Boston — It is believed that the shooter acted alone.
Surely, that’s true. No one else was standing beside suspect Scott Roeder when it is believed he murdered Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of his church.
But Michael Griffin also acted alone when he killed David Gunn in 1993. Paul Hill acted alone when he killed John Britton in 1994. John Salvi acted alone and so did Eric Rudolph and James Kopp. This suspect is hardly lonely in this murderous cast of lone actors.
It was an isolated incident. So it was. There was no grand scheme of assassinations. But it was also an isolated incident when Tiller’s clinic was first bombed in 1986. It was an isolated incident when he was shot in both arms in 1993. Each anthrax threat, each invasion, even the vandalizing that took place last month at his Wichita clinic were all linked in a daisy chain of “isolated incidents.”
The pro-life community reacted with shock. No doubt. But where was the shock at the fringe groups they forgot to disavow? At the “Tiller Watch” page that Operation Rescue featured? At the postings by one Scott Roeder calling Tiller the “concentration camp Mengele of our day”? At the Defensive Action Statement that says murdering an “abortionist” is “justifiable”?
Were they also shocked by the everyday mainstream rhetoric that casually refers to abortion as murder? Did they worry about the movement strategy designed deliberately to target providers, the weak link of abortion rights, driving clinics out of 87 percent of our counties?
Pro-life leaders denounced the murder. So they did. But how inconvenient that some of their own “stars” seemed less than mournful. That Randall Terry called Tiller a “mass murderer” who did something that “was literally demonic.” Or that the Army of God called the suspect “a hero.” Or that the “comments” on a rash of blogs piled vitriol onto the body of the late doctor. Or that Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council worried most that “what (Tiller) did is being glossed over.”
I have covered far too many such murders. As a First Amendment absolutist, I don’t believe that words kill. But this week, I can’t help wondering whether rhetoric can justify a crime in the mind of a fanatic. Can’t words provide the sort of perverse moral platform that jihadists stand on and the alternate universe in which a “lone nut” can find a home?
Consider the verbal targeting of “Tiller the Baby Killer” that preceded this assassination. What do you say, for example, about Bill O’Reilly, who attacked Tiller repeatedly as someone who would “kill a baby a half-hour before the baby is supposed to be birthed for no reason whatsoever other than the mother has a pain in her foot”? Or should we let O’Reilly say it himself? The unrepentant Fox News host boasts “no backpedaling here. ... I report honestly every single thing we said about Tiller was true.” Except that it wasn’t.
I regret that, even in mourning, Tiller’s family cannot escape abortion politics. He was a doctor of last resort for many women, especially those women for whom the sonogram did not bring joy but tragic tidings. He refused to be cowed. At the very least, he should be buried with truth.
I don’t blame everyone who checks a pro-life box on the pollster’s chart. I know that ambivalence is the emotion often cast onto the sidelines of this debate. But it is well past time for the anti-abortion movement to denounce those who are in the profession of inflaming passions: Those who call Obama the “most pro-abortion president ever.” Those who ratchet up the rhetoric on a Supreme Court nominee. Those who cull doctors from their honored profession by labeling them “abortionists.”
At the Notre Dame commencement where Obama was picketed, the president asked, “As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?”
One way is for those who truly “denounce the murder” to take on the chorus, the back-up singers, who still provide the doo-wop for the next deranged soloist.
You see, this suspect was not such a lone gunman. And no, I am afraid, this was not an isolated incident.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Nancy you have no idea how much reading your BS makes me laugh. Do you really think that repeating the same lies over and over again will make them true? Where's your proof buddy? Did your wife/sister/gf get an abortion because she wanted to attend a rock concert? You're the one who needs to get in touch with reality and read a few stories from women who have had late term abortions and why they did it. But you don't want to do that. You want to stay wrapped up in your cocoon of delusion and make (and feel like you have the right to make) decisions for people you've never met in your life. Maybe it's time you got ahold of yourself.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
O'Reilly, and his cadre of frothing fans like Nancy Boy, don't need proof of anything. They only need to claim to have proof, because that's all that's necessary in their faith-based world of circular logic.
JohnBrown (anonymous) says…
The American (and Kansas) Taliban: "Do as we say or we'll kill you".
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Nothing quite as sad as some flack that tries to make political hay from a heinous crime like murder. Who is the one with blood on their hands?
autie (anonymous) says…
I believe Ellen makes a very good point. I believe Tom makes no point. I get better feedback from my dogs than I do with Bill O'Really.
beawolf (anonymous) says…
There was a great discussion yesterday at CNN.com and many of Dr. Tiller's patients related their experiences. It was absolutely incredible the amount of pain and suffering these women went through. All were planned pregnancies that went horribly wrong in the third trimester and abortion was the only option. The verbal and often physical torment these women suffered at the hands of pro-lifers was disgusting. One lady was hit by rock as she arrived at the clinic.
I'm against abortion, but I am more against the pro-life movement and the zealots who call themselves Christians to justify their hate crimes and terrorism.
middlemgmt (anonymous) says…
Just because it's on you tube does not make it truth.
BigPrune (anonymous) says…
If there wasn't Roe vs. Wade, there would have been enough voters in Florida to elect Al Gore when he contested the presidential election. Because of the missing voters through abortion 18 years prior, he lost the election.
But it's okay because Europe and Canada will become Islamic Republics within the next 25-50 years because of the West's use of abortion as birth control.
Tom forgot about the woman who had a third trimester abortion at Tiller's clinic because she couldn't handle the stress of missing track season due to her pregnancy.
An closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
charliejohnson (anonymous) says…
Tom .
Like someone said the other day..If only men could give birth.
Bea.
.Glad you added that.. Nobody does this because they have a sore foot or to a rock concert. I am sorry for those who had to make that CHOICE.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
beawolf - nice, thought provoking post (8:45).
Couldn't agree more about zealots - they are a horrible witness.
Looking at it from a different perspective - would it not be a possibility that 'privacy' is actually a real root cause to a lot of the problems like this? Needless and possibly illegal abortions occur (please don't insult everyone's intelligence and say they don't) along with those that might be deemed medically justifiable. If there was a respected third party in the form of a review body with some authority and ability to initial prosecutions if necessary - to ensure that these providers only performed truly necessary medical procedures - would that be an acceptable option?
The demands of 'privacy', to the point of likely covering up actual crimes, seems to be a real issue here.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Tom, give me some concrete proof that Tiller gave an abortion to a 6-8 months pregnant woman so she could go to a concert. Not some anecdotal BS. I believe the court tried this man. Do you not believe in the laws of this country?
cait48 (anonymous) says…
The *opinion* of some old white guy who already has an agenda and never got pregnant in his life does little to sway me, Tom. I *do* have some questions. How did McHugh get ahold of the redacted records? Was he hired as an expert witness by judicial authorities? If not, doesn't that make his possession of those records illegal and anything he has to say suspect? Has anyone else seen these spurious "reasons" for having an abortion from these records? Where are they published so we can *all* see them? The truth is you're basing your lies on the lies of another man that you bought hook, line and sinker. Bozo was right. You're logic is circular and still contains no proof. Oh and by the way, how is this man "one of the most revered and respected doctors in the US."? Who says that? Troy Newman? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor laughing.
repaste (anonymous) says…
na na na na nut jobs! If I got on here every day and told everyone how bad tommy was and that I thought he should be killed for doing something legal that I did not like the cops would be knocking on my door. It is a hate crime to incite violence, this killing will likley set back the pro life movement and increase the # of abortions.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Records.... privacy.... reasonable doubt.... It all breeds distrust and opportunity for hidden crimes and corruption.
There's an inherent flaw with this particular idea of "privacy" here, isn't there?
Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (anonymous) says…
Ellen makes a great point. That having been said, it seems that any vocal opponents to US foreign policy shared responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Interesting.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Beo- I agree with you, Nancy-Tom should just shut up. It's because of the pro-lifers like him (zealots) that this man is dead. Pro-life only means what they want it to mean. That's why they call us the pro-abortion crowd. None of us are pro-abortion, we're pro-choice. Bur that doesn't raise as much emotion as depicting us as pro-abortion.
repaste (anonymous) says…
If you believe Orielly you got issues bud. It is called entertainment! The far left have not been calling for orielly's death - they call him a numnut entertainer,
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"BTW, what would be the word on the street in the far-left zealot world if Bill O'Reilly did was murdered?"
Have you ever noticed how often you use hypothetical situations That Have Not Actually Happened to bolster your points, rightthinker? Hell, that, claims to truth with no evidence, and repetition is pretty much all you got, isn't it?
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Marion writes:
Hate white people do you?
______________________________________________
Not particularly. I'm white myself. But the vast majority of anti-abortion zealot leaders are middle aged white men who speak to other middle aged white men. For some reason I don't like the idea of any of them being my crotch spy. Funny that.
UfoPilot (anonymous) says…
I knew it was only a matter of time before you or someone else tried to portray everyone who is opposed to the murder of innocent, unborn children (aka abortion) as "Christian right-wing extremist law-breaking bigot insane uneducated simpleton religious freak terrorists".
Let's not exploit the cold-blooded murder of this man for political gain. His murderer acted of his own free will and will face the consequences of his deplorable actions.
Besides, where's the outrage over the murder of a soldier and wounding of another at a recruiting station by a convert to Islam who claimed he did it "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past"?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...
Is anyone who hates the U.S. military a "Muslim left-wing extremist law-breaking bigot insane uneducated simpleton religious freak terrorist"?
Of course not. These men are responsible for their own actions and do not speak for or represent people who may agree with some of the things they believe in.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
For everyone that feels the need to make serious decisions for others, I have a message for you - bug off! It's none of your business! They make the decision for something that affects them personally and they do not have to answer to you. Read Roe and the other related SCOTUS decisions and pay particular attention to their basis in the provision of the constitution that not only protects them but you from government intervention.
The most extreme anti-abortionists have the pipe dream that someday SCOTUS or other government entity will overturn Roe. Well, here's a dose of reality for you - it won't! It has such firm basis and is so deeply precedential (as stated in several decisions since then), that the only remedy that may even come close to your wishes is to place reasonable restrictions that do not represent undue burden. OK, so where do you fit in to that picture? Nowhere! Unless, of course, you happen to be pregnant and the decision lands in your lap.
That's the truth and reality. The sooner you come to grips with it, the easier your life will become. Other people might start to like you (hey, it's possible) and you might not come off as the cranky old crap bag that is up in everyone's business all the time. Get real!
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Well Nancy_Boy, I watched the full interview of Dr. Mchugh so now you can't say the lefty's won't watch the whole thing. I found him to be articulate and rational, and as such I can't for the life of me figure out why you posted the link to support your position.
Dr. Mchughs criticisms are often bracketed or put into a prospective that would leave room for doubt in a jury, and he does (as any good scientist should) limit his comments to what he can infer from the material at hand. From this I judge he would have been a poor expert witness.
Observe how Dr. Mchugh frequently states that he has looked only at selected records sent by then Atty. Kline for the prosecution of Dr. Tiller, and only from the psychological point of view. There is also a not too subtle attack made by the interviewer on Atty. Morrison in the first part, which made her position even more obvious.
Dr. Mchugh points out that he was sent no records for abortions rejected by Dr. Tiller, and based upon the information contained (which he finds lacking as a psychological case history) he (Dr. Mchugh) could find no justification for permanent psychological harm in any of the files sent. Dr. Mchugh does point out that most members of his profession would see the conditions noted in the records, from the trivial to the extreme, as treatable - he notes, both he and his colleagues make a living that way.
Dr. Mchugh is no Bill Reilly that's for sure.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Thanks for answering my question Tom. Your silence speaks volumes.
feeble (anonymous) says…
Glad to know you don't consider sexual harassment harmful, Tom.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/...
Tell us, what other crimes against women do you not consider harmful?
beawolf (anonymous) says…
tom,
I really don't think you understand that most liberals, moderates and even conservatives could care less about O'Rielly. Olberman excluded, and even most of his criticism is tongue in cheek.
O'Rielly is nothing more than a entertaining buffoon who is trying desperately to create an illusion of righteousness and intelligence, of which he has little of both.
purplesage (anonymous) says…
Ellen Goodman contributes to the problem by making semantic adjustments to the practice of abortion.
"casually calling abortion murder" is nothing more than calling a spade a spade, speaking the truth, pulling back the curtain on what is really happening.
That said, Scott Roeder has dealt the pro-life movement a huge setback by this criminal act giving far left estremeists fodder with which to lump the movement into one monolithic characterization and accuse extremism across the board.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
"There's an inherent flaw with this particular idea of “privacy” here, isn't there?"
-------------
And I'm sure you are happy as a clam to open your doors to the cops so that they can search your home for any illegal firearms, right 75x55?
You only think there is a "flaw" with this notion of privacy because you don't like the think that is being kept private.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
I think Tom must be bi-polar, or schizophrenic or something....case in point:
Tom at 8:43 am:
"...Funny, beoB and bozo, your conspiracy theory engines have been running on far-left propaganda for years now...."
Tom at 9:41 am:
"You far-left pro-choice zealots don't get it. Tiller, ProKanDo (next door to his abortion mill), Nola Foulston, Judge Clark, Sebelius and Morrison (now disgraced over a sex scandal) were all in this together, and through donations, influence peddling and political strong arm tactics, got by with it. Tiller had the money to throw at all of them, including Dan Monnat."
I have to wonder if Tom actually believes that anyone takes his comments seriously. Given his multitude of other delusions, I'd guess that he does.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
"“casually calling abortion murder” is nothing more than calling a spade a spade"
--------------
Nope.
And I don't need to support my counterargument any more than I would need to provide support that a cat is not a dog.
In my opinion, the first step the anti-abortion movement can take on is abandoning their lexicon of pseudonyms that are designed to inflame and incite.
If you can't make your point without wordsmithing language to make it seem even more extreme than it actually is, then there is no point in having a debate.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
...can usually only hear themselves repeating their mantras.
Comes from both sides, my friend.
Absolutes in the human equation are sketchy, at best.
KansasVoter (anonymous) says…
You anti-choice terrorists sure are a scary bunch.
WHY (anonymous) says…
There is no debate to be had over abortion. One side believes in a space god who watches over us and is displeased if we don't procreate fast enough. The other side believes in science and human rights (not fetus rights). I wonder how long it will be before pro choice member assassinate a nut case minister or priest. Probably never We respect people.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
logicsnd - "And I'm sure you are happy as a clam to open your doors to the cops so that they can search your home for any illegal firearms, right 75x55?"
Actually, with my current license, I am already legally bound to let them search at any time they wish. Got no problems with that. I don't have illegal firearms. It's part of that whole law-abiding citizen thing.
Perhaps to address your poorly-articulated snipe - individual privacy need not be unduly compromised in order to achieve some level of accountability for medical professionals. The real problem has been the current and past level of relative unaccountability and the distrust, suspicion, and temptation to corruption that it has fostered.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
With your current license, I believe that you are required to prove to the police that you are in possession of your registered firearms.
I am unaware of any law that allows them to enter your home to search for illegal firearms that you may or may not have. And I'm not implying that you own illegal firearms.
Let's take firearms out of the equation, since that seems to be confusing you--how would you feel about a police officer coming to your door and demanding to search the premises for evidence of potential wrongdoing?
My point was that you are quick to dismiss privacy as important unless it's something that affects you. Or are you okay with random searches?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"As a First Amendment absolutist, I don’t believe that words kill. But this week, I can’t help wondering whether rhetoric can justify a crime in the mind of a fanatic. Can’t words provide the sort of perverse moral platform that jihadists stand on and the alternate universe in which a “lone nut” can find a home?"
I guess you are not a "First Amendment absolutist" anymore then. You canot continue to call for "First Amendment Rights" then start to question it when it is not what you support.
If there is a right to "burn the Flag" as an expression of "Free speech", then there is by converse an equal right in "flying the flag" as a "free speech expression".
As the Philosiphers in the "South Park" episode with the Mohammed cartoon state:
"It is eather all in or all out." Freedom os expression is just that.
If there are week feeble minded humans that operate in the societal excepted areas of reason and go off anc kill somebody then you have to address them all.
Is the MSm responsible for the death of the Army Private in Arkansas? They branded all the cirticism of Muslims as "extreme", yet here is a converted muslim murdering an Army Private.
There were no calls to those that the MSM was complicitious in that murder.
The "Pro-Choice" crowd is full of a bunch of wingnuts, but so are some fo the far left groups that called for the assination of the killings of President Bush and Cheney.
Where those calls any less odius, or any less of a "protected right" of those that expressed them?
Maybe the message is to "towne it down" on all sides of the equation.
Extremism, biet Islamic, Christian, right, or left is not where we want our Country or society.
CHANDLER007 (anonymous) says…
3 June 2009
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
You far-left pro-choice zealots don't get it. Tiller, ProKanDo (next door to his abortion mill), Nola Foulston, Judge Clark, Sebelius and Morrison (now disgraced over a sex scandal) were all in this together, and through donations, influence peddling and political strong arm tactics, got by with it. Tiller had the money to throw at all of them, including Dan Monnat.
Remember OJ Simpson? Money and some scumbag attornies (and in the Tiller case scumbag politicians/LE people) and anything is possible.
BTW, what would be the word on the street in the far-left zealot world if Bill O'Reilly did was murdered? He gets death threats from the looney left constantly. All the mainstream media crooks hate him because he exposes their fraudulence day after day. What would you say if he got knocked-off. He's never hurt a soul, unless you consider telling the truth as hurtful, and I realize the truth is what the far-left is expressly NOT after. Joke.
*********************************
O'Reilly has never hurt a soul? You think he had zero influence on the whack-job killer's actions? If you're so into O'Reilly, Nancy Boy, then you should know the influence he has on sheeple like yourself. Watch this and still try to claim innocence and objectivity on the behalf of FoxNews and Billo himself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#...
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
@75x55 - just because you are perfectly willing to give up your privacy does not mean everyone/anyone else must. It has nothing to do with "law-abiding" and for you to insinuate that it does is a childish slap at everyone else who values their right to privacy as you try to convince us of your superiority. It is easy to give up your rights, but much harder to get them back once they are gone.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
So if any of us, that would be all Americans, have an opinion on anything and some sicko takes that opinion and twists it and perverts it and commits some horrible act, it then becomes my fault that I had a thought. I guess we should all just shut up or face the fact that thoughts and ideas have always been misused by those with dark agendas, you all know, like the demorats are doing right now.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
ArumerZwarteHoop (Anonymous) says…
"The whole point of free speech was is protect speech that could casue a violence revolution."
What?! If that's all you believe it is about, you probably won't miss that right when it is taken away. Or would you?
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
"cat is not a dog."
Shoving scissors into the brain of an unborn child is not the same as popping a cap in some old white guy.
However, cats and dogs are both mammals, and shoving scissors into a unborn childs brain and popping a cap in an old white guy is murder. Sure, the state says its OK to kill the unborn child, but they also say its OK to kill roder or whatever his name is and lots of innocent people in iraq and afghanistan.
I dont care one way or the other about the children tiller killed or tiller himself being killed or about iraqis or afghanis, but I like dogs.
As for ellen whateverhernameis, why is she not saying our citizen, islam bledsoe didnt act alone, but was goaded on by code pink and all the other fake antiwar bush protesters that were still deranged by losing the 2000 election and went out every weekend and acted like the loons led by phred phhelps acusing America of murder? Why, because she's a two-faced liar. Thats what the left is. Its all they have left.
I hold fairly left-wing views. I hold them more dear than the faux brand of liberals that has taken over the left in America. But I have grown to despise the left-wing in America because they are nothing but two-faced liars with zero consistency in their philosophy, political and otherwise.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
logic - what you don't know is what kind of license it is, and therefore you continue to make assumptions (incorrect ones at that) to justify your strawman analogies, which don't apply. You are free to go now.
a_flock_of_jayhawks - please, don't soil yourself. You also don't know the details, and if I was concerned about that level of privacy and keeping it, then I wouldn't have this particular license. Indeed, if I have the desire to do so, I can transport said firearms covered by license to the necessary LE offices for inspection - so I have the option to not approve of entry. I do not have any burden to allow inspection of non-applicable firearms.
I'm a law-abiding citizen. I would hope that you are as well. Your comments about 'lost rights' don't have any bearing on obeying the law. Don't like the laws, do something to change them.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
Well, Arumer, freedom of speech came about as a means to allow dissent and criticism of government as well as the fact that English criminal common law held that seditious libel (criticizing the government) was a crime. Inciting violence is a part of that, but the entirety of the reason goes beyond it. The alien and sedition act of 1798 prohibited inciting violence and defaming the government somewhat in conflict with the First Amendment, but was allowed to expire in 1800 leaving only the First Amendment.
As far as "designing the constitution to enable future revolutions as necessary", that is *way* off the mark. Our government was designed with the methods and processes available to change our laws and those in power in a peaceful way in order to make a revolution unnecessary.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
"Shoving scissors into the brain of an unborn child is not the same as popping a cap in some old white guy."
_________________________________________________________________________
This has *never* happened in the field of legal abortion. Therefore you are a liar and I cannot and will not accept anything else you have to say. However it *is* the form of hate speech that can encourage some wingnut to go out and "pop a cap in some old white guy".
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Don't you guys have *anything* else to do during the day?)"
Pretty rich from the guy with 3487 messages on the account that he started on March 15, 2008, to replace the one with about 15,000 under the name right-thinker that got booted.
By the way, ever consider that Fox is so popular because they specifically cater to a particular, large demographic, that no one else caters to, and that the others do not?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
And really, if we're using money or popularity to justify superiority, that probably means that Harry Potter and the Twilight series are the best books of this era.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
75X55 I don't care what kind of license you hold. However you have used that license as an example several times now and to date have not been truthful as to what kind of license it is, doing nothing but adding confusion to your answers in this debate. In any formal debate you would have been booted off a long time ago for using those tactics. However this is no formal debate and you have a right to do that. Just understand that doing so is a major blow to your credibility.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
Ok, folks the reason this tactic Ellen Goodman is using is dangerous (don't kid yourselves, its a tactic) is that it may DO the very thing that she is accusing those who have a pro-life point of view of doing. Ms. Goodman's words are at this moment causing anger to fill the mind of some left wing nut job who is unbalanced or paranoid. That person now has justification to act out to stop or harm the person(s) who they believe are harming their cause or belief.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
I didn't bring it up. I didn't make assumptions about said license like logicsound did, I don't have any burden of proof to reveal personal information, and I certainly don't look to you for some kind of validation about 'truthfulness', given that you don't have any skin in this particular game to begin with. I suppose my only real response to your post is, 'what do you care?'.
Speaking of credibility - you're barely credible when speaking about the use of scissors above. Actually, one of the instruments used specifically for partial birth fetal terminations is essentially a large scissors-action tool, with the blades on the outer edges, not the inner ones. The design hasn't altered much if at all in the past 125+ years. But that is beside the point.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
75X55 I can't believe you brought up "partial birth abortion". When will this non-existant bugaboo ever go away? It doesn't exist. It never has. No licensed physician in this country has ever legally performed such a procedure. Some back alley abortionist prior to Roe V Wade may have. Especially when you say "125+ years". Many antique medical instruments look like instruments of torture. But partial birth abortion does not exist in the post Roe V Wade world of legal abortion and never has. It is quite literally an invented procedure made up by the anti-choice movement to put the "fear of God" into its followers and whip up the flames of fury against the "baby killers". You just shot your credibility in the foot far past what you did earlier.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
"logic - what you don't know is what kind of license it is, and therefore you continue to make assumptions (incorrect ones at that) to justify your strawman analogies, which don't apply. You are free to go now."
-----------------
I'll go as soon as you explain to me what kind of firearm license allows the police to enter your home and search for weapons.
But by reading your response to a_flock_of_jayhawks, it sounds like there is no point in trying to explain that, as you admit that you don't have to allow LE to enter your home, which was my assumption.
Given that said assumption is correct, my original question still applies--since you think the idea of privacy is "flawed", then I'm sure you don't mind allowing LE inside your home to search for illegal firearms, correct?
I would think you would have no issue with this, given that you 1) feel that the notion of privacy is "flawed", and 2) are a law-abiding citizen with no illegal firearms to be found.
Regardless, you have little to no credibility, given the fact that you choose to use "you don't know" as a response instead of actually proving my assumptions wrong.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
Heck, I sure don't like some of the instruments or procedures I have seen and heard of, especially those big, long needles in the dentist office. So they should be outlawed, too? It just *looks* like it probably hurts, so it must be wrong and should be outlawed. And that thing that you just had hacked off of your heel, well it could have grown into a fine, productive, um, thingy. In Kansas, they petition for a grand jury over what you just had done. Heathen!
75x55 (anonymous) says…
C48 - relax, you're becoming hysterical. Did I say 'partial birth abortion'? No. That was to delineate between a long-established emergency procedure for 'saving a mothers life', accepted if little-known outside of the medical sphere, from the politically-charged anti-abortion concept. The instrument I spoke of was available for emergency use up to recent times - don't know if it's still available, haven't really looked in last fifteen years or so. The fact that the procedure hasn't changed, along with associated instruments, in 125+ years, is only a demonstration of it's long established use.
Frankly, I don't care what you consider to be my "credibility" - go look up some emergency obstetric procedures in a decent medical text from late 1800s, and you'll find same thing. You may also find some interesting warnings for the doctor on the efficacy of his work before removing the fetus - clearly to address possible legal complications. A tip to the wise though - if text has decent illustrations, wait and eat afterwards.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
@75x55 - I really don't give a red cent what kind of license you have or whether you value liberty, freedom, and privacy. Just don't expect for everyone else to sacrifice them because you choose to.
And I'm certain that I hold licenses that you don't have, so there, and don't waste your time trying to guess what they are. Nana nana boo boo.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
3 June 2009
at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Anonymous
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
"Actually, one of the instruments used specifically for partial birth fetal terminations is essentially a large scissors-action tool, with the blades on the outer edges, not the inner ones."
--then--
3 June 2009
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Anonymous
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
"C48 - relax, you're becoming hysterical. Did I say 'partial birth abortion'? No."
Care to explain the difference?
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
Jonas is my hero. I did not know the post count was on that guy but was thinking the same thing. That guy lives on the abortion issue and other issues or religion. My guess is he is on disability and has nothing better to do then to complain about others..
I refuse to comment directly on this incident. I am not going to add to the flame so to speak.
But, I must add that in regards to Bill O'Riely that he is one several famous people I would like to fight in the ring someday (I am talking legal boxing with boxing gloves with everyone following the rules). I am sure I can beat the crap out of him. Tobey Keith and Rush Limbaugh are on that list as well.
But, in regards to issues more distressing to me, how about them Royals. They lost what 18 out of 20? Man, they still suck.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
Fascinating. Another news cycle passes at the LJW without much coverage on the Arkansas shooter. I could understand an inbalanced based on local/national reporting, but one would think the LJW site would at least mention a fairly major story that seems to have basic similarities to the Tiller case.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
75x55, are you trying to make a point?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
The Truth will always lie somewhere between the extremes.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Mullah... if the Arkansas shooting is so important to you, why not cover it in your blog?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Sorry 'flock' - don't really care much what you think. bye!
logic - yes, actually - but the dirt road of illegal firearms you brought up kind of obfuscated it.
"Records…. privacy…. reasonable doubt…. It all breeds distrust and opportunity for hidden crimes and corruption."
There are very distinct lines about what is acceptable (or at least, legal) in regards to abortion, and what is not. However, the whole obsession with privacy has engendered a system where accountability for those 'lines' is very easily made ineffective.
When redacted records, without names of patients, cannot be admitted as evidence - as an example of recent note - then how can anyone know for sure if all activities of any given provider are, in fact, legal or not? There is no effective accountability.
That was the point.
Stop distracting me with firearms talk! :)
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
75x55... are you perhaps talking about the bumbling antics of one Phillllllll Kline?
Even if said records *are* redacted... were they properly obtained?
The first time Kline tried to get those clinic records, he went before the judge and asked for full, "unredacted" records. Not a very smart move.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
There's a need for redacted records because the records are or could be made public record, thereby exposing the private actions of people and their identities although they are not the target of the investigation. And with the deplorable activities of the zealots, they could potentially be targeted once their identities are made public. Making it some sort of conspiracy, like you are, is ludicrous. The accountability is still there whether you believe it or not. Why are you so intent on sticking your nose in other people's business? Oh yeah, you don't value the privacy thing. Thankfully, there are protections for the rest of us that do from people like you, 75x55.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
I'll take a guess 75X55 - A Federal Firearms License. "Licensees` records and inventory are subject to annual compliance inspections by the BATFE and to inspection at any time during a criminal investigation other than of the licensee."
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Let's make it easy - is accountability on the part of abortion providers a worthwhile thing or not?
Do they need to observe the existing laws or not?
Can accountability be established while maintaining patient privacy? If not, why not?
If not, then how can anyone claim that abortions are 'safe and legal' with any certainty?
bangaranggerg (anonymous) says…
"George Tiller will always be remembered as a bit part in the pro choice debate."
-Chuck Woodling, LJW
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
Accountability, if it is truly an effort to ensure safety and compliance with the law, is not particularly undesirable. But when it is used as a means to harass and otherwise make the procedure impractical or impossible, which is how it has been abused, is not desirable. Of course they need to observe existing laws, but there's the rub. Those opposed to it just find a way to erect another legal hurdle under one ruse or another in an attempt to make it so extraordinarily difficult that no one will do it. Accountability can be achieved while still maintaining privacy.
Martini_Boy (anonymous) says…
A zealot is a zealot. They come in all colors, races, sexes, and beliefs. One is not better than another. Causes can become a cancer that eat away at logic, laws, and rights.
Opinions that try to lump any and all people into a certain position shows ignorance and an unwillingness to be unbiased. A true sign of a zealot mind at work.
Refrain from the vitriolic rhetoric until more is brought out through investigation. After all justice prevails over all in the end.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
>>> 75x55 (Anonymous) says…
>>> "Let's make it easy - is accountability on the part of abortion providers a worthwhile thing or not?"
Yes!
>>> "Do they need to observe the existing laws or not?"
Yes!
>>> "Can accountability be established while maintaining patient privacy?..."
Using proper procedures... yes!
>>> "... If not, why not?"
An ethical, skilled investigator will take every step possible to ensure patient privacy, at the outset; on the other hand, an investigator or prosecutor with hidden agendas, a bully pulpit etc. will not do this.
>>> "If not, then how can anyone claim that abortions are 'safe and legal' with any certainty?"
How about "Innocent until proven guilty?" Like it or not, abortion is legal. You assume that just because Tiller is providing abortions, then that automatically means he's providing *illegal* abortions.
I may be driving a red Corvette... does that automatically mean I'm speeding, or driving recklessly? Even if I *do* blow your doors off doin' 95mph on I-70, it really doesn't matter if you see it--what matters is if the cop clocks me on radar, and pulls me over.
Roeder got busted with a trunk full of explosives in '96; a few years later, that charge was tossed out because of an illegal search. Yeah, it sucks, but the law is the law... right?
[Feel free at this point, folks, to browbeat me and accuse me of equating a human life to a sports car. Go ahead if it gets your jollies off, though we all know that's not the thrust of my argument.]
Here's one of my posts from last year, detailing how **not** to go about all this...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr...
--Ag
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Take notice all faux "outraged" leftists, take notice.
Even this author it oblivious to the hypocriacy of the left and the media on "justifiable" violence, especially toward... women.
Playboy recently had an article about the "Top ten conservative women they woudl like to hate (rape)." They did not use the work rape but the four letter f-word.
They have since taken it down and are no longer have th article up. The articl actually advocated raping in a violent fashion 10 conservative women. Even the NPE woman stated that "michelle Malkin" deserved it.
Where is the outrage and the concern on violence in women?
Or is this just selective outrage?
Since it is abortion, and in your won words "this is more of a woman's conern" according to "mania" who posted her mal haterd here over and over.
Advocating rape of "republican women" is OK?
Don't complain then about other forms of violence.
here are the links:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/01...
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/03/...
quote from Bonnie Erbe from NPR:
"So her inclusion on the Playboy list is much more offensive to me than is the inclusion of Ms. Malkin, although their political views may not differ greatly."
So a NPR leftists is not concerned about the fact there is a "list" of rape fantasies, but apparently equivicating on just whom should be on it????
WTF?
Where are the "femenists" who so promote abortion, yet silent on rap of "conservative women".
Would that not be "inciting" violence or hatred?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Accountability can be achieved while still maintaining privacy."
Finally.
Knowing that all sides (!) would necessarily try to subvert the process is a good thing - since it would necessitate a realistic process to deny that from happening.
With all the "national databases" proposed as part of some utopian national healthcare plan, privacy issues are going to be critical in any case. Sooner or later, it'll have to be addressed.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Here is another advocating that "the women deserve it" from a femenists no less:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/f...
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
WTF indeed! asbestos
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
How about "wishing Michelle Malkin would die"?
Enough?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-we...
Waiting1 (anonymous) says…
Let's see... this guy butchered children in their own mother's womb. He even slit the throats of newborns. You all speak as though unborn babies are tumors to be removed. And his murderer? HE's the villian? What a joke. I can guarantee Roeder will get more mercy from God than the infanticidal so-called DOCTOR (barf!) Tiller. Everyone who supports him and what he did for a living will be destroyed in Hell and I am not about to give money to these creeps. "Let the dead bury their dead."
Once was, a mother was happy to give her life for her child. But, Jesus was right again. "The love of many will wax COLD." in the last days. The cold-hearted child killers of today and those who support them will get just what they gave. DEATH, body and soul. Not by me. Not even by the Scott Roeders. Not even by God. But, by the Law of Attraction. They attract death and so it will find them and put and end to them, once and for all.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Well, thanks for showing us how it is.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Since May 2003 Iraq birth defects are 500% of normal due to exposure to DU depleted uranium among civilians."
Source please.
Until then with 2 sources it is unverified opinion.
You are operating just like the "news" media outlets; with unsubstanciated propaganda.
What was the "birth defect rate" before the war, when Saddam Hussien was in power, and what is it now? So then how do you know that the defects are "up"? My bet is with the "Since 2003" that also births are up as well "500%". Nobdoy wants to "bring a chld into the world" when there is a war going on and then after thw war stops and hostilities sease or lower, then the pregnancy rate increases.
That was s stupid statment.
My bet is that there were no verifiable records on the "birth defect rate" under Saddam's Iraq because most malformed babies were allowed to die and were not given any medical care.
Forgot about those "real" statistical problems with data validation?
As for the DU rounds, there is some issue in our troops, but most were the ones firing the weapons with them. Most of the DU rounds were used in airplane/helicopter or some mounted Maw-duces. Not all machinguns monted are .50 caliber (which would fire DU rounds) and were the .30 caliber which did not fire DU rounds.
That leaves out a significant amount of the armed forces as well, which shoots 5.56 and 6.8 NATO rounds, which are NOT DU rounds.
Your argument Bronze is full of propaganda and not defensible.
Please get back to the topic of the thread, which was are those that blame others with incindary rhetoric (which you used in the above post) are "responsible" for the acts of a nutball killing or causing violence to people.
"why don't the pro-lifers worry more about the 300,000 new american vets with post-traumatic stress, shell shock, & mental anguish from seeing what actually happened in George & Dick's war?"
Because most of those are returning without PTSD. And yes there are 30,000 wounded and there were over 4000 killed.
That is precicesly why the ***congress*** voted for it, all of them with the sole exception of Kuccinich, whom I respect and admire very much.
So it was all those Democratic senators and congressmen with "blood on their hands too.
Quit blaming George and Dick for everything.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Fox news is not considered a valid source except by right wing nutcases."
Sorry about your problem with "facts" beo, but 3 different media research outfits including the PEW research group all found that ALL of the "news" networks are biased to liberal and especially in the tank for Obama.
That is btw not Obama's fault. You can't sharpen steel on paper of rubber, and the Metal of the man will be better served thatn with a "lapdog" media of msnbc, cbs, cnn and all the others.
The only one not comforming is Fox news and they are balanced, it just looks "tilted" because the rest of so in the tank or lefties.
Look at the Shuster and Maddow ratings as well as Olberman. Look at the yahoos they have at CNN.
and look at their ratings, the United States Public is turning the channel or shutting the box off.
Numbers don't lie.
"MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show Adults 25-54 Ratings Fall Nearly 65% From Premiere Month"
"CNN’s AC360 Adults 25-54 Ratings Fall >50% From January to May"
"Coutdown With Keith Olbermann Posts Lowest Ratings of the Year In May"
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ra...
Tusday's numbers:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/03/...
Seems like the rest of the United States is not liberals after all and is recognizing what you do not:
The media is tilted, lying, and biased.
Except for Fox.
Get over it.
daddax98 (anonymous) says…
"That said, Scott Roeder has dealt the pro-life movement a huge setback by this criminal act giving far left estremeists fodder..."
it think his actions gave fodder to everyone NOT on the far right
dlkrm (anonymous) says…
Ellen Goodman is a hatemonger. Period. Tiller was a baby-killer, but I guess that's not politically correct so we're not supposed to say it.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
"I can guarantee Roeder will get more mercy from God than the infanticidal so-called DOCTOR (barf!) Tiller."
------------------
I agree wholeheartedly. Why else would God make sure to include abortion in the ten commandments while omitting murder?
Right?
Wait a sec...
kansasdaughter (anonymous) says…
logicsound-would you get over yourself already? If you would come down off your high horse you would see:
I A M pro-choice.
I do not and did not find 'joy' in Tiller's demise.
I AM not a zealot. (If I were, I would have posted far more on this topic.)
I did post that I was not upset over Tiller's death, a far cry from finding joy in his demise.
Why are you so obsessed with my comments on this topic? Why are you making me the poster-child for this topic? What is your problem with people who disagree with you about anything? I thought the 'left' was about tolerance and respecting others' views or opinions? Does that only apply if you agree with others' opinions and viewpoints?
I think you are so insecure that you rabidly go after anyone who makes you think you may be wrong. Jeez, give it a rest.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
“The love of many will wax COLD.” in the last days..."
Everything you know is wrong. Reset. If you'd only mentioned something about the rapture, you would nearly have covered every wacko pseudo-religious lie out there.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Goodman argues that Roeder "didn't act alone."
Violent anti-abortion extremist Cheryl Sullenger has a history of supplying Scott Roeder with information on Tiller's court dates... perhaps other information...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/256/story/...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
Tom, it's not absurd at all and any reasonable person would guess that the words and actions of others involved assisted SR in his ghastly endeavor. The more facts surface, the clearer it is becoming that this is actually the case. Run from it as you will, but there's blood on quite a few individual's hands in this situation and other related incidents. One would have to be totally oblivious to believe that SR didn't share his plan or intentions with someone in advance - he just doesn't seem bright enough to fully plan and carry it out completely on his own. Several of the people that knew him have stated that he spoke freely and at length about his thoughts and feelings. Time will tell and more details will likely surface to bear this out.
Just the one incident in which SR says "I've seen you now" and verbally relates it to another anti-abortion activist should have made it pretty plain what his intentions were. The likelihood that no one intervened amounts to complicity at the very least. They wanted this to happen and their mule delivered. Despite that, I doubt that anyone else will be held accountable. The evidence will more than likely be too thin to result in a successful prosecution.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
Yeah, because O'Reilly's own actions were in no way absurd....
I'm convinced you are nothing more than a parody, Nancy Boy.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
This is nothing more than political moves by the pro-baby murder side.
"We don't like it that you call us murderers so we will try to use the government to violate your free speech because speech like this causes crazy people to kill."
parlet (anonymous) says…
Nancy Boy, I think, is a performance artist, though not as clever as Jerry Springer.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
Where has anyone said that you pro-fascism supporters don't have the right to your hate-speech, gogoplata?
You have the right to say it, but that doesn't preclude it from having an influence over people. I can't help but be amused at the shrill cries about restricting free speech in response to comments that merely address the fact that said free speech may influence people to take individual actions...
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…
kansasdaughter,
I think it's wonderful that you are pro-choice, but there are a couple of things you said that raise my eyebrows....for one thing, you made sure to specify that you believe that women should have the choice "by law", which leads me to believe that your opinion might change if the law did. That, to me, is not really "pro-choice", but rather, pro-following the law. I think that distinction is important. For another thing, I am curious how you reconcile a woman's right to choose with your belief that Tiller practiced "bloodshed" of innocents. It seems contradictory.
I will recind my accusation that you are a "zealot", but I have to point out that using a man's murder as the time rail against his "deplorable and ugly" practice really gives the wrong impression. It comes across that the fact that Tiller is dead and can no longer carry out his practice is more important to you than the fact that he was murdered, inside his church. You are welcome to feel negatively about his practice, but maybe this isn't the best time to be getting on your own "high-horse" about his supposedly dispicable practice. In fact, maybe you should consider how the women who he helped in a difficult situation feel about the man.
My comments have nothing to do with insecurity, but rather, my passion for the issue.
none2 (anonymous) says…
scottpewenofkit (Anonymous) says…
The majority of Pro-lifers are unattractive white men that no woman would want to have children with in the first place.
Look at the picket line at one of these clinics and ask yourself, “Would I leave my children in the care of one of these people?” Probably not.
============================
That seems like a pretty bigoted statement. A group's cause should be based on the merits or detractions to their cause. Should a racial group be denied rights because perhaps the majority don't find them attractive? Are the merrits/detractions to gay marriage based on how pretty/handsome they may or may not look in a wedding dress or a tux? Would we only fight wars overseas if we thought the side we were defending were attractive?
Judge a cause based on what it stands for, not on how pretty the messenger is.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
Agnostick, since OR openly published Dr.Tiller's personal information (addresses of his clinic, home and church, etc.) on it's "Tiller Watch" page on its website (which came down quicker than the World Trade Center on the day Tiller was murdered) there wasn't much left Cheryl Sullenger could have given him that wasn't already given to every Tom, Dick and Nancy(boy). These people literally have no shame; no boundary line is too sacred to cross and no lie is too big or outrageous (partial birth abortion being a case in point) to reach their goal. They have been permitted to abuse and harass private citizens engaged in legal activities for years, all in the name of "First Amendment Rights". I'm sure that you're aware when abuse goes unchecked it escalates, continually pushing the envelope until it spills over into murder, be it abuse by a parent, a spouse or an organization. Troy Newman and Randall Terry are the same as some mother wringing her hands and saying, "I didn't know...." as some man gets carted off to jail for killing his toddler. Pardon me if I call BS.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Where has anyone said that you pro-fascism supporters don't have the right to your hate-speech, gogoplata?
You have the right to say it, but that doesn't preclude it from having an influence over people. I can't help but be amused at the shrill cries about restricting free speech in response to comments that merely address the fact that said free speech may influence people to take individual actions…
I am not pro fascism. In fact I am probably more liberty minded than most. I just don't believe that a woman should have the right to murder a baby living inside her.
If she wants to marry another woman, fine.
If she wants to smoke dope, I say let her.
If she wants to be a prostitute, it should not be a crime.
I just figure that the next step will be to try and limit what can be said about baby killers.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Cant we all just agree to disagree?? I mean the right isnt terrorists anymore than the left are baby killers.
And nobody put that gun in that mans hands and forced him to shoot tiller.
If this is the logic being used, then most of us wouldnt be here, as we havew all had people talk crap on us before, and yes even hate speech.
So if thats the motivation, then it would be so in awhole lotta cases that would constantly clog the court systems. Even SR had the right to protest Tiller, although a wack-a-doodle, it is still his right.
What he did not have the right to do is kill the man, and he will and should be tried to the fullest extent of the law.
The rhetoric about pro-life and pro-choice is never going to become a conversation until we all can sit down and say that neither side is "wrong" we are all just different people with 2 very different opinions.
To think that Tiller only preformed late term abortions on women whose "health" was in jeopardy is nieve at best and gullible at worst. The hardest evidence I have seen to date against him is the link posted to his own comment where he looked at the late term aborted baby and said "nice looking baby" someone else then said he "slipped" give me a break, this guy has been controversial for years, hes been dealing with this for years, he didnt slip anymore than I prefprmed some of those abortions, he said what he said and it is what it is.
However, on the other hand, if our lawmakers would sit down at the table and have a civilized conversation, then maybe an agreement could be made about this procedure. With technology the way it is, there should be almost no reason why anyone would need a late term abortion. And if they do, then it should be done in a supervised atmosphere, where the patient can be cared for and not in some sleezy hotel room. If there was nothing to hide then it wouldnt have been hidden in the first place.
By the same token, saying O'reilly helped kill the Dr is as asinine as it gets. Again, back to my original statement, the media is always targeting celebs, people and they are downright vicious. I dont listen to fox anymore than I listen to CNN.
SR made a choice, and a bad one at that, he will be tried and convicted and the law will deal with him, as it should.
I hope that someday, a sensible, civil conversation can actually take place with the lawmakers and some compromise made, until then, the left will always see the right as "religious terrorists" and the right will always see the left as "liberal baby killers" neither is true. With each side is alway sgoing to be fanatics, always going to be that mentally unstable person who will take it to far, just as SR did.....if everyone was REALLY concerned about womens rights, then we would all be having this discussion somewhere else.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
By the way, sorry about the typos!
OonlyBonly (anonymous) says…
Lord give me the strength to protect me from your "faithful!"
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
"Were they also shocked by the everyday mainstream rhetoric that casually refers to abortion as murder?"
I'm sure someone already pointed this out, but people called Tiller a baby killer, because he WAS a baby killer. A true pro-life person denounces the murder of Tiller, as well as the murders of thousands of babies in his clinics. To me, the murderer and Tiller were on equal footing. Murder is murder. You want to talk about hatred, there must be a lot of hatred for an unborn baby to perform a partial birth abortion.
Many of the same people on here who condemn Tiller's murder would be dancing a jig if Fred Phelps were snipered down or if Westboro Baptist were bombed. I'm not saying that the Phelps clan are scum of the earth, but I can see many "good riddance's" being posted on here by the same people denouncing Tiller's murder.
Nice try with the spin-doctoring Ellen.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
@labmonkey
baby = infant human emerged fully from the womb
fetus = not yet born (in the womb)
Baby does not equal fetus. That's where you are wrong. Your usage of the term "baby" is in conflict with the legal definition.
How would it be different if a follower of a particular religion claimed that by you eating beef you are promoting killing a cow that is, in their religion, a former human being just passed into another phase of their life and that you deserved to be executed for promoting the death of former humans? Oh, and they published your home and work address, picketed each location regularly, threatened you verbally and physically, hit you in the head with rocks and otherwise assaulted you, sliced your tires, maintained websites condemning you and following your every move, coordinated efforts to petition you to be brought up before a grand jury for some phony charges, etc. I'll bet you would really enjoy that, wouldn't you?
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
How does a baby perform a partial birth abortion, labmonkey? And, assuming you just went the wrong way with that one purely by accident, think about it, is hatred on the part of the doctor or patient involved in any way whatsoever? I'll answer before your head starts smoking, in most if not all cases, it doesn't. If your reasoning asserts that it does (as laid out in your post), then it is no wonder that you are having a difficult time really getting your head around the issue.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Flock-
You must have took some spin doctoring lessons from Ellen.
1) Just because something is legal, does not make it moral. I have seen many call for the heads of CEO's who have made profits legally, although questionalby morally. And what the scumbag Fred Phelps does is legal, yet is it moral... hell no.
2) Fetus...baby. Same thing. Tiller performed abortions on unborn babies who were much further along than many pre-mature babies that have survived. And your reincarnated person in an animal/unborn baby analogy holds little credibility. There is no proof that the animal is a reincarnated human...as even though I have Christian beliefs, I cannot prove to you the existance of God. But the fetus is/will become a human life (depending on how you look at it) and there is no disputing that (it is not like the unborn baby is a cancerous tumor to be removed).
3) Just because I am pro-life, does not mean I agree with the tactics pro-life groups take (and these groups represent a very small percentage of those with pro-life beliefs). Personally, the pro-life groups lost me when they did a hatchet job on Knight in the 2002 Republican primary for governer which actually led to Sebillius's election.
4) As for my sentance, yes I could have written it better, but you chose to read it in the manner you did. You knew what I meant. I still stand by what I said although I should have added that one has to either have a lot of hatred toward an unborn baby, or is a totally cold-blooded person to perform a partial-birth abortion.
I have my head perfectly around the issue... it is those who cannot see an unborn baby as human life who don't.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
Marion-
To answer your rhetorical question:
Because the perp murdered two human lives.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Many of the same people on here who condemn Tiller's murder would be dancing a jig if Fred Phelps were snipered down or if Westboro Baptist were bombed."
Well, of course. They don't have any particular set of morals that demand a consistent public appearance. When "fundies" fail, it's a great fanfare of scorn for their 'hypocrisy' - when the 'progressive' fails, who cares since they didn't pretend to have any morals to begin with, hence no 'hypocrisy'.
'Hypocrisy' being the only sin - and it's not a problem for those that don't abide by any particular moral code. It's an easy rock to throw.
motocross (anonymous) says…
All of you make me sick with this bullcrap choice!
Choice=murder!!
I should have the choice to kill an infant!?!?!
What went wrong with our society, it's horrible and sad.
God created life, you have no power to take it away.
I pray for your sick minds.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Scott Roeder was really pro choice. He chose to abort Dr. Tiller.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
It's interesting to consider that the only side actually trying to force its viewpoint down everyone's throat is the pro-life right. I guess this should be hardly surprising, given that many of these people attend evangelical churches whose message is "go out and cram God down everyone's throat."
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
but, dweezil222, the funny thing is, the only people who have tried to proselytize personally to me in the past 19 years are the mormons. I haven't heard from any christians since I was 16. Not really doing their good lord's work, are they?