That isn't going to change. Do they have to answer for it? Certainly. Can I answer on their behalf? Nope.

Regards to you both,
BiR

 

[gb93433]

It's her choice, and her choice alone. Once the choice is made, only she can answer for it.

I am personally opposed to abortion, just as I am opposed to the death penalty. I do, however, support a woman's right to choose.

And what is she chose to kill you would that change your thoughts about helping a person to do the right thing?

What if someone chose to drink too much would that matter to you if you were driving on the highway. Do you have no rights by letting the other person to choose to what they want.

The choices others make often influence our choices and sometimes those choices result in something permanent good or bad.

A baby is defenseless. What is righteousness?

 

[Alcott]

Easy answer:...

No answer at all to the question I asked.

To anyone who thinks abortion is 'wrong,' but not murder--- what is it that's wrong with it?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

And what is she chose to kill you would that change your thoughts about helping a person to do the right thing?

What if someone chose to drink too much would that matter to you if you were driving on the highway. Do you have no rights by letting the other person to choose to what they want.

The choices others make often influence our choices and sometimes those choices result in something permanent good or bad.

A baby is defenseless. What is righteousness?

I am not sure what is difficult to understand here: I am personally against abortion. I do, however, support a woman's right to choose. I haven't discussed murdering teenagers, someone killing me, or drunk driving. Please stick to the topic of discussion.

Regards,
BiR