2009.05.31
Another 'pro-life' murder
I do not know what is sadder, that someone took it in their own hands to become judge, jury and executioner for Dr. George Tiller - while he worshipped in church, no less - or that many in the "pro-life" movement will either celebrate the death or attempt to justify it.
Update: I don't want to split the commentary on this issue, so I'll just note here that we will be writing an editorial for tomorrow on Tiller's murder.
RSS feed 
While he worshipped.
Worshipped what?
He murders Gods gift by half delivering them during the
week then goes to church to ask for forgiveness.
He got what was coming to him.
I guess God sent someone, like he sent Joshua into Jericho.
Comment by herb krebs — May 31, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Even though Dr. Tiller also played the role of "executioner" no pro-life person would condone this murder. But let's face it. Abortion is a filthy nasty, though high-paying business that elicits enmity the way child molestation or drug dealing does. Nobody should have been surprised the guy was a target.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Kinda like the way the pro-abortion community celebrated or justified the killing of his victims.
Tiller was the William White of his community. He had quite a few enemies. An example of this is anti-Muslim filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was killed by a Muslim in Amsterdam in November 2004. No one thought it was right but no one was surprised.
This is not like ELF torching homes or animals rights extremists destroying labs where you have fairly large groups conspiring to commit crime. These are usually lone wolf operations by mentally ill people. But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event.
Comment by Henry — May 31, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
At this point, does anyone know who killed the Doctor or what their motivation was? If so, please share your and source. If not why speculate?
Comment by Patt — May 31, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Pleass share your information ans source.
Comment by Patt — May 31, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Great point, Patt. But regardless of who did it, the pro-life movement will somehow be implicated. I think many on the left are happy to use this murder to stir up hatred of a lot of good people.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Patt
Don't cloud the issues with facts. Dan didn't need to trouble himself with things like evidence. The ends justfies the means. Tiller was an abortionist so the pro-life movement killed him. You don't need evidence; you just need to believe.
Comment by Henry — May 31, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
"But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event."
Can anyone explain what this means? How about you Henry, can you?
"No pro-life person would condone this murder."
Well DT, I guess this thread proves you wrong. Of course, if you think this through very thoroughly, it just might prove you 100% right.
Comment by allen bunch — May 31, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
It's stupid..nothing justifies the murder of Tiller.
To the "pro choice" people, how is this any different, how is it any worse than what goes on in "women's health facilities" across this nation almost daily?
Comment by BUD — May 31, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Awww...good to see the "pro lifers" striking again!
I've always found the self-proclaimed "pro life" title to be a joke. They're not "pro life"....they're mostly pro oppressing women,and poor women at that. Most of the most vocal "pro lifers" on here are the first to get all moist and excited at the idea of dropping a nuke somewhere. What a joke.
I have a friend on the board of a pro-life "crisis pregnancy" group here in Roanoke, and he was recently complaining that the group had been put on the DHS's watch list. Appropos timing I'd say. They all bear watching.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
And FYI..there's no such thing as an "abortionist". Or "partial birth abortion". These are all faux terms dreamed up by the anti-choicers to rile their feebled-witted base. They have no foundation in medicine.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
DT...good point...could well have been one of those tree-hugging environmentalists...silly of the RT not to think of that!
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
It's endlessly fascinating that those who bray the loudest in indignation about government involvement in their lives, "communism" (yawn), dictatorship...the endless blah blah of hate radio...are the first to belly up to the government control bar when it comes to an issue like abortion.
"I want the government out of my life!" inevitably equates to.."I want the government out of my life and into the doctor's office telling women what to do!"
Ya'll might as well just admit you're communists. It's no different.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
It didn't take too long to catch the nut job. Running like the coward he is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377
Comment by Blue John — May 31, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Kristen, Um, government intervention is necessary when someone's right to life is at stake. We support government intervention if you are being raped or robbed. We likewise support it when a far more egregious act like abortion is being perpetrated daily and hourly.
The abortion folks are salivating at the PR opportunity (with the eager participation of the media) to pin this action on millions of good people in this country who are pro-life.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Um...DT? You know whose life was at stake? Dr. Tiller's. That's it.
Too bad for the anti-choice people that they beat themselves up with the "PR" that they themselves abundantly provide.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
This is not like ELF torching homes or animals rights extremists destroying labs where you have fairly large groups conspiring to commit crime. These are usually lone wolf operations by mentally ill people. But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event.
Comment by Henry — May 31, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
I would disagree. I consider the entire anti-choice movement suspect. Do some research. From Rudolf to whomever shot this guy...the anti-choice movement is riddled with terrorist behavior.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
"You know whose life was at stake? Dr. Tiller's. That's it."
Except for the one million human lives snuffed out by abortion last year. I realize that pales to women's desire for convenience, though, doesn't it?
Kristen, you're following the script perfectly of blaming more than half the country's population that is pro-life for the action of one single person.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
"...the anti-choice movement is riddled with terrorist behavior."
Dang, the busload of kids, moms, dads, and blue-haired older ladies from my church that went to DC in January's March For Life have terrorists among them. Who knew?
Now that the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, it will be interesting to see if you can paint them all as terrorists. But I'm sure you people will try.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
DT,
Actually, while for the first time, and in a poll that probably is an outlier, a bare majority of Americans did indicate they were pro-life, the same poll showed that a far larger majority of Americans (77 percent) believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — May 31, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Dang, the busload of kids, moms, dads, and blue-haired older ladies from my church that went to DC in January's March For Life have terrorists among them. Who knew?
Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't.
There is no credible movement in this country to reverse Roe. Even your RW icon Dubya didn't try to make it happen. It's always enjoyable to see the right yelp like a trained seal for herring when Roe is waved before their noses. Like clockwork, every four years.
Flat learning curve. Even the dimmest on the right can tell that their masters have taken to flogging the gay marriage drum, which with they've had at least some success.
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
DT
It's important that the pro-abortion people paint all pro-lifers with the same brush so they can pass draconian laws to suppress their rights. If a lone nutbag kills a onocologist, it will barely make the local paper. But let the doctor be an abortionist and it gets front page coverage all over the nation with cries to punish all the innocent.
It's all about the Benjamins. If a woman kills her own baby whether born or unborn, she goes to prison. But if a doctor kills that same child, he gets paid for it. It's not about women's rights. It's about doctor's rights. The most fundamental right in America today is the right for a doctor to get paid to kill an unborn child.
A hundred black kids could have died on the streets of America this weekend but a rich white doctor is going to be on the front page tomorrow.
Comment by Henry — May 31, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Kristen,
There is no credible movement in this country to reverse Roe. Even your RW icon Dubya didn't try to make it happen.
Are you joking? You think a president is going to submit an anti-abortion bill to an evenly split Congress with a Supreme Court decision already on the books? In fact, George Bush was highly effective for the pro-life movement by getting two outstanding conservative justices confirmed. He also helped by not funding embryonic stem cell research and his stance on the Mexico City policy. So in short, Bush did about all he could have done.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
DT....Bush had several years of a majority in the Senate. He didn't even try. Roe's not going to be reversed.
I do agree that he "did all he could do", sad to say. I'd apply that to his entire term in office,
Comment by Kristen — May 31, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Henry,
Boy you've hit it on the head. Nobody's talking about how wealthy this abortion doctor has gotten doing his vile deeds. On his website, Tiller claimed to have done 60,000 abortions in a 24-week period, so the guy clearly made millions if not tens of millions doing abortions. And the libs just thought he was "in it for the women".
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Henry, you said, "But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event."
Could you tell us what that means?
Comment by allen bunch — May 31, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
"Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't."
Maybe you can get your group to infiltrate our church, Kristen. Maybe you can out some genu-wine terrorists. First thing I'd do is check the sandwiches our Women's Club packs for our trips to DC. You never know what these vile septuagenarian ladies might put in there.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
Wonder if the pro Nazis said.... (changing the context of Kristens statement)
"I've always found the self-proclaimed "pro Jews" title to be a joke. They're not "pro Jews"....they're mostly pro oppressing Germans,and poor Germans at that. Most of the most vocal "pro Jews" on here are the first to get all moist and excited at the idea of dropping a nuke somewhere. What a joke.
Works pretty good huh?
Comment by TScottW — May 31, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
it's awfully ironic that this happened in a church that studies the bible. one of the main things that the bible teaches that SO MANY people horribly misunderstand is that we are not to judge others.
the doctor performing the abortions was acting as a judge over others by participating in abortions... by helping pregnant women who also believed that they were judges over who gets to live and who has to die...
and hopefully the shooter wasn't using the bible as his reasoning, because his actions also show that he thought he has a right to act as the judge over whether or not the doctor lived or died.
looks to me like a lot of people needed to practice what they preach, and perhaps none of this would have happened...
Comment by hokie24 — May 31, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
It's hard to imagine a guy openly doing abortions during the week, then going to church on Sundays. I didn't know Lutherans were that liberal, unless this was some universalist do-you-own-thing denomination. Still, it's a bit like Charlie Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer coming to your church while continuing their killing sprees. it would have to have been creepy for the other members having him attend.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Well, I hate to admit it, but the McCain people were correct.
Terrorism has struck again on American Soil.
Comment by scott — June 1, 2009 @ 12:46 am
I find it profoundly disturbing that according to some pro-lifers, once a woman becomes pregnant she is no longer a person with wants and needs, but merely an incubator for the embryo she carries regardless of her feelings or the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. Being forced to give birth against our will is not something that will happen without a horrendous fight against our oppressors.
Comment by j.r — June 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am
"Henry, you said, "But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event."
Could you tell us what that means?"
Comment by allen bunch — June 1, 2009 @ 1:58 am
"Roeder was involved in the anti-government "Freemen" movement, McClatchy reported. Members asserted sovereignty and claimed to be exempt from government control. "
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/01/Tiller-suspect-said-fanatic-on-abortion/UPI-86181243835098/
Oh, a Freemen. That means he wasn't a conservative. The Freemen were Libertarians who pretended to be their own country and didn't pay taxes (kinda like Obama Cabinet members).
++Henry, you said, "But the pro-abortion folks celebrate these killings like it is a religious event."
Could you tell us what that means?++
Geez Allen, look above you. The pro-abortion folks are having a party for a dead doctor. How many doctors have been killed in the past 5 years? We don't know. It doesn't make the front page. But we know about THIS doctor because he was an abortionist. They love it when abortionists get whacked because they can weep and wail and pass laws restricting freedom. How many abortionists have been killed? How many women have died during legal abortions? Guess which number is higher.
I'm betting the farm that this guy was a mental case.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 6:33 am
hey Kristen....I have seen you and others on the pro choice side talk about not wanting the government in your doctor's office etc on this issue. OK
So what happened in early 1973..Roe v Wade? Didn't the supreme court aka THE GOVERNMENT step in and allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy? How is it bad now for the gov to intervene(if and when they do) but it was OK in '73?
Comment by BUD — June 1, 2009 @ 6:53 am
DT: "Still, it's a bit like Charlie Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer coming to your church while continuing their killing sprees. it would have to have been creepy for the other members having him attend."
WIth rhetoric like that, is it any wonder some "mental case," as Henry put it, might get the idea in this head that killing this doctor was not only acceptable, but imperative?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 7:22 am
I'm sure the guy who murdered Dahmer in prison thought it was his imperative to do so. I don't condone Dahmer's murder or Tiller's. But the fact is, when someone does such such serial horrible henious deeds like Dahmer and Tiller did, they make themselves targets.
Comment by DT — June 1, 2009 @ 7:45 am
Bud...allowing someone to make up their own mind about whether to do something or not is completely different from forbidding it. Forced abortions might be the appropriate analogy.
hokie....the Doctor was practicing exactly what he "preached". He was sworn to care for his patients ( his patients being the actual grown women who showed up in his office for care).If there were fewer bible-beating nutcases in this world, none of this would have happened. It's no one's obligation to mollify whackjobs to keep themselves from getting shot.
DT..perhaps the normal, sane anti-choicers out there are like the "peaceful Muslims"...they might exist but you don't hear much from them and they're certainly not running the show. Maybe your "church" (which sounds like the typical 'let's get together and try to provide a biblical foundation to hate other people' church) should do something whacky like...hmm...make sandwiches for the hungry and homeless or something zany like that. Gosh. It might be downright Christian.
No TWscott..it doesn't "work pretty good". It's about as reasonable as it would be had you used "oak trees" instead of "jews".
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Kristen:
If by “anti-choice” you mean that I’m sternly against any one individual exercising absolute autonomy over another’s right to life, and only this position is consistent with condemning Tiller’s murder’s actions, then yes, I’m “anti-choice,” and proudly so. Every individual’s liberties are subordinate to every other individual’s right to live.
Conversely, then, being pro-choice means that an individual ought to have the “right” to arbitrarily determine the right of another human being to live—liberty has priority over life.
On what grounds can you stand and pronounce that what happened to Tiller was morally wrong, if, that is, people should have absolute, autonomous “choice” over another’s life?
It appears that you must assume the “anti-choicers’” view of intrinsic human dignity in order to even make a moral judgment about this heinous crime.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 9:02 am
First, no pro-choicer is celebrating abortions or celebrating this death as a "PR opportunity". Just because we support the choice does not mean we think it is something to be celebrated. You "pro lifers" are indeed celebrating this death and say that "he got what he deserved"...pro life my butt.
Second, it has been mentioned how ironic it is that this Dr. went to church. Honestly, do you really think you are worthy enough to comment on someone else's religious beliefs? I'm sure that each and every one of you have indeed sinned multiple times...but you don't find it ironic that you still call yourself a Christian...put your stones down.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Kevin, you ever so conveniently leave out the women's right to make decisions about her health and her life.
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 9:39 am
This is such an emotionally packed subject. Not a lot of grey area. One either sees it as murder, or a right of choice as a rule. What bothers me is the cheering by many for the murder of a doctor, and the lack of compassion for those who see abortion as a ho-hum thing. Abortion should be a last resort option when no other means to remedy the unwanted pregnancy is available, or the mother is deemed likely to perish if the pregnancy is brought to term. The male and female who caused the undesirable scenario of pregnancy are responsible(bar the few exceptions), and should step-up to the reality of the delimna they, and only they created. It is my opinion, if the anti-abortion crowd, and the pro-abortion crowd, would take all their hatred energy, and work toward more or better adoption solutions, that would create better adoption options, instead of spending all their energies hating each other. Real progress would be made. Seems to me there are many worthy people longing to adopt, but the thought of going to another country to do so hinders these good intentions. Why not work from the "pro-adoption" angle, and quit being judge and jury, whether right in the end, or wrong. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 10:18 am
The only reason that the person that killed tiller will go to jail
and Tiller didnt, is because Tiller could talk.
The live babies that he murdered with the help of the incompetent
women would have said NO.
These babies were viable outside the womb.
I just cant fathom supporting a man like this.
To me he was no better then Hitler during the the slaughter
of the Jews.
I guess now he will get to meet all the little ones that got stuck in
the brain with a needle and had them sucked out.
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I see Herb that you must personally know every female who has ever had an abortion and must fully realize and understand every single thing that went into their decision - at least, that would have to be the case in order for you to know that they are incompetent anyways...
Comment by HCS — June 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am
HCS
Unless the woman was going to die, it hardly seems necessary to know every facet of her life. She can birth the child and just walk away from it. Or she can have it killed and walk away from it. One of these decisions will result in a death.
It is 2009. There is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy these days. There are too many options to prevent pregnancy.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 11:03 am
"On what grounds can you stand and pronounce that what happened to Tiller was morally wrong, if, that is, people should have absolute, autonomous “choice” over another’s life?"
Because an embryo is not "another". You're welcome to think it is, but the law says otherwise, and as long as abortion is legal the law stands on the side of the actual born female.
Learn the difference between morals, which are supremely subjective, and the law, which is constant. Abortion is legal. Murdering doctors in church - or presumeably anywhere else - is illegal.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 11:05 am
I can quite easily say, to me you are no better than a bug on the ground and equally deserving of being squashed. The difference is that the law has deemed abortion of a fetus a legal choice for a pregnant woman and murder of a fellow citizen as an illegal choice for anyone. What I say, or you say, what I see or you see is not all that important. Frankly it is not important to politicians until time for an election topic and it is not important to the people who decry every social program known to man for helping a woman make a better choice and it is not important for the people who fight sex education and widespread prophylactic methods or any such attempts to lower the number of abortions, so obviously the pro-choice people are not the hypocrites on this issue at all.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Herb stated..."The only reason that the person that killed tiller will go to jail and Tiller didnt, is because Tiller could talk.
The live babies that he murdered with the help of the incompetent
women would have said NO."
Herb, do you not see the logic, or are you too horse blinded to understand the potential of more death from mothers trying to perform their own abortion? I doubt yourself, me, or any other guy will ever know the true fear and unceartainty being pregnant can bring under adverse circumstances. We need doctors involved...duh. It is a matter of when, or at what point do the doctors become involved. That is decided by law, not me, not you, the law. Change the law, don't shoot the doctors. When you state "The live babies that he murdered with the help of the incompetent women would have said NO", you deem all fears + uncertainty + lack of understanding ramifications = incompetent women. That is strereotyping to the Nth degree, and not worthy of intelligent discussion, never scoring points except in your mind only. I for one would much rather see adoption become the basic answer, but structured as it is today, will be a long time coming. Maybe, just maybe, if there were not so many as you writing about sucking brains through a needle, teenagers would not be so likely to fly under the radar about their particular delimma, wanting to end the pregnancy so early, and as reality hits when the baby kicks, adoption, or raising said baby would more likely occur. In my opinion of course. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Kristen,
The only reason it is illegal is because
the child can not speak for itself though
viable outside the womb.
It is nut case fanatics the choose to end a life
rather then to live up to thier responsibility and give the baby a chance.
I just dont see why it takes someone over 2weeks to decide if they
want to keep the child let alone 21 weeks or more.
That is crazy. The women made her bed by choosing to end life so she can live with it the rest of hers with no pity from me.
I would never kill anyone over this, but I will
not be sad to see a heathen like Tiller the baby killer GONE.
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Thanks for bringing your sensibilities over to this forum, Gip. I'm going to abstain from the discourse on this though, it's far past the level of reasonableness that I feel like engaging in.
Comment by Other John — June 1, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Hey Sandi, you make an excellent point about prevention. The church crowd appears to me to lack the ability to understand that men and women as a rule are attracted to specific other men or women, and that has always been, and will always be part of the equation. So, do we deny this fact and keep hating abortion, or go the birth control route? The answer is not "keep shooting doctors until it feels good." Here's a clue, prevent it in the first place, and the few that don't "prevent it", should have a humane, discrete path to adoption. Leave the pergnancies in peril to the mother up to the trained doctors the anti- folks keep shooting. In my opinion. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
I also here everyone talking about the law here.
Way is it that Tiller never was prosecuted for breaking
the LAW by performing a late term abortion on a out of state
14 year old.
The reason is because The Governor at the time Kathleen Sebelius
was to much of a coward to prosecute.
So how come I dont here you bleeding hearts calling for his prosecution
at the time he was BREAKING THE LAW.
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Kristen, at the risk of offending you, I must comment on the absurdity of some of your remarks.
“You're welcome to think it is, but the law says otherwise...” Since when is jurisprudes the final word in matters of embryology/fetalology? This is commensurate to saying, “I have a brain tumor; my mechanic said so!”
Next you say, “...and as long as abortion is legal the law stands on the side of the actual born female.” Do you not hear yourself? In order for this clause to make sense and read plainly, you must be understood to be making a distinction between the “actual born female” and “another” female (approx. half of the abortions do in fact kill females). But, you stated that what is inside the mother “is not another.” I submit that the reason you can’t help talking this way is because you know that you’re wrong.
Nevertheless, if (against common scientific and moral sense) we agree with you, that what is in the womb is not “another,” then we must conclude that it’s part of the mother, right? Now, how many mothers do you know that have penises? Because, the other half of aborted babies indeed have them (about 750, 000 a year). So, what is in the womb, my dear?
Then you say,
“Learn the difference between morals, which are supremely subjective, and the law, which is constant. Abortion is legal. Murdering doctors in church - or presumeably anywhere else - is illegal.”
Let’s pretend you are right regarding the above, just for discussions sake. First, when you say, “...the law, which is constant,” I must ask, what universe do you live in?!? You are kidding, right?
Secondly, if morality is “supremely subjective,” and the fool who killed Tiller felt what he did was morally correct, then you cannot (and I mean CANNOT) say that his murdering Tiller was immoral. In fact, you can’t make any moral judgments about anything. The best you can offer, if you’re right, is that it doesn’t suit your taste that Tiller was murdered. But, hey, if your right, then different strokes for different folks, right? I like chocolate, others like vanilla.
Moreover, your legal positivism has other entailments. If you’re right, you can’t insist that the Nazis were morally wrong or that the Jew’s rescuers were morally virtuous, since killing Jews was legally commended and their protection legally forbidden. According to your reasoning, since the Nazis were acting according to the “law of the land” they were the ones doing right, and the protectors were wrong.
I thank God that you are stuck in His world, and that you (nor anyone else) actually live as though you believe yourself!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 11:54 am
The only substantial thought I'll add to this topic is that I wonder if the entire human race hasn't gone off the deep end. Everyone, it seems, can completely justify the killing and/or annhiliation of a certain person, group of people, or segment of the population when it suits them, and simulatneously argue for the protection of another person, group of people, or segment of the population. What makes the killing of this person or that group of people so offensive and morally wrong, while you can stick up for the killing of another group of people for seemingly arbitrary reasons and will justify it as right and proper? Have we all gone utterly mad? I think we all need to take a major step back because something seems wrong with what's being said by a fairly sizable portion of our population.
Comment by Other John — June 1, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Henry, @#45,
What exactly are you supposed to do if you are drugged, raped, and impregnated then?
You say no excuses.... I mean are you talking about implanting some sort of subcutaneous device that electrocutes rapists on contact? (Kind of like those old commercials for Black Flag Bug Spray)
Comment by scott — June 1, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
OJ,
Let me put this in my belief.
I dont condon any killing unless it is execution in the
commitment of a crime or the defense of ones life or country.
All other killing to me whatever the reason is wrong.
This includes this nutcase that killed Tiller and the babies
that Tiller killed.
I hope this clears it up for me.
I hold Gods law higher then mans, to bad some so called christens
dont see it that way. Am I perfect, not even close, but I hope my moral grounds are something to be considered on judgement day.
They hold mans law higher then Gods.
This though,is my opionion.
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Kristen and Gip, I love you, please do not feed the frenzied. This is a no win, mud fest that is best left alone. You cannot bridge a puddle with water.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Sandi:
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the following remark: “I can quite easily say, to me you are no better than a bug on the ground and equally deserving of being squashed.” It’s no wonder that there has been a definitive move in public opinion concerning abortion. When one must reduce our humanity to bug-anity to maintain their position, the public cries FOUL.
Now, the question becomes, Why? Why do we pass laws making murdering a human illegal and not ants; if, that is, there is no “deserving” difference in value and dignity between them?
Also, the rest of the same post implies that you believe we are morally obligated to help our fellow humans in various ways. However, until such becomes a “law of the land,” where does this moral impetus supposedly come from? I’m sure you’d say it’s “good” to help an elderly woman across a busy street, but if it’s not a law how can the like be either good or bad?
Last, how do you feel that you aren’t being hypocritical in your challenging current marriage laws? If we are no more than bug-worthy, then who honestly cares if some trample the so-called rights of others?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
See what I mean: HATE SPEECH = "He got what was coming to him.
I guess God sent someone, like he sent Joshua into Jericho". Any relation to Fred Phelps?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Scott,
This goes back to my point.
There is no reasonable explanation for late term abortions.
NONE.
If you are raped the abortion can happen within a few weeks.
An abortion should be decided within a few weeks anyway.
Even though I dont agree with abortion, late term is unacceptable.
For gods sake they dont even use anastetia.
You at least get it to pull a tooth.
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Comment by Other John — June 1, 2009 @ 11:58 am
"I think we all need to take a major step back because something seems wrong with what's being said by a fairly sizable portion of our population."
Hey "Other John"<funny, you are correct sir, it gets so thick everyone is ready to throw dukes or worse, and backwards travel occurs. The facts...#1 It is a fact women have a choice! #2 It may or may not be the right choice. #3 There is prevention available. #4 Since it is quite obvious andesired pregnancy will not go away, there needs to be viable alternatives...by law, not one groups opinion, or we go back to a free for all cave mentality with zero structure. #5 We are blessed to live in a country where we can discuss this. However, we do not live in a country where we take the law into our own hands. #6 We all are allowed to work through proper channels to alter, or change a law. Put ones energy there, and take a break on judging other humans, not our job. In my opinion, proper prevention starts in the home. Many have no home to fall back on, so make prevention techniques available to any and all, and let our Creator do the judging when the time comes. Love and understanding are where all my chips are placed. We are created imperfect, often act imperfect, and if one believes in a Creator, seems to me our Creator knows we are imperfect. You show me some one who deems themself perfect...I will point out a lunatic. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
"What exactly are you supposed to do if you are drugged, raped ? "
Go to the hospital. They give you drugs to prevent a possible pregnancy.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
"Any relation to Fred Phelps?"
Kinda interesting that the herb who said that used a lower case name and the usual herb uses UPPER CASE for his name.
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
“You're welcome to think it is, but the law says otherwise...” Since when is jurisprudes the final word in matters of embryology/fetalology? This is commensurate to saying, “I have a brain tumor; my mechanic said so!”
You might have a different opinion. Your brother might have a different opinion. In this case, you and your brother's opinions are irrelevant. The law is relevant. The law says abortion is legal. Not just for this doctor, but for all of them. Let's put it in simpler terms. The law makes shooting someone in the head illegal but it's a doctor's job to take the bullet out. Jurisprudence has its realm as does medicine.
"Next you say, “...and as long as abortion is legal the law stands on the side of the actual born female.”
I was not distinguishing "born female" from an unborn female embyro. It plainly going to be a "born female" because born males aren't likely to show up pregnant. I wasn't going to use 'born woman' because sad to say, plenty needing these services are practically children themselves. They are not all women.
"I submit that the reason you can’t help talking this way is because you know that you’re wrong."
Submit what you like. You'll have to do better as a reply "You know you're wrong"...because I don't happen to know I'm wrong.
And that's it. This line-by-line point/counterpoint stuff is not terribly interesting.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
Henry:
If you're referring to post No. 1, the e-mail address submitted with that comment matches Herb's. It wasn't an imposter.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
#62...
Hey Henry, you are correct there are post rape drugs available...your recommending said drugs brings up another delimma. You must have a figure in your mind as to how many days or weeks is OK to abort, yet you are anti-abortion. You have now taken judgment to the next level in my book. Not only can you say it is wrong, you can tell us a length of time after a rape occurs where it is not deemed wrong. Do you see the delimma, or are you too conditioned to see we are not worthy of judging others actions. Understand there is a boatload of mental anguish, guilt, unworthiness, uncertainty, and just plain unavailability of resources involved with many if not most unmanted pregnancy realities. One could not possibly know the many different circumstances that brings a pregnent woman to whatever decision she were to make. Do you think it should be YOUR decision what she does? That is the same as saying you are perfect, and that is when the word "lunatic" becomes involved. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Henry, how many did you say told you they love it? The only ones I have heard rejoicing are the ones who agree with you.
Comment by allen bunch — June 1, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
"To me he was no better then Hitler during the the slaughter
of the Jews" The world according to Herb.
"I can quite easily say, to me you are no better than a bug on the ground and equally deserving of being squashed" The world according to Sandi.
I was making a comparison of one ignorant statement with another one. Glad to see it was so "appreciated".
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
Kristen:
Look, you've made it clear that you know, because the law says so, that what is in the womb is not another human being. What kind of thing is it, then?
Also, since your big argument for elective abortion is “it’s the law,” and the law is static, incontrovertible, and immutable (according to your irrationality), then how on earth can you presume to challenge the current law against same-sex marriage?!? This is ridiculous! Likewise, if the laws can't change, the Roe is null and void...abortion must still be illegal!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Kevin I never called the law static or immutable. I merely said that as of right now, legal abortion is the law of the land. Tiller was acting completely within those laws. Our law also makes murdering that doctor illegal.
Does this mean that those who continually campaign to change the law will stop their efforts? No. Will they have any success? Who knows.
Same applies to those seeking to legalize same sex marriage.
You can attempt to supplant our laws with your version of "morality" all day long. It won't keep you out of jail.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
RE: #62
What if you are underage, and your parents are like some of the posters on this blog (you know, the life at the moment of conception crap) and deny permission for the drugs?
Comment by Blue John — June 1, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
"I was making a comparison of one ignorant statement with another one. Glad to see it was so "appreciated"."
Great, then we're agreed, human beings do have intrinsic value and worth, and that's what makes murder morally wrong. Now, if the unborn is a human being, then how can you say it's morally justifiable to kill them?
Laws don’t prescribe right and wrong, they describe it. You all run right up on the horns of the voluntarism dilemma: Is murder morally wrong because (1) the laws says so; or (2) does the law say that murder wrong on the basis of some other normative standard?
If you answer (1), then tomorrow the law forbidding murder could be rescinded and murder would be right, or at least morally neutral. Do you honestly buy this? However, if you choose to opt for (2), then you’re assuming a normative standard by which the laws themselves are judged. Next question: what is that standard?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
No Kevin, we do not agree. Meeting nonsense with nonsense makes no sense. The unborn is a fetus. It is a human being with rights when the Constitution says it is a human being: upon birth, whether that birth is prevented as by intervention, accident, or grace is irrelevant unless it is illegal. The Constitution does not say at conception, at 20 weeks, at 30 weeks, it says "person born", "natural born". Are you doubting the wisdom of the Founding Fathers? Are you attacking the Constitution?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Kristen:
First, you did too say,
“...and the law, which is constant.” (your words, # 46)
Here is the definition of “constant,” per Encarta. “Constant: 3. not changing or varying: remaining the same and not varying with change in other things.”
But now you say,
“Kevin I never called the law static or immutable.” (# 70)
“Static” and “Immutable” denote the same thing as “constant.” So, which side of your contradiction would you have us understand to be your actual position?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
"So, which side of your contradiction would you have us understand to be your actual position?"
First off....let's stop speaking in the third person. Shall we?
"Here is the definition of “constant,” per Encarta. “Constant: 3. not changing or varying: remaining the same and
Correct. As in..An abortion performed in Kansas on Monday 6/1/09 is legal as was one performed in Iowa on 10/5/2001, as one performed 6/2/09 in Anchorage Alaska will be, as was one performed....
Do we get the picture? The law is the law is the law. Might the law be changed? Who knows. As long as it's in place in its current incarnation, my above example remains true. Location, players, they might change ("not varying with change in other things.”), but the law views them the same ("not changing or varying").
You can make up whatever synonyms that "denote" whatever you like. My original post was clear.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Sandi:
"The unborn is a fetus." I don't deny this. Neither do I deny that it's legal to kill them. Therefore, we agree on at least that much. It would be, as you say, "nonsense," to keep repeating these as though it answers the question.
Fetus is a term used by biologists to mark a particular point in a living being's development (e.g., adolescent). Therefore, because there are numerous 'kinds' of fetuses, my question is what kind or being are you saying it is?
And again from # 72, which is it, (1) or (2)?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Kevin, I answered your question in #73. That you do not like the answer and wish to argue further is your problem. I am not asking you to agree with me or construct word puzzles.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Kristen,
Thats right, a scientist said that the baby inside is not alive so you believe him/her. Wow, too bad you were not around for the whole flat earth, Africans are not human and the sun orbits around the earth debates.
Comment by TScottW — June 1, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Sandi,
The fetus is born and viable outside the womb during
a late term abortion. Yous just answered your own question.
So yes the constitution should cover the fetus.
It covers the fetus when the mother is harmed and loses
the baby.
What gives?
Comment by HERB KREBS — June 1, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Ref. #72...Is murder morally wrong because (1) the laws says so; or (2) does the law say that murder wrong on the basis of some other normative standard?
Kevin, you have your moral sense mixed up with the law. Morals vary from person to person, and the law is the same for all people in the good ole USA! It is my opinion, this country is a better place living under laws, than it would be under YOUR particular morals. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Gip:
Is torturing babies for fun absolutely and universally wrong whether or not there is a law that states it is, or do we need some oligarch to tell people that it's wrong?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Kevin,
If your spare kidney - and only your kidney - could save your brother's life, should you be forced to give it to him even if you don't want to?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Or, if my bone marrow, or kidney could save YOUR life, should I be forced to give it to you even if I do not want to?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Oooo Dan...a post I'm jealous of! Excellent.
TSW..I'm pretty old. I remember that heliocentric universe scandal better than you'd think.
And lets face it....there are still "debates" that go on about whether Africans are "human" or not. Or...more than 3/5ths so.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Dan, Sandi:
If I were morally responsable for causing another's kidney to fail, then yes, I should be prepared give up my own in return. But talk about your false analogies!
Are you wanting me to "un-plug" J. J. Thompson's violinist, or is this just a red herring?
Tell you what, answer my question to Jeb, and I'll then face your sad music. How about that?
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Kevin wants to know: Is torturing babies for fun absolutely and universally wrong whether or not there is a law that states it is, or do we need some oligarch to tell people that it's wrong?
Kevin, you are using circular logic at best. We as a country, and through due process, have implemented laws that state a woman has the right to decide what happens in regards to her carcass, in said woman's particular situation. Every situation is different, and luckily, it is not up to YOU to decide their fate. I suggest you put your energies into changing the law, not ranting about torturing babies. If you feel it is your mission in life to change these laws...get busy. Prevention, adoption, and family values come into play on an individual basis. In my opinion too much is put on the shoulders of abstinance, and not enough is put on practical prevention. Your particular morals and the law evidently will only match if you can change the law, because I don't see you changing your mind, or the many minds in this forum who disagree with you. Gip
Comment by Gip — June 1, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
"First off....let's stop speaking in the third person. Shall we?"
Kristen, I'm sure not a grammarian by any stretch, but I believe my using "us" would be considered a second person plural usage.
Dan would know best, perhaps he can clarify this for us.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
'Us' is first person plural. The English nominative forms are:
Person: Singular, Plural
First: I, We
Second: You, You (arguably Y'all)
Third: He/She/It, They
Comment by C. Trejbal — June 1, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Gip, oh, Gip,
"Kevin, you are using circular logic at best."
Your argument (and every other pro-abortionist here) is: "If something is legal, then it's morally right; abortion is legal, therefore, abortion is morally right." How dare you charge me with circularity!
This is just another way of saying that you can't (better, won't) answer the simple question presented above.
Can you believe yourself? I simple ask for the reason that 'Torturing babies for fun is wrong,' and you can't give any answer?!? Please, either answer the question or stop passing any judgments on anyone else's reasoning abilities.
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
Thank you, Christian. Pretty sad on both our parts (Kristen's and mine), huh?
But, like I said, I'm no grammarian, and I can prove that with nearly every post!
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Well, Gip, Dan, Sandi:
I'll have to read your answers later; I've got to get to bed...work tonight.
Thanks for the exchange.
Kevin
Comment by Kevin Stevenson — June 1, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Who is Jeb and what question did anyone ask him?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Kevin, thanks for taking the moral responsibility for causing the cancer or kidney failure you were asked about, but if you get to restate questions, so do we. It is only fair and you do want to be fair don't you? What did you ask Jeb?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Herb,
Regarding your post #60, you and I both have absolutely no idea what a woman goes through when she's raped. However, what is known is that many rapes go undocumented due to shame, embarrassment, and various other traumatic consequences on the brain.
Is it so hard to believe it might take a couple months for someone to come to grips with the fact they have been raped and finally seek medical attention for what happened, which may include an abortion?
Of course, in posing this argument, I know I'm probably dealing with the old-school thought that "mental sickness" is just the sign of a weak mind, and that it's just a bunch of "bull-hocky."
Your viewpoints claim black and white, but the world is full of color, my friend.
Comment by scott — June 1, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
I am amazed at the leftwingers in this forum who justify abortion "because it's legal". We know it's legal. Our whole point is it's a bad immoral law which should be overturned.
The logic that life begins at conception is stunningly simple. There really shouldn't be any debate about it. Here's how it goes.
1) A human embryo at conception is of the human species.
2) A human embryo at conception is alive.
Hence, a human embryo is a living human being from the moment of conception. There is no difference between a new human embryo and an adult human being are EXACTLY the same except in stage of development.
There it is. Ironclad.
Comment by DT — June 1, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
We do not justify abortion because it is legal. We justify leaving the doctor and patient ALONE because it is legal. Our whole point is that abortion is a necessary and important LEGAL CHOICE for ending a pregnancy if a woman and her doctor agree to the procedure. It cannot be overlooked that many talking heads on 'the right' bear some culpability for the actions of the terrorist who became a vigilante.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Some people may argue that life begins at conception but that is a tenuous proposition that can easily be undone. Whether by an act of God, an accident, or the choice of an abortion, that "possibility of life" can be extinguished before it is ever viable and even after it is viable, so the simplistic view, while it may satisfy those who claim "pro-life" as a hair shirt, does nothing to make it an ironclad thesis, much less an indisputable fact. You cannot grant rights to a fetus that conflict with those of the woman without reclassifying the womb as "society's incubator" and it clearly is not. If the embryo was in some sterile lab (as it may well be someday) and it was created specifically for the purpose of gaining a full term, live birth human being, you might have an argument. Since the very fact that a woman would seek an abortion negates the "stated purpose" of gaining a full term live birth, it cannot and in fact is not considered a human being. Not by the Constitution and not by legal definition covering the laws of abortion. You may not like it. you may well refute it with all your might, but THAT is the ironclad truth in this matter.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
I wasn't aware that we had to justify abortion. Especially to someone that wants to impose their beliefs on someone else.
Comment by Blue John — June 1, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
"Our whole point is that abortion is a necessary and important LEGAL CHOICE for ending a pregnancy"
Like I said. You're justifying abortion because it's legal.
And like I said, it's a bad law that needs overturned because it's morally wrong to take the life of another human being for purely selfish reasons. It's as predictable as the sunrise that you people would use this shooting like you're doing to implicate pro-lifers while you completely overlook the fact that this doctor destroyed thousands of highly developed human beings.
Comment by DT — June 1, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
"Some people may argue that life begins at conception but that is a tenuous proposition that can easily be undone"
It's not tenuous in the least. An organism is either living or dead. You don't get to apply your mystical "gray area". There is no scientific basis for that. My definition relies on pure science and logic. You're going with hocus-pocus.
Blue John,
Aren't you imposing your beliefs on Tiller's killer? Yeah, there are certain things civilized people get to disallow. Killing other human beings, whether it be Tiller or his thousands of victims, is one of them.
Comment by DT — June 1, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
"Keith Olbermann has come up with a better idea: accuse his nemesis of “incitement to murder” and propose the “quarantine” of Fox News"
http://finkelblog.com/index.php/2009/06/01/olbermann-the-time-has-come-to-quarantine-fox-news/
Using the murder of a doctor by a nutcase to gut the First Amendment. There you go.
A doctor gets killed and President Obama issues a statement condemning the death. An Army recruiter gets killed by an Muslim terrorist on American soil and Hussein Obama is silent. Hmmmm....
Comment by Henry — June 1, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
An organism is not a human being. An embryo is not a human being. An embryo is an organism that has the potential to be a human being. You can play word games all night with yourself, but you will still be wrong on all counts. Ask a woman who has had multiple miscarriages how tenuous a pregnancy is. Ask a woman who cannot get pregnant how tenuous an embryo is. I am not the one dealing in gray area, you are the one trying to color white black and the only logic in that is to cover the ignorance of it. Hocus-Pocus is a very good, yet too kind description of your brand of "logic".
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html
"...if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
"Some of the things O'Reilly has said of Tiller, according to Salon:
* He "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."
* He's guilty of "Nazi stuff,"
* a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida
* "This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union"
* "operating a death mill"
* "has blood on his hands"
* "executing babies about to be born"
I think Olbermann has a point.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 1, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Kevin you are correct...sorry..."us" is plural first person, not third.
DT..how adorable of you to make up a bunch of personally generated utterly non-scientific positions and declare them "ironclad".
You think an embryo is a "human being"? Try getting it to pick up the tab at lunch. Bacteria is a "living organism". Does it deserve your same protection under the law?
No one's trying make a moral argument for abortion. Fortunately, no one has to. It's legal. Wishing won't make it go away. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. It's simple. Ironclad, you might say.
And no one's imposing their "beliefs" on Tiller's murderer. Murder of an adult human being remains ( moral or not) illegal in this country. Beliefs in the end don't count for jack. Beliefs and $3.50 will get you a starbucks latte. Law will put your ass in jail.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
I see Kevin dodged Dan's excellent question. Understandably. There is no answer to that that would work within his framework.
Hey Kevin..be careful of what you post...we might get a glimpse of your true beliefs.
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Kevin: "If I were morally responsable for causing another's kidney to fail, then yes, I should be prepared give up my own in return."
Ok. Say you cause an accident that leaves a stranger without a kidney. You are morally responsible for that situation.
Should the law require you to give up a spare kidney in return?
The question is not whether you have a moral responsibility, but whether the law should require it, or whether the extent of the sacrifice required by that moral responsibility should be determined by you or by the state.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 1, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Dan, let's say it's not a kidney, which cannot be regenerated. Let's use Sandi's bone marrow example.
Say a perfect stranger is dying of aplastic anaemia or whatever, and is a perfect match for your blood type. Your bone marrow donation would save this guy. You don't want to give the marrow.
You wouldn't be hurt at all. You'd regenerate the lost marrow in a matter of days. The stranger would live. You'd be saving their life.
We all know by now that life - in any form - is sacred. Worth preserving at the point of a gun.
Can you be forced to donate? How valuable IS another life, actually?
Comment by Kristen — June 1, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
RE: #100
DT,
There is a big difference in calling someone who guns down a doctor during church service and runs a nutjob and a coward, and trying to deny a woman an abortion. The gunman broke the law, plain and simple. If a woman needs an abortion, for whatever reason, it is none of your or my business. Ironclad enough for you?
Comment by Blue John — June 1, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Sandi
""Some of the things O'Reilly has said of Tiller, according to Salon:"
I've heard people say the same thing about George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh on TV. What do you think should happen to those people?
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Henry, if ANYONE uses hate speech they heard from any source to Kill George W. Bush, then yes those people would be culpable in the same way. Just as you and others feel that Dr. Tiller contributed to his own death, so too would Rush if he were to be murdered by a terrorist trying to silence such voices. There is a consequence to the constant drumbeat of hate and vitriol and the talking heads need to realize that. Instead they are simply calling the terrorist a nutjob and hoping we all move along. Reality bites.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 8:04 am
Sandi,
"An organism is not a human being."
Do you know the definition of an organism, Sandi?
"An embryo is not a human being. An embryo is an organism that has the potential to be a human being."
Really? If it's not a human being, what species is it? A girafee?
Kristen,
"You think an embryo is a "human being"? Try getting it to pick up the tab at lunch."
Try getting a two-year-old to pick up the tab at lunch. Next?
"Bacteria is a "living organism". Does it deserve your same protection under the law?"
Uh, bacteria is not a human organism, so no.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Anyone care to comment on what the punishment for this woman should be?
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0609/628148.html
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Now this is scary.
Some of the posters here preach the same things.
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0609/628154.html
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 8:43 am
DT, I have said what I believe and I stand by that. Your disagreement is irrelevant. I think you should argue with yourself on this issue because you are the only one who can follow what you are trying to say. Do you trust the Founding Fathers? Do you doubt the Constitution? Do you think that the Constitution needs to be re-written? The Constitution is quite clear on when a human being has rights and an embryo (no matter the stage of development) is not mentioned. Want to legislate from the bench do you?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 9:05 am
That depends, BJ. What did the baby do to deserve that fate?
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 9:06 am
BJ#112:
She should go to jail. But, it is for moments like those that it is clear to me why it is so important for a women's right to choose.
Comment by HCS — June 2, 2009 @ 9:08 am
Sandi,
Your personal whim has NO bearing on the irrefutable fact that life begins at conception
My definition makes perfect sense. You're the one who is using imprecise illogical hokum. You can't even define the terms you are using. If people used logical and critical thinking instead of political motivation and selfishness, abortion would be recognized as the horror it is, and we wouldn't be having this debate.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:23 am
AMEN, HCS. Her sad and awful story proves the desperation and evil that still are rampant. Henry, has anyone, anywhere, ever, in the history of your debate on the issue said that a baby deserved such a fate?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Blue John,
Why don't you opine what should happen to the woman. Not a lot of difference developmentally between her newborn and the babies Dr. Tiller killed is there?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 9:29 am
"Her sad and awful story proves the desperation and evil that still are rampant. "
The baby was a girl?
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 9:37 am
DT, it is perhaps true that if the Founding Fathers had "used logical and critical thinking instead of political motivation and selfishness" they would have included protections for your "irrefutable fact that life begins at conception", but the fact remains that they did not. I am constantly harangued for wanting what is not in the Constitution explicitly so I am wondering how you can get by with it. I guess the situation is different when the Constitutionalists agree with you and your whims.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 9:45 am
This topic is tough, tough, tough, regardless of which side one takes. NO one wants to see an embryo taken prior to birth, yet to say a woman does not own her very own body is ludicrous. The answer as I see it is PREVENTION. Make condoms as readily available to all as a can of soda is today. Have free clinics for birth control and guidance where no one judges those who visit these clinics. If we prevent pregnancy, the abortion issue goes away, and we are left with the moral issues of sex before marriage, which is much more palatable than abortion. We can all agree to leave the 'morals' out of the equation, as it is not another humans job to judge others. Leave judgment to the individual, and/or to our Creator. PREVENTION...that's the ticket! Gip
Comment by Gip — June 2, 2009 @ 9:56 am
'If people used logical and critical thinking instead of political motivation and selfishness, abortion would be recognized as the horror it is, and we wouldn't be having this debate.'
How sweet DT. If people agree with your opinion, they're "logical".
It's endlessly interesting that the loudest opponents of a woman's right to choose are men and post menopausal women. Like the "pro lifer" who murdered this doctor. Sort of like straight people having all sorts of opinions on how people become gay.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:11 am
HCS....#12....you're right. There are fates for a child worse than abortion.
I read an article last week about a woman in New Mexico or Arizona who smothered her toddler, changed her mind and gave him mouth-to-mouth to revive him..then changed her mind AGAIN and smothered him AGAIN.
I have no punishment bad enough for this woman.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:14 am
DT,
Once again you miss the point. While you are fixated on when life begins, the world continues to pass you by and terrible acts are happening to children every day. If you would direct your energies to the safety and well being of the children that are here instead of the unborn, you might make a difference. If such a tragedy can happen while abortions are legal, imagine what will happen if they are illegal. Oh wait, we have already been there and it did not work. Seems like some folks are slow learners.
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Gip...that would be a sight to see. Pull up to a vending machine and look through the choices. Coke, Fritos, Snickers, gum, or a 3-pack of Trojans?
Comment by Other John — June 2, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Blue John,
1. How is suffocating or goring a child to death before its born preferable to allowing it live a life in which misfortune may or may not happen to it?
2. How does "taking care of those children already born" conflict with preventing them from getting them masscred while still in the womb?
3. What makes you think people who care about infants in the womb care less about kids in general than people who would rip them out of the womb and destroy them?
It's really hard to follow liberal "logic".
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:36 am
OtherJohn...in Germany condoms are available on the street in vending machines. I remember seeing this years and years ago.
If we were to try that here, no doubt the same strident voices howling against a woman's right to choose would be the very first ones screeching that we were "encouraging young people to have sex without being aware of the consequences". Yadda yadda yadda.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Gip, you are 100% right on! If we concentrate on access to prevention and free services for all then yes, we can definitely lessen the need and the number of abortions which is a very worthy goal. Free sterilization for anyone over 18, free birth control, (condoms, the pill, etc), comprehensive education on human sexuality, STD's and sexual activity consequences, all are excellent and helpful ideas. Adoption also needs to be more open and attainable for more decent loving parents who want children. As we have mentioned before, there are avenues to be discovered and paths to walk together but people have to want to lower abortions not just play the blame game. I KNOW my side is more than ready, willing and able to meet this challenge. Thank you for acknowledging that supporting a woman's right to choose abortion does not mean anyone likes the process.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Interesting Kristen. And no doubt classier than those gas-station and truck-stop machines in the men's bathrooms. And yes, I have no doubts that the same folks would be up in arms over it as well. They oppose abortions, but likewise oppose efforts to reduce pregnancy unless it is solely focused on abstinence. I am abstaining from further debate on this, the lack of logic has sufficiently turned my brain to mush.
Comment by Other John — June 2, 2009 @ 10:47 am
Do you honestly think that people have no idea where to get condoms? Every store carries them now.
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 10:48 am
You got a better plan Henry? Abortion is not going away. Even as we know the horror of it and the pain it causes, we still maintain that it is a woman's right to choose and you will not change our minds. So the option is to do nothing? Do you want credibility or do you just want to be contrary to any Liberal idea. Is seems the latter, but I am offering you a chance to actually prove me wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Henry I think a 16 year old kid hoping to get lucky might be much less embarrassed hitting up a vending machine than walking into CVS and risk being seen on line with condoms...maybe standing behind his 3rd grade teacher.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 11:24 am
"You got a better plan Henry? Abortion is not going away."
Neither was slavery or Jim Crow.
Education is just a way of saying "We don't know what to do so let's just spend money". The problem is not ignorance. Everyone knows that sex leads to babies and STD's just like they know that drunk driving leads to accidents. People do it anyway. But if some moron has an accident while driving drunk, we don't go out and kill an innocent person for it.
Here's a compromise. Why don't we make it illegal for a doctor to kill a baby just to make money? Whoa, there's a novel concept. Can we make that work?
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 11:31 am
DT,
So what have you done for the living lately?
Do you support sex education at school?
Do you support free condom programs at schools?
Do you support the use of the morning after pill?
Have you volunteered at a youth home lately?
Are you a foster parent?
If not, let us know of any other ways you support children in need.
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
When did the right get to be so against people making money?
Or is everyone allowed to make money but doctors?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Yeah Kristen, let's unshackle abortion controls and let the "free market" handle it and see who are among the wealthiest clinic owners in five years time.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Firstly, I want to say that while I may not agree with what Dr. Tiller did, it does not justfy his being murdered (and in church? Awful...)
Secondly, just a couple of questions for those who are pro-choice...
1. We do not know for sure when life starts (conception, some time in the womb, when the child is born). But why not err on the side of life? I would think if there's even a POSSIBILITY that life begins at conception, people would think twice about it.
2. I have seen many comments from pro-choicers that say that it's good to limit the number of abortions. WHY? If abortion isn't murder, why is it good to limit the number of abortions being performed? We don't say "let's limit the number of knee surgeries being performed."
3. Another pro-choice argument: abortion is not going away. Murder (of people already born) happens all the time, everyday. Does that mean it should be legal?
Comment by KB — June 2, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Actually KB there are plenty of things that aren't murder but would be nice to see limited. Diabetes. Heart disease. Why would we not want to improve everyone's health so that many medical procedures become obsolete?
What makes you think people DON'T "think twice" about abortion?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
"DT,
So what have you done for the living lately?
Do you support sex education at school?
Do you support free condom programs at schools?
Do you support the use of the morning after pill?
Have you volunteered at a youth home lately?
Are you a foster parent?
If not, let us know of any other ways you support children in need."
1) How does that support children in need?
2) How does that support children in need?
3) We've already ascertained that I oppose abortion.
4) No, but I am an adoptive parent.
Now, let me ask you what you do for children? Oh, that's right. You're covered. You support aborting them.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
"When did the right get to be so against people making money?
Or is everyone allowed to make money but doctors?"
How do you feel about drug dealers making big money? OK with you? How about pimps?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Since it's so tempting to do so, I'll state what I think here, but I will not further expand or explain anything on it because this is how I feel, and I know that no minds will be changed based on what I think.
I oppose abortions as a form of after-the-fact birth control. It's just wrong to do so. I am completely supportive of making all forms of birth control more widely available and distributed to the people who need it.
I do not oppose abortion where rape, incest, or other forms of sexual abuse or violence occurred. I think anyone who endures such a trauma should have the complete ability to choose whether or not to carry out a pregnancy induced by such events.
I also do not oppose abortions where the life or health of the mother is at risk by the pregnancy. If there is a medical reason to perform one, I am not opposed to it, regardless of when it is done. Such a difficult choice must be left to the mother, father (if actually present), guardian (if that is the case), and the doctors...not mandated by a politician in some capital building somewhere.
For people who intend to carry through with a pregnancy, but who then find themselves isolated and alone because of some sort of familial or relationship problems, I think they should be presented with the wide range of options available to them if birthing and raising a child is suddenly something for which they lack the resources to do. Perhaps greater community involvement for such cases could help, or maybe if the other party involved would step up and take proper responsibility it could likewise be avoided to begin with. But, if they choose to terminate their pregnancy, it is not my place to say whether or not they should have that ability. I generally oppose them in these cases because there is not a medical reason, but in these cases I can understand and sympathize with why someone might see it as an option to them.
Simply opposing all abortions, regardless of reasoning, is narrow-minded in my opinion. It disregards numerous legitimate medical reasons for why one might be needed. Working to reduce the number of non-medical abortions makes sense to me because an abortion itself is not the problem; it's the surface issue from which people rail on. The root of the abortion problem is unwanted, unintended, or forced pregnancies. I believe we have a duty to work on fixing the problem, at the source, by working to prevent these pregnancies through the means currently out there by making them more available to the people and ensuring that adequate access to them is maintained. You can't solve a problem if you only treat the symptom...you must address the cause. You don't fix a rusty spot on your car by spraypainting over it...there will be yet more rust, regardless of that action. Likewise for abortions...you can't get rid of them or reduce them by simply banning them, they will still happen because the root reason for them happening is still there. Once we get real about the debate and start discussing real solutions and prevention, this is just a bunch of hot air talk that gets us nowhere.
Comment by Other John — June 2, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
KB.
Good post, except that we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins at conception. But you're right; for the leftwingers who claim to lack that certainty, how can they risk taking a life through abortion?
And now, with this Tiller case, the lefties here have been forced to show their true colors and either make the impossible claim that a six-month-old fetus isn't alive OR just say flat out they don't care.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
DT it would have been much faster for you to just say "nothing".
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
DT,
The first three questions could serve to reduce abortions.
The fourth could help to make a child's life easier.
Congratulations on being an adoptive parent.
Too bad that you think that the POSSIBILITY of being pregnant, and taking a pill the day after intercourse, is considered an abortion. You rail against late term abortions, yet you condemn a person for trying to avoid the issue immediately after intercourse. Very telling my friend, very telling.
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
"When did the right get to be so against people making money?
Or is everyone allowed to make money but doctors?"
How do you feel about drug dealers making big money? OK with you? How about pimps?
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Except for the fact that what they are doing is ILLEGAL ( amazing how this point is so easily lost on our law-and-order RW friends)...I really have no problem with it.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
You make your bed BJ, you lie in it. Oh what a wonderful world it would be if we could go out, get hammered drunk, drive all around causing mayhem of all types all night long and then take a pill the next morning to make it alllll go away. OH hey, lets add to it by having a class and telling 9 and 10 year olds "Now this is how RESPONSIBLE adults go out and slowly destroy civilization but you arent adults so dont do it, but if you do do it this is how adults would do it. Oh and here is where you can get the magic pill also."
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
"DT it would have been much faster for you to just say "nothing"."
Kristen, it's not surprising you would say adoption does "nothing" for kids. If only I could support children like you and just I want them aborted.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
"Except for the fact that what they are doing is ILLEGAL ( amazing how this point is so easily lost on our law-and-order RW friends)...I really have no problem with it."
How often do I have to say this? If legality weren't the issue, we wouldn't be having this debate. We know it's legal. Our whole presentation is that abortion should be illegal.
Please don't talk in circles again.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Well said Other John.
I think it is clear that we are coming at this issue from diametrically opposed views and that for the zealous pro-life people who literally believe life begins at conception and all abortion is murder, there simply is no use trying to discuss the issue. For those who see the effort to reduce the number of abortions as the best chance we have at real action, that is already happening and we have only to support it.
I see no benefit to arguing with people who's views I vehemently dispute and who's rhetoric I despise so I am done.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
"The first three questions could serve to reduce abortions.
The fourth could help to make a child's life easier.
Congratulations on being an adoptive parent.
Too bad that you think that the POSSIBILITY of being pregnant, and taking a pill the day after intercourse, is considered an abortion. You rail against late term abortions, yet you condemn a person for trying to avoid the issue immediately after intercourse. Very telling my friend, very telling."
I think you reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion through a spiritual means rather than mechanical. We've been distributing millions of condoms in Africa, and they still have an AIDS epidemic because of promiscuity. Passing out condoms and thereby telling kids to have more sex isn't going to solve anything. They have to internalize things through a system of values in order to value sex and human life.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
There you go MM, sex ed for 9 and 10 year olds. Small wonder you folks don't understand the problem.
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
BJ, do you know what range of ages sex ed is being taught to in schools around the country? Or are you saying it would be a great idea?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
There is no age at which appropriate sex education cannot be introduced.
We already teach small children about their 'bathing suit area' and how anyone besides Mom or Dad touching them there is highly inappropriate. What do you think that is? It's the beginning of sex ed.
I guess we could save sex ed for puberty. Of course in many cases it's too late by then.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
"I think you reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion through a spiritual means rather than mechanical."
I think I saw a SouthPark episode once along these lines. Kids went to a camp where they could "Pray the Gay Away."
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
MM,
The sex education taught in schools is age specific. Your scenario is not taught to 9 and 10 year old children. I understand that the majority of teens get their sex ed from classes in school as opposed to their parents.
I think the "magic pill" you describe is called an aspirin, taken in large doses to reduce the "hammered effect". Drive safely dude!!
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
I have no problem with people looking inward to find answers through their own spiritual path. In fact, I highly recommend it. But, we still come to a point that even with that higher level of spiritual awareness, there are sometimes circumstances beyond our control that force people to have to make difficult decisions, even if they took proper steps to avoid such a situation.
Comment by Other John — June 2, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
BJ #152 can you enlighten us by explaining what your statement meant there?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Well what version is taught to 9 and 10 year olds BJ?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Marked,
You folks focus on abortions without any thought to the reasons a woman chooses to seek an abortion. That is the problem as I see it. Even morning after pills are forbidden. By your post, you equate the need for an abortion to a night of drunken sex. Maybe you have to get the woman drunk to have sex, but most don't.
Every state has different sex ed programs. Do your homework if you really care, but somehow I don't think it will make any difference in your opinion. There are 159 posts as I write this, and abortions are legal. I have no desire to try to explain this to you given your propensity to ignore facts and engage in the trivial.
Comment by Blue John — June 2, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
BJ
You are confusing morning after pills with RU-486. A few birth control pills will act as a morning after pill. That's why the sororities kept extra on hand.
Now, it seems Roeder had been suffering with a schizophrenic mental disorder.
Tiller was using a business partner to sign off on the PBA's. He was charged for it but acquitted on a technicality
Comment by Henry — June 2, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
What technicality, Henry? Innocence?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 2, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Kristen #133,
Not to mention that in this region you can't just go grab condoms off the shelf in the stores and go to the self-checkout. The majority of stores, you have to ask someone to unlock a cabinet to retrieve them.
Comment by scott — June 2, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
OJ, re: post 142, I agree completely. Very well stated. According to at least some research, if we were able to eliminate all abortions except those occurring as a result of rape/incest or out of medical necessity, we would eliminate about 98% of all abortions. (see the table in the summary and conclusions near the bottom of the page)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Comment by C Ramsey — June 2, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
I find it curious that the opponents of abortion...supposedly on the "moral" and "religious" grounds that the embryo is human life and therefore sacred, are willing to grant absolution to a victim of rape or incest.
Does that embryo know it's a result of criminal behavior? Should it matter? Surely if every 2 celled zygote is sacred, the ones resulting from rape and incest are no less so. Should they be made to pay, literally, for the sins of their fathers?
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Most religious people believe things happen for a reason, if a baby is meant to be conceived, well it will be conceived. I wonder if anyone has ever falsely yelled rape just to warrant an abortion? If a man is raped and the woman rapist becomes pregnant, does the man have a right to choose?
BTW, Zygotes are single celled Kristen. A blastomere is a zygote that divided into 2 cells, then 4, then 8, etc.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
OK Mark on the blastomere!
"I wonder if anyone has ever falsely yelled rape just to warrant an abortion? If a man is raped and the woman rapist becomes pregnant, does the man have a right to choose?"
This is, if somewhat nonsensical, an interesting post which confirms most of what I think about the so-called "pro life" movement.
No one has to "falsely yell rape" to justify an abortion. Abortion is legal. Even after consensual sex.
Most of the "pro life" dogma is rooted in a deep desire to punish women for having sex. In fact, I'd say that's pretty much all it's about. In this entire 166 post discussion there is little, if any, mention of the role men have to play in the conception process. The profound wish to oppress and punish women for sexual behavior is what drives this mind set.
After all...if you're willing to "consider" abortion after an incident of rape and incest...you're basically pro-choice. You just pick a different place to draw the line. The rest of the muck, garbled and mixed with Biblical dogman and protestations of moral superiority, is a thin facade covering a fear and hatred of women's sexuality.
As for the male rape victim impregnating some woman...you're on your own with that one.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Dogma, not Dogman.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
find it curious that the opponents of abortion...supposedly on the "moral" and "religious" grounds that the embryo is human life and therefore sacred, are willing to grant absolution to a victim of rape or incest.
Does that embryo know it's a result of criminal behavior? Should it matter? Surely if every 2 celled zygote is sacred, the ones resulting from rape and incest are no less so. Should they be made to pay, literally, for the sins of their fathers?
Kristen, I'm with you on that one. Being the result of rape in no way diminishes the right of a child to live. Maybe you're coming around at last. Oh, hell. That's right. You don't think an eight-month-old fetus is living in the first place.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
So DT you think girls should be denied access to termination after an rape or episode of incest.
That would, at least, be a consistent position.
Comment by Kristen — June 2, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
No Kristen, I think Dogman is closer to the truth on this thread!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Spot on there DT, spot on.
It would seem that the pro-choice supporters would just move that the legal age to call someone 'born' be changed to 4 years old. That way, in addition to being able to kill humans that are not born from a womb yet, pro-choicers could also feel perfectly fine with taking the lives of humans that are under schoolage still? That way the whole second-term, late-term, born, and not yet born argument would be out the door.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 2, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
"Most religious people believe things happen for a reason, if a baby is meant to be conceived, well it will be conceived". Well, if a baby is meant to be born, it will be born. If a baby is meant to be loved and cherished it will be loved and cherished. If a baby is meant to live till 8 and a pedophile comes along...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 2, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
"So DT you think girls should be denied access to termination after an rape or episode of incest.
That would, at least, be a consistent position."
Of course. I think all abortion should be illegal.
"Most of the "pro life" dogma is rooted in a deep desire to punish women for having sex. In fact, I'd say that's pretty much all it's about. In this entire 166 post discussion there is little, if any, mention of the role men have to play in the conception process. The profound wish to oppress and punish women for sexual behavior is what drives this mind set."
No, the pro-life dogma is rooted in one thing; the desire to protect the most vulnerable among us. The way the leftwing blathers about 'protecting the helpless', isn't it ironic they would destroy the most helpless people of all?
The pro-abortion movement is rooted in three things for three groups: votes for the politicians, money for the abortion industry, and selfishness in the women. I think it speaks volumes that you consider a woman bearing her own child as punishment.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
MM, That's where socialists end up. You can eliminate anyone who is inconvenient. First the unborn, then small children and elderly people. The group is as narcissistic as they come.
Comment by DT — June 2, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
"That's where socialists end up. You can eliminate anyone who is inconvenient" - DT
Amen DT, Amen.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Rational discussion is difficult, at best, with people who look at others with different political beliefs and see genocidal masses.
Luckily, people who think that way are rare and way out on the fringes.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 3, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Seems to me that many on the 'loving' far right would like to eliminate Muslims, gays, and other people they perceive as undesirable or unworthy of their God's love. Extremism on either side is bad for society.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Well let me ask you this, Dan.
Since we have aascertained by the Kansas statistics that the mother's life is never or almost never an issue in late-term abortions, and that they are, indeed, performed electively which you said would make practitioners "monsters" in your words, why are you not coming out and condemning the actions of Tiller?
Why are you justifying what he did?
Comment by DT — June 3, 2009 @ 8:42 am
Right OJ, much like the Dems that openly wished a hurricane would strike the gulf coast again just to interfere with the Reps National Convention. Oh, wait, they werent on the 'loving' far-right though...my bad.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 8:43 am
"Seems to me that many on the 'loving' far right would like to eliminate Muslims, gays, and other people they perceive as undesirable or unworthy of their God's love. Extremism on either side is bad for society."
I don't know where you're getting that conservatives want to eliminate gays or Muslims. That's just plain making stuff up. Maybe a few fringe nuts want that. It's hardly a comparison to the pervasive actual leftwing practice of eliminating inconvenient developing human beings.
Comment by DT — June 3, 2009 @ 8:45 am
DT,
You have "ascertained" nothing. You've thrown out a lot of unsubstantiated facts with nothing whatsoever to back them up, whereas I have the fact that Kansas law prohibits elective late-term abortions and the fact that Tiller was acquitted when he was charged with violating that law.
Tiller helped women in horrible situations deal with terrible decisions, and from what I've read from testimonials from his patients he did so with compassion and grace.
What he did requires no justification from me.
You, on the other hand, appear to be defending someone who engaged in cold-blooded murder in a church.
Who is the monster?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 3, 2009 @ 8:47 am
And many on the far Left would like to eliminate Jews, the military, and conservatives. In the end, they are so few that it doesn't matter. Or is it few?
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Anti-Semitic-Attacks-Up-in-State.html
Little Rock Shooting Suspect Joins Growing List of Muslim Converts Accused of Targeting U.S.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524799,00.html
Comment by Henry — June 3, 2009 @ 8:47 am
I doubt you can call the Muslim fanatics left-wingers, they are actually far more closely aligned ideologically with the very far right Christian groups out there.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Funny how we are supposed to take the blame for 'our' nut jobs and you expect to call yours 'lone wolfs' and walk away. I don't think America is buying what you are selling and the sooner you realize that, the better off this country will be. We have spent too much time on a minuscule portion of abortions that will not be solved by murdering or condemning the doctors willing to help desperate patients, have solved nothing and have only managed to prove beyond doubt that most of the worst stereotyping out there has a basis in hard ugly fact. We should be ashamed.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 8:58 am
DT, there have been numerous instances of hatred and violence toward Muslims in this country from supposedly loving Christians. I've observed several examples of this right here in the NRV while shopping at Wal-Mart (not physical violence, but obvious verbal hatred which generally precedes the physical). There have also been repeated examples of gays being singled out and physically attacked or killed for who they are, again, usually by folks on the right. I am quiote sure this does not apply to the majority of conservatives and if you look at what I said, I'm talking about the far right...not the bulk of right-wing folks who don;t subsribe to the more extreme views. What I will go on to say is that with so much negative portrayal of Muslims in media (news, TV, movies) and the fact that most military action has been in Muslim countries, plus that we have evangelists constantly espousing hatred toward gays and Muslims...is it any wonder than there is a noticable element of our society that would seek to eliminate these 2 groups specifically? That's why I said, extremism on either side is not good for society. If you missed that point and didn;t understand the point I was making, then there's no real point in engaging with you because you're probably going to miss further points by focusing on a few select words rather than looking at the whole of what I'm saying.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Dan, I dont believe anyone here (save for Herb) actually thinks that his murder was a good thing. Seems the discussion has been entirely about taking the lives of small humans. As far Tillers occupational choice goes, it wouldnt matter if Roeder had simply walked up in the post office and slapped the guy, or simply gave him a mean look... Tiller still has killed hundreds, maybe thousands of babies.
I will repeat... Tiller still has killed babies....
Roeder definitely deserves to be punished for what he did and violence is/was not the answer. If God had wanted the old 67 year-old man to die from a heart attack before he shoved a metal hook into a young woman, then He would have before now. Perhaps one day at Tiller's Sunday school class they would have reviewed the Ten Commandments and Tiller would have reconciled. Perhaps during one hymn of "God Loves the Little Children", Tiller would have realized that what he had done *monotonous voice here* 'just because Kansas law said it was okayyyyy' *end monotonous voice* was actually morally wrong. Roeder has denied Tiller the chance that any of those things could happen. I pray that Tiller and every baby he took the life from are in Heaven together today and that, to them, all is forgotten about what happened here.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 3, 2009 @ 9:06 am
OJ
"there have been numerous instances of hatred and violence toward Muslims in this country from supposedly loving Christians"
Dang, OJ. You know the religion of everyone who shops at Walmart?
Comment by Henry — June 3, 2009 @ 9:17 am
No, I don't. But, in 2 of these events I was witness to, the people throwing out the verbal hatred were wearing crosses outside of their shirts, and the woman at the receiving end was wearing a hijab.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 9:32 am
No, but he knows the majority of Americans, "identify" themselves as Christians. Are you calling Christens liars?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 3, 2009 @ 9:34 am
DT,
"You have "ascertained" nothing. You've thrown out a lot of unsubstantiated facts with nothing whatsoever to back them up, whereas I have the fact that Kansas law prohibits elective late-term abortions and the fact that Tiller was acquitted when he was charged with violating that law."
No, Tiller was acquitted of failure to get an independent doctor to sign off. And those charges were but the tip of the iceberg. The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts, which oversees licensure of all physicians had already announced going forward with a new set of charges that Tiller performed illegal abortions on viable fetuses.
As for Tiller performing elective LTA's, I'm sorry, I thought we had already shown Dr. Tiller's own website provided the smoking gun.
Again, from his website.
"We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable"
Fetal viability is rarely achieved before 22 weeks and often fetuses 26 to 28 weeks have trouble surviving outside the womb.
Still sticking to your story that Tiller was a great guy, Dan?
Comment by DT — June 3, 2009 @ 9:34 am
To expand a bit, these folks were saying she ought to go back to her country, be back with the other filth, that she ought to be beaten the way the extremists on TV treat Americans. Sad thing was, she was an American by birth and is in her native country (she was actually from the area), and she converted to Islam while in school after being raised Baptist (her father was a preacher). It was a very sad display of the closed-minded bigotry and hatred, that often later leads to violence, that has so disgusted me with the extreme elements of both the right and the left. People always seem to focus on the left-wingers, but ignore the skeletons in the closet of the right. Sure, they may not share views with the majority of conservatives or Christians, but they must be acknowledged as existing because they pose just as much danger as fanatic leftists do. Again, that is the point I've been trying to make...and if folks can't see that, well, I can't help them I guess.
Comment by Other John — June 3, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Guess what, Kristin. People whose "profession" involves mass killing of humanity shouldn't whine about their personal safety. Just as a mafia boss or drug dealer shouldn't complain that "oh, people are after me." When you do heinous horrible things, you're a target. Although I wouldn't condone their murders, I can't say society isn't better off without them.
Comment by DT — June 3, 2009 @ 9:04 am
I moved this over to where it belongs.
This Tiller murder and the reaction from the oh-so-pious right reminds me a lot of the Terri Schiavo fiasco a few years ago.
Like then, the country today is getting to take a good close look at the fringe religious right, and, as then, is running full speed away from it.
And no one's "mass killing humanity". You can repeat it all day long but that won't make it true or credible.
Comment by Kristen — June 3, 2009 @ 9:58 am
I've seen some some vomit inducing justifications from both sides of this argument. Let me sum this up...
Activists on both sides are fundamentalists....like any fundamentalist, they are the fringe, the darkest part of any groups ideas.
Comment by keith — September 16, 2009 @ 9:48 pm