The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

A Question of Privacy

March 24, 2009 | 23 Comments

The baby died with a shot to the heart and was left dead next to a toilet. Twenty-six weeks pregnant, the mother, Michelle Armesto-Berge, did not want the abortion, and the father begged her to keep the child. But Michelle’s mother wanted the abortion, and Dr. George Tiller was eager to help. His staff piled more pressure on Michelle, refused to let her see the ultrasound, falsely recorded the baby’s condition as “non-viable” and killed it with a shot to the heart.

Dr. Tiller’s trial started this morning in a Kansas courtroom. He’s charged with nineteen misdemeanors — for paying a doctor to rubber-stamp his viability determinations rather than consulting an independent physician as required by law. Pro-life protestors are in force, outside the building praying for justice.

Tiller has had the proud support of Kansas pro-choice Governor Kathleen Sebelius, now President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although she and her cabal have long decried the Tiller prosecution as a political witchhunt, there will be no pro-choice counter-demonstrators at the courthouse today. Diane Wahto of ProKanDo explains why:

“This is a woman’s issue. It’s an issue of privacy. It’s not an issue that people should be out praying in front of a courtroom over.”

Which women ProKanDo speaks for is unclear. It’s doubtful it speaks for Michelle Armesto-Berge or her murdered child. But there is one man it certainly speaks for. Although it’s identified in the article only as a “pro-choice group,” ProKanDo is the Political Action Committee of abortionist Geore Tiller.

Comments

23 Responses to “A Question of Privacy”

  1. JoAnna
    March 24th, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

    That’s why I think that “pro-choice” is such a misnomer, and “pro-abortion” is more accurate. You never see pro-choicers up in arms about stories like the above, or stories like this one, where women are unduly pressured if not forced to abort their babies. If pro-choicers truly were for CHOICE, and not abortion, where’s the outrage?

  2. Christina
    March 24th, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

    This is a man who keeps supposedly dangerously ill pregnant women in a freaking motel room for three days, attended only by whatever friends or family they happened to bring with them. This cavalier attitude toward his patients’ well-being cost Christin Gilbert, a mentally disabled teenager, her life.

    But somehow he’s doing it for the sake of the women?

    Have you heard what his defense is? It’s one or both of the following:

    1. The head of the Medical Board said he could have Neuhaus rubber-stamp all of his post-viability abortions.
    2. When the Medical Board didn’t bitch-slap him for having Neuhaus rubber-stamp Christin Gilbert’s fatal abortion, he figured it was okay.

    Now what I’d like to know is what possible critical health problem a pregnant woman could have in the third trimester (or indeed in any trimester of pregnancy) for which any responsible doctor would prescribe three days at the Wichita LaQuinta with her mom, in preference to being treated in a hospital.

  3. Martin T.
    March 24th, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

    “This is a woman’s issue. It’s an issue of privacy. It’s not an issue that people should be out praying in front of a courtroom over.

    Sorry, you lost that “right” when you opened Pandodra’s box with Roe v. Wade.

  4. frustrated (mk)
    March 24th, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
  5. Christina
    March 24th, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

    Oh, frustrated, that is CREEPY!

    Allred built his death empire from the ground up, so he sort of grew into the evil over the years. But who the hell buys a death empire as an investment for his freaking FAMILY?!

  6. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e60v3
    March 25th, 2009 @ 8:05 am

    […] So, for the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd … explain your defense of the protest here? […]

  7. frustrated (mk)
    March 25th, 2009 @ 8:15 am

    RT,

    It has occurred to me that if you have indeed decided to join the Catholic Church, it is very possible that you have been preparing for months now. It might even be that in just over 2 weeks time, you could be receiving Jesus in the Eucharist for the first time.

    If I’m wrong, no harm, no foul, but if I’m right, then as a member of the family you are about to join, I wish to extend my most enthusiastic welcome…

    The Easter Vigil is absolutely beautiful! I wish I could be there physically, but I’ll settle for being there in spirit.

    If I’m wrong, then forgive me, but if I’m right….woooohoooo! WELCOME HOME!

  8. Disgustipated
    March 25th, 2009 @ 10:50 am

    Now you’re referencing World Net Daily articles. You really have gone off the deep end. I am surprised your political views – regardless of your take on abortion – have become so extremely aligned with right-wing hatemongers. Next, I imagine you’ll be posting on how Chuck Norris is right about evolution and supporting the fact that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

    And to think I was proud to receive that Raving Atheist magnet from you all those years ago. If I didn’t thank you back then, for helping me lose my religion, then I thank you now. It’s so sad to see that you have given up on critical thought. :(

  9. Catholic Cat
    March 25th, 2009 @ 11:07 am

    “It’s so sad to see that you have given up on critical thought.”

    Huh,
    From the guy talking about others and their hate mongering tactics.
    Go figure.

  10. JoAnna
    March 25th, 2009 @ 11:33 am

    Disgustipated… how is it critical thinking to not read past the first sentence of a post?

    RA/RT also referenced two articles from KSN.com, a local Kansas news source; one from washingtonexaminer.com, and the site http://www.dr-tiller.com.

    See, I use my critical thinking skills to judge the content of a link. That includes evaluating any possible bias on the part of the source, but it also includes evaluating the actual information contained within the article and whether or not that content can be corroborated by other sources.

    Can you provide any evidence that refutes the information contained in the WND article? If not, then your claims that the WND is a poor source of information are unfounded.

    Perhaps WND is the only news source that has the guts to report the truth about these issues. The left-wing media has a definte bias towards abortionists, so of course they won’t report the facts accurately (and yet, I’m sure you consider them to be “unbiased”).

    I’ve yet to find a news source that doesn’t have a bias one way or the other, and I get my news from all sources — CNN.com, the Associated Press, FoxNews, WND, Lifesite, msnbc.com, and so on.

  11. Lily
    March 25th, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

    Well, I didn’t think much of anything could seriously shock me anymore but I was wrong. The Brits have decided to treat their out-of-control teen pregnancy epidemic by allowing advertising for abortions and condoms on tv.

    OK. Words fail. They really do.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164901/As-teenage-pregnancies-soar-Governments-answer–abortion-ads-television.html

  12. Billy Grahamcracker
    March 26th, 2009 @ 10:11 am

    I have to admit, i’m totally confused. From the information given in the article (perhaps some facts have been omitted for some reason), this is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue. This is an issue of a doctor and a woman’s mother acting against the wishes of a woman who wanted to have that baby. It’s a crime no matter which side of the issue you take on abortion. The comments so far all seem to miss this point.

  13. Daniel M
    March 26th, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

    Once again, we are reminded that abortionists who do bad things are not an abberation, they are representative of all abortionists.

    Priests and other men (and no doubt women, although their burden of sin be greater, their frailty of character obvious) of faith on the other hand are immune from this standard, as any “christian” who strays is most assuredly not really a christian when s/he does so.

    amen.

  14. frustrated (mk)
    March 26th, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

    Daniel M,

    That isn’t really true. If a man “of the cloth” strays, knows he strays, admits he strays and asks forgiveness for straying, then he absolutely is a true Christian. He is accepting Christian “TEACHING”…

    If on the other hand a man claims to be a Christian, but advocates abortion, he is opposing Christian teaching. This is not straying. This is heresy. For instance, the priest that has invited Barack Obama to speak at Notre Dame. I question whether he is truly a Catholic at all. He is thumbing his nose at Church Authority and completely ignoring Church Teaching. He does NOT acknowledge his wrong doing, in fact he claims it is a good. This man’s Christianity would most definitely be called into question.

    It’s not about straying. It’s about trying not to stray, and knowing what straying is.

    We all sin…We all stray. But do we know it?

  15. frustrated (mk)
    March 26th, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

    Once again, we are reminded that abortionists who do bad things are not an aberration, they are representative of all abortionists.

    If an abortionist adheres to the practice of abortion, the very thing that makes him an abortionist, then he is a “good” abortionist. Which by definition makes him a bad person. Which means doing abortions is NOT an abberation, but the very thing that he MUST do to be called an abortionist in the first place.

    If a priest molests a little boy, you would be hard pressed to find ANYWHERE in Catholic Teaching, that promotes the molestation of young boys by priests. Therefore, priests that molest young boys ARE an aberration, as they are doing the very things they are supposed to be opposing.

    By definition a priest should be trying to obey the 10 commandments. A good thing.

    By definition an abortionist should be killing unborn children. A bad thing.

    Priests molesting boys? An aberration.
    Abortionists aborting babies? Typical.

  16. Daniel M
    March 26th, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

    The bad thing we agree about in this case is if the doctor got somebody to rubber-stamp the abortion of a viable fetus – at 26 weeks old – and via money at that, pressuring the girl.

    The bad things are the 19 misdemeanours he is going to trial for – remember too that he is not guilty until found guilty in a court of law – not for doing his job, but how.

    The bad things include the attitude of the family if they pressured her, her lack of sex education that led to her getting pregnant, perhaps thanks to inane ideas that preaching abstinence actually works.

    Performing an abortion – well, obviously some believe that to be a bad thing, although I shouldn’t have to point out to anyone that murder isn’t a crime the doctor is being accused of.

    #12 is correct – this is a civil and perhaps criminal law case, not really anything to do with being pro-choice or anti-choice – hence I’ll repeat what I said before:

    Once again, we are reminded that abortionists who do bad things are not an aberration, they are representative of all abortionists…Priests and other [men] of faith on the other hand are immune from this standard, as any christian who strays is most assuredly not really a christian when s/he does so.

    Some seem truly ignorant that this is a non sequitur and believe that if you are a doctor who performs abortions, you are not only a murderer, but also by default it makes you a pervert, a rapist, a mysogynist and a whole host of other things. And not only this, but when one doctor is caught (and put on trial!) the system is rotten (even though it puts people like this one trial) and all doctors are rotten, even though the vast percentage of them do no wrong (other than the fact they provide abortions).

    Meanwhile, when there is institutionalized pedophilia, a pope who claims condoms make the aids situation worse, gay sex scandals and more, the same tarring and feathering with the same brush doesn’t happen.

    That’s also a tragedy, this hypocrisy.

  17. lily
    March 26th, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

    Sigh. The ability to reason logically and morally is not always as abundantly distributed as one would hope.

    Abortionists kill babies. Let that truth sink in, Daniel. Tiller killed a baby. It is irrelevant that abortion is legal. It is still immoral. No law has the power to make evil good or right wrong. Tiller is a murderer, as is every other abortionist.

    The bad things include the attitude of the family if they pressured her, her lack of sex education that led to her getting pregnant, perhaps thanks to inane ideas that preaching abstinence actually works.

    What a lot of baseless speculating! Maybe, the full moon made Tiller kill the baby! Maybe evil spirits took on the form of Michelle’s mother and made her force Michelle to have an abortion. Maybe the abortuary was really a resort in Tahiti. Since there are very few girls who don’t know the tie between sex and babies, we can dismiss, with the contempt it deserves, the proabortionists’ mantra of “lack of sex education”. By the way– abstinence works 100% of the time and it is completely safe, too.

    Here you are completely off-topic and it isn’t even amusing or anything we haven’t heard 15,000 times this year so far:

    Meanwhile, when there is institutionalized pedophilia, a pope who claims condoms make the aids situation worse, gay sex scandals and more, the same tarring and feathering with the same brush doesn’t happen.

    There is no institutionalized pedophilia. (There has been a *huge* outcry by Catholics over the pedophilia and over homosexuals in the priesthood– and it is ongoing.) However, you need to get it through your head, as do a great number of people, that this is a pervasive problem in society. By every number anyone has ever published, the number of cases of pedophilia is lower among priests than in any other profession. Do you have a clue how many teachers have been arrested and convicted in just the last 5 years? Do you? How many over the last 20 years? It is a horrible crime and pretending that it doesn’t exist elsewhere in alarming numbers just victimizes children again.

    The pope, by the way, is right about condoms. However, he is speaking from a moral perspective, not a medical one. It may be that that was an error of judgement, since so relatively few people are able to think morally, but errors of judgement are hardly the same thing as murder or pedophilia.

  18. frustrated (mk)
    March 26th, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

    Thank you Lily, you saved me the trouble. I was actually taking him seriously until the institutionalized pedophelia remark…I guess he just ignored where I asked him to show one place where church TEACHING advocates molesting children….

    You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear. And we wonder why people like Tiller even exist…It becomes more obvious every day. We have a whole generation that doesn’t seem to be able to connect one thought to another…Everything makes sense, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the sacrament of sex!

  19. JoAnna
    March 26th, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

    Hey Daniel, you might want to inform Protestant denominations that the Catholic Church has the monopoly on child abuse, because the folks over at http://www.reformation.com and http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org sure seem to think otherwise. You really should go set them straight.

    And cases like this make me think, “Oh, if only teachers could marry…”

    Wait a minute…

  20. Daniel M
    March 27th, 2009 @ 1:56 am

    I don’t think catholic priests have any sort of monopoly on child abuse, far from it, but when I say institutionalised, I mean that knowledge of what was going on for many, many years (decades!) was hidden from public view, denied, refuted and twisted. Priests were moved, people silenced. Priests doing that were actively protected. When the hypocrisy became too much, that’s when the story broke.

    the point is that when this happens, christians say “it was an isolated case”, but when abortion providers do something wrong, christians nod their head and say “yep, another one”. That’s hypocrisy, which apparently nobody understands.

    To get back on-topic, you are all ignoring just as hard as you can the other factors in this story (pressure from her family, apparent lack of sex education) and focusing on the fact that an abortion doctor was doing his job…

    If you don’t care that he was breaking the law, only that he’s “killing babies” then why focus on this doctor at all?

    In your twisted world view, why is this doctor any worse? Is it because you secretly believe that in over 99% of the time the doctor is doing his/her job correctly?

    The numbers of teachers abusing children has nothing to do with the pope’s willingness to actively protect priests who abuse children, the uproar isn’t (just) over the numbers but the fact that whilst not being condoned was actively enabled.

    You need to get that through your head. When it is being enabled to that degree, it is institutionalised.

    and Lily, I don’t know why you believe that “teaching abstinence” works better than a condom at preventing pregnancy and STD’s. Sure, if you can keep kids apart and physically unable to have sex they won’t be able to. The problem is, that whilst “not having sex” works, practising “not having sex” doesn’t.

  21. frustrated (mk)
    March 27th, 2009 @ 6:31 am

    Daniel M,

    I don’t think catholic priests have any sort of monopoly on child abuse, far from it, but when I say institutionalised, I mean that knowledge of what was going on for many, many years (decades!) was hidden from public view, denied, refuted and twisted. Priests were moved, people silenced. Priests doing that were actively protected. When the hypocrisy became too much, that’s when the story broke.

    Show me a Catholic, ANY Catholic, lay or religious, that defends this behavior and I’ll shut up.

    What YOU don’t seem to get is that ALL of this behavior was WRONG and ALL Catholics admit it.

    ALL abortions are wrong, but NO abortionists admit it.

    You keep saying that because the church behaved badly they are hypocrites, and I keep saying that we have ADMITTED that the behavior was wrong. The POPE did NOT condone what was going on. Those were local bishops that moved their priests around.

    Church TEACHING did not condone hiding the behavior of those priests. Church TEACHING CONDEMNS the behavior of BOTH the priests themselves AND the bishops that hid the behavior.

    That’s what YOU are not getting.

    Abortionists are people that kill babies. It doesn’t get much worse than that. How hard is it to make the leap that they are probably lacking morals in other areas?

    I don’t care how man childrens parties John Wayne Gacy played the clown, the man was BAD. To make the statement, all mass murderers are bad people, so it’s no surprise that Gacy was probably bad even when he wasn’t killing teenage boys, doesn’t seem that far fetched to me.

    To claim that people that kill thousands of babies without a twinge of guilt probably means that as a rule they are capable of OTHER horrible behavior, just doesn’t seem all that irrational to me.

    So when an abortion doctor rapes his patient, or kills his wife, it seems like a no brainer to say, well, he WAS an abortion doctor after all…just as finding out that John Wayne Gacy robbed a bank would elicit the response, Well, it doesn’t surprise me, as he was a Mass Murderer after all…

    Plus, this wasn’t an isolated abortionist behaving badly. Their are HUNDREDS of stories of abortionists behaving horribly in OTHER areas of their life…

  22. lily
    March 27th, 2009 @ 7:19 am

    Daniel also doesn’t get that the schools in this country have been hiding teacher abuse and moving them around from school to school and district to district for decades. What a person without an agenda starts to realize very quickly is that a culture of “protecting our own” is a pecular danger of organizations and must be guarded against.

    Anyone who is interested in teacher abuse can start with the AP study that was released a year and a half ago and published widely.

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003661136

    However, a google search on ‘”teacher abuse” AP’ (omit the single ‘) brings up a sickening number of cases– some famous, others new to me.

    Oh and Daniel? Please read more carefully– that is necessary if there is going to be a real discussion and not a shouting match. I did not say that teaching abstinence works better than a condom, et al., although that is obviously true. I said that it works 100% of the time and is 100% safe. It requires nothing more than the will to practice it. It also requires an act of the will to use condoms correctly 100% of the time. Yet you think that is going to happen and abstinence won’t?

    By your phrasing, I am guessing you are a Brit. If I am right, you likely know you have the worst teen pregnancy rate in Europe and this despite massive sex ed, condoms and birth control pushed on children at ever younger ages. So what is the next step? Why advertising condoms and abortions on TV to bring the rate down!!! Apart from the fact that such a move is sheer evil, does it not suggest to you that current approaches to teen sexuality are failing children badly?

    On a different note– can some kind soul (i am looking at you mk) give me the html for urls?

  23. frustrated (mk)
    March 27th, 2009 @ 7:42 am

    Oh Lily,

    I never got the hang of the url html…sorry. You had to tell me how to get a “picture”, remember?

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links