I AM DR. TILLER

So you think he's lying ? why would a man of his caliber who is also head of the psych dept at Johns Hopkins and who has no interest in the case lie ? How do you know he's wrong are you a mind reader. have you seen the files? Like I said the facts are right in front of you, You are the one who chooses to ignore them.

spearhead wrote:

I watched all 8 minutes of it

I doubt it..

An

spearhead wrote:

The law says a viable fetus doesn't have the same rights as you or I for many reasons, like some of the ones I mentioned before; Incephaly and other terminal brian diseases being only some of them. If you are

Really ?? please show proof of this law.

1. How can anyone claim to know the motivations behind another person's actions, e.g. "he did it for the money"?

2. What makes the man in this video a legitimate source? How do we know that he has "no interest in the case" and no personal agenda? Why should he be considered an even MORE legitimate source of medical judgement than the doctors (there would have been at least 2 or 3) who actually had a professional relationship with the patients - or the patients themselves? What makes him an even MORE legitimate source of judgement than the legal professionals who have scrutinized the circumstances under which Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions and found that he acted within the boundaries of the law (which doesn't allow the abortion of viable fetuses for casual reasons)? How is he a MORE legitimate source of information about clinic practices (e.g. "there were no follow-up plans for these women") that those who work or are seen in the clinic?

3. The implication that having an abortion increases the risk of suicide because pregnancy & motherhood supposedly decrease the risk of suicide is completely faulty reasoning propagated by the anti-abortion movement for the sole purpose of misleading people about the risks of abortion. This myth has been dispelled by the major professional organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association. Any video or person which suggests that this is true cannot be taken seriously.

4. His statements that the mental health conditions of the women don't meet the criteria of being irreversable because the purpose of phychiatry is to restore mental health - and that not a SINGLE case was justifiable - suggest that he doesn't believe mental health should EVER be a reason for having an abortion. So then why is he even pretending to review the individual merits of cases? That sounds like a whole seperate argument to me. Plus, I think he's misrepresenting the law anyway. Also, you can't take anyone seriously who says "100% of psychiatrists would agree with me". "100% of my opponents' decisions are wrong and 100% of everyone else is on my side" is always a warning sign that the discussion isn't accurate or objective.

5. As for his question about whether anyone would ever be considered an inappropriate candidate based on psychological grounds - and bearing in mind the woman in my town who recently murdered her 3-year-old and buried him under the swingset in a public park - I think an argument could be made that anyone who wants to "kill" her viable "baby" for no "good" reason is not psychologically sound enough to be made to carry that fetus to term. (Whether or not her "mental health condition" is reversable is irrelevant.)