Devout Catholic & patient of Dr Tiller

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Devout Catholic & patient of Dr Tiller
27
Mon, 12-07-2009 - 9:37am

The Andersons were devastated to learn their unborn child wouldn't live. Dr. Tiller showed them the compassion they so badly wished they had from their friends.

....

Gail would be forced to deliver her child through c-section, as the stress of a traditional birth would be too much for their baby's body to handle. Their baby would need to be on life-support machines for months until able to have the surgeries required that could repair the damage of the child's suffocated heart and remove the masses from the undeveloped lung. As painful was it was for the Andersons to hear that this child they wanted so badly might not live even after the surgeries intended to repair damage, they were forced to make a decision that not only challenged their personal strength, but where they fit into their Catholic faith.

After a frank discussion with their specialist, they decided that not only did the quality of life of their unborn child need to be questioned, but the life expectancy even if surgeries were successful. There were no guarantees and one day, one month or one year could be added to the life of their child, but not much more than that. After discussing every option available to them, the decision to visit Dr. George Tiller's office in Kansas to have a late-term abortion was made. Both Andersons sunk into a depression, feeling as if they were losing both their child and their religion.
.....
On the wall of their living room, next to a crucifix and a painting of the Virgin Mary and St. Brigid of Ireland, is a plaque that holds on it two tiny footprints.

"They do not just look at this as being abortion mills - the staff," Robert says, looking up at the footprints of their baby Grace.

"She was real. They made her real for us. Those footprints were Dr. Tiller's idea. He wasn't a man with crazed eyes anticipating the kill like some anti-abortion activists would like you to picture. He understood the difficult position we were in. He allowed us to still have a piece of the family we wanted. He even called the baby by her name, by Grace."

http://www.alternet.org/story/144396/what_happened_when_an_anti-choice_catholic_woman_needed_an_abortion_at_dr._tiller%27s_clinic?page=1




Edited 12/7/2009 9:50 am ET by mom_carmina

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Tue, 01-19-2010 - 3:26pm

You would dispute the structural integrety of a brick wall if someone wrote "pro-choice" on it.

Is it a physical health exception?

If you can show me how this exception is not related to a woman's mental state, and how a pregnancy conceived in rape and a pregnancy conceived by consentual sex differ other than in the mental state of the woman, I will do your research for you, and show you what the Supreme Court wrote in that case.

This should be interesting.




Edited 1/22/2010 9:39 am ET by mom_carmina
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Fri, 01-15-2010 - 9:07pm
So you acknowledge you are no longer speaking of suicide, since you can't commit suicide while in a coma?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Fri, 01-15-2010 - 9:01pm

"So... in light of all your posts on the Hyde Amendment being the will of the majority ...."

Not just my statement, just the facts.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

"The Hyde Amendment is reauthorized each year under appropriations bills for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. The current restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment does not provide coverage for abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities, or health exceptions apart from life-threatening conditions. "

It would be hard to believe the Hyde amendment has been largely preserved for 30 plus years by our duly elected Congress if it wasn't the will of the majority.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Fri, 01-15-2010 - 8:48pm

"BUT...in 1995, the Sucpreme Court ruled that there must be exceptions for Rape and Incest. Since this is simply a definition of the circumstances surrounding a woman or girls mental state at the time of conception, and has nothing to do with the phsyical health or life of the pregnant woman or girl, it is indeed a mental health exception."

Did the ruling say this is a mental health exception?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Fri, 01-15-2010 - 1:45pm

Um... let's go over this again. I asked you: "Why do you think that the Hyde Amendment was required to allow those perfectly healthy women and girls that weren't interested in sex to "kill their baby?"

I already stated it - it's a mental health exception. You have stated that it's not.

So...slowly, this time. You claimed that the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was different than any other medical procedure, therefore Hyde Amendment - banning federal funding for all abortions that were not life-threatening was constitutional. BUT...in 1995, the Sucpreme Court ruled that there must be exceptions for Rape and Incest. Since this is simply a definition of the circumstances surrounding a woman or girls mental state at the time of conception, and has nothing to do with the phsyical health or life of the pregnant woman or girl, it is indeed a mental health exception.

If you "knew" why they ruled in favor of Hyde, I assumed that you would pull an answer for why they required these mental health exceptions from the very same place.

Your first answer doesn't seem to make any sense in light of the 1995 ruling, does it? If she's pregnant, she's pregnant. If your daughter was gang raped and got pregnant, you would hurl the name babykiller at her just as coldly for an abortion as if she had slept with several men willingly - based on your posts. And you have not refuted my posts that extrapolated this as the logical extension of your hardline on every other woman and girl.

So... in light of all your posts on the Hyde Amendment being the will of the majority, any other ideas on why the majority sends your tax dollars go to abortions for these healthy pregnant women and girls and not to the woman with the fetus with no brain?

What do you think is the difference?




Edited 1/15/2010 2:01 pm ET by mom_carmina
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Fri, 01-15-2010 - 12:02pm
Because it is so easy to deal with hastening my own death from a COMA.
Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket

Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-11-2005
Thu, 01-14-2010 - 9:20pm

>Well here lies the problem .... you've now changed from suicide to euthanasia. In most states that allow people to kill themselves I believe a doctor must write a prescription for the drugs. Do some methods require a physician to actually do it? Are taxpayers expected to fund it? Too many people want to involve others in what ought to be a solo act.<

As far as I know only the Great of state of Washington and Oregon have voted this in to laws and the Supreme Court has upheld it. I know that you have to have 2 Dr's say that you are 1. have 6 months/or less to live, 2. not mentally ill and are not being talked into this by your family or anyone else that you want to do this 3. not all of the Dr's are participating so you may have to shop for a Dr 4. not sure if state is paying for the Dr appointments or the pills as that is what most of them are using.

~Sam

~~Sam stitches well with others, runs with scissors in her pocket. Cheerful and stupid.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-11-2005
Thu, 01-14-2010 - 8:50pm
You do know that both Washington and Oregon states have made it legal for terminal ill people with 6 month to live to have physical assisted suicide.
~~Sam stitches well with others, runs with scissors in her pocket. Cheerful and stupid.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Thu, 01-14-2010 - 7:53pm

<>

No problem at all. I advocate for advanced directives that allow assistance in euthanasia when a person is left physically or mentally incapable of performing the act. Things like (but not limited to) massive strokes, severe debilitating injuries, advanced multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's , dementia and Alzheimers Disease, etc. If the sate can pay for chemo and prenatal for those unequipped to properly gestate and give birth, you betcher ya yas I advocate it paying for euthanasia.

.
.
.



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 01-14-2010 - 5:56pm

"So you should keep that believe in your own "ersonal" life and let others make arrangements for when they may become unable to physically complete the task, that they can be mercifully euthanized under their own advance directives. It is a contract no one has any business prohibiting."

Well here lies the problem .... you've now changed from suicide to euthanasia. In most states that allow people to kill themselves I believe a doctor must write a prescription for the drugs. Do some methods require a physician to actually do it? Are taxpayers expected to fund it? Too many people want to involve others in what ought to be a solo act.

Pages