Tiller’s Clinic is Closing

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
US News • Tue Jun 9, 2009 at 5:25 pm PDT • Views: 213

Does anti-abortion terrorism actually work in America? Slain Kansas abortion provider’s clinic to close.

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be “permanently closed,” effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller’s attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women’s Health Care Services Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic. “We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women’s health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service,” the family said. …

Dr. Warren Hern, one of the few remaining doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions, said the closure of the clinic was an “outrage” and he feels the loss for Dr. Tiller’s family and the patients he served.

“How tragic, how tragic,” Hern said when contacted by phone at his Boulder, Colo., clinic. “This is what they want, they’ve been wanting this for 35 years.”

Asked whether he felt efforts should be made to keep the clinic open, he said: “This was Dr. Tiller’s clinic. How much can you resist this kind of violence? What doctor, what reasonable doctor would work there? Where does it stop?”

Hern said he began receiving death threats when he opened his first outpatient abortion clinic in 1973, which has prompted him to take security measures that includes “working behind four layers of bullet proof glass.”

“I will never be safe the rest of my life,” Hern said. “No matter what I do. Even if I close my office. They’ve told me, don’t bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we’re going to go for a head shot.”

Hern blamed comments from anti-abortion groups for Tiller’s death. “The anti-abortion fanatics have to shut up and go home. They have to back off and they have to respect other people’s point of view. This is an outrage, this is a national outrage.”

Some people are gloating over this development.

Randall Terry, the founder of the original Operation Rescue group, responded to news that Tiller’s clinic would remain closed with, “Good riddance.” He said history would remember Tiller’s clinic as it remembers Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.

“What set him apart is that he killed late-term babies,” Terry said. “If his replacement was going to continue to kill late-term children, the protests would continue, the investigations would continue, the indictments would continue.”

Advertisement

730 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:27:24pm

Well, coathangers are cheap.
///spit.

2 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:27:51pm

can you blame other doctors for not wanting to work there? if your life is threatened, would you?

3 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:28:30pm

re: #1 Dar ul Harbarian

Well, coathangers are cheap.
///spit.

That is an awful thing to say but killing Tiller won't stop abortions.
They will just move underground.

4 Kobalt  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:28:55pm

Sheesh. The savages win. :(

5 freetoken  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:29:21pm

Well, the Freepers are happy:

In my count-

that’s 1 versus 40 plus million..

Lots more to go to get even and make it right..


4 posted on June 9, 2009 4:06:03 PM PDT by delchiante


-

LOL this is why liberals always kiss the muslims’ butts - because if you get muslims angry you will die, period.

Liberals have been walking all over Christians and Conservatives for decades because we always politely disagree and quietly “request” that they stop their hideously evil practices.

And now the first time a Conservative uses violence against them, they sit down, shut up and are afraid to re-open the clinic? Hmmm...interesting. I guess this is why muslims slaughter people. I’d imagine the lesson won’t be lost on extremist groups around the country. =)


14 posted on June 9, 2009 4:40:13 PM PDT by Pete98


Plenty of people in the country cheered at the murder of Dr. Tiller.

6 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:29:59pm

and by the way ... randall terry is a piece of shit for comparing Tiller's work to nazis.

7 SpaceJesus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:31:25pm

ok, this whole Nazi, Auschwitz, Mengele shit is getting old.

somebody buy these guys some history books please

8 Perplexed  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:33:14pm

Might be time to read up on some of Margaret Sanger's stuff.

9 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:34:17pm

re: #8 Perplexed

How does that apply to the assassination of Dr. Tiller?

10 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:35:30pm

Randall Terry is beyond disgusting.

11 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:36:13pm

It's domestic terrorism.

12 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:37:13pm

I am starting to think that post-Bush, any kind of terrorism works.

13 philip  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:37:32pm

This is more or less proof that terrorism in certain cases works. The Freeper response to this is predictably disgusting but at least we know who among us would murder people whom they disagree with.

14 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:38:10pm

No answer?

15 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:38:41pm

Other clinics might take this up - who knows. It's legal in Kansas, and as long as the law permits it then it will take place. Rather than terrorize and demonize and politically stump on this the answer lies in the legislature. Unfortunately these rabid crazies have made it near impossible for Republicans to control the state anymore.

16 Perplexed  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:38:54pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

How does that apply to the assassination of Dr. Tiller?

Well, folks seem to believe the planned parenthood is blameless in the abortion issue. Sanger was into eugenics, thought that the poor and mentally deficient shouldn't have children, thought that minorities shouldn't have children, etc. Some of her stuff was pretty radical in the 30's.

As to Tiller, well, the anti abortionists won a hollow victory in that the clinic is shutting down but it wasn't shut down on the strength of moral arguments, but at the point of a gun.

The ends don't justify the means.

17 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:38:57pm

I don't know how they can claim to do this since the world is only 6,000 years old.

9,000-year-old brew hitting the shelves this summer

18 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:39:10pm

re: #12 karmic_inquisitor

I am starting to think that post-Bush, any kind of terrorism works.

Why the distinction between Bush and post-Bush regarding terrorism working?

19 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:40:47pm

re: #16 Perplexed

Well, folks seem to believe the planned parenthood is blameless in the abortion issue. Sanger was into eugenics, thought that the poor and mentally deficient shouldn't have children, thought that minorities shouldn't have children, etc. Some of her stuff was pretty radical in the 30's.

As to Tiller, well, the anti abortionists won a hollow victory in that the clinic is shutting down but it wasn't shut down on the strength of moral arguments, but at the point of a gun.

The ends don't justify the means.

What does this have to do with modern abortion politics?

20 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:41:20pm

re: #16 Perplexed

Well, folks seem to believe the planned parenthood is blameless in the abortion issue.


Legally speaking they are blameless. Dr. Tiller was performing legal abortions. Sanger is not relevant to the modern abortion issue.

21 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:42:43pm

re: #19 Flyers1974

What does this have to do with modern abortion politics?


It's common rhetoric that people use to justify these killings and demonize the victims.

22 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:42:59pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

Margaret Sanger was an ardent admirer of the Nazi eugenics program, and she started a "Negro Project" later in her career. Many of the articles in the magazine she founded could have been written by Himmler and Goebbels.

Actually, the magazine printed articles that were written by people who worked for Himmler and Goebbels. She also gave a speech to the KKK in 1925.

It's also worth noting that most Planned Parenthood clinics are in urban areas...

(source: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg)

23 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:43:10pm

re: #16 Perplexed

Well, folks seem to believe the planned parenthood is blameless in the abortion issue. Sanger was into eugenics, thought that the poor and mentally deficient shouldn't have children, thought that minorities shouldn't have children, etc. Some of her stuff was pretty radical in the 30's.
As to Tiller, well, the anti abortionists won a hollow victory in that the clinic is shutting down but it wasn't shut down on the strength of moral arguments, but at the point of a gun.

The ends don't justify the means.

sanger's racism is unacceptable in any era.

24 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:44:02pm

re: #23 _RememberTonyC

sanger's racism is unacceptable in any era.

Not so much in the 1930's.

25 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:44:16pm

re: #7 spacejesus

ok, this whole Nazi, Auschwitz, Mengele shit is getting old.

somebody buy these guys some history books please

They fact that Randall Terry even brings Auschwitz up shows he knows nothing about history. I'll never mourn the closing of an abortion clinic, but just to clear up the issue for anyone who is still confused:

Auschwitz was a installation designed for the mass killing of all types of people found by the Nazis to be "sub-human" or "undesirable". The great majority were Jews but not all. The head doctor, Josef Mengele, was a vile sadist who tortured and killed for his own amusement, whatever veneer he put on it.

George Tiller ran a clinic that ended pregnancies on request. At times I am certain he killed fetuses that would have otherwise been born and would lived long lives. However, George Tiller never inflicted any more pain than was medically necessary and worked to improve his practice to avoid pain. He never tried to coerce anyone into using his services nor did ever show any joy in performing abortions.

Is that clear enough for you, Mr. Terry?

26 Perplexed  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:44:25pm

re: #19 Flyers1974

What does this have to do with modern abortion politics?

Sanger's writings formed the foundations of planned parenthood. You might want to read what she wrote about abortion and planned parenthood.

Oh, and both my first wife and second wife had abortions due to rape. So before you castigate me as being totally anti-abortion, I've seen what abortion does to women after the fact.

27 Last Mohican  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:45:35pm

re: #16 Perplexed

I still don't understand what you're talking about, so I'll ask again.

How does that apply to the assassination of Dr. Tiller?

28 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:45:36pm

re: #24 Flyers1974

Not so much in the 1930's.


it should have been

29 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:46:12pm

re: #26 Perplexed

How does this apply to the terrorist murder of a doctor?

30 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:46:45pm

re: #19 Flyers1974

What does this have to do with modern abortion politics?

Sanger is a convenient distraction for people who try to avoid the hard questions. I've never seen any evidence that her views 70 years ago play a role in the operation of Planned Parenthood today.

(Cue follow-up argument: But Planned Parenthood isn't perfect! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who is? Please, let's stick to current facts.)

31 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:47:03pm

re: #26 Perplexed

Sanger's writings formed the foundations of planned parenthood. You might want to read what she wrote about abortion and planned parenthood.

Oh, and both my first wife and second wife had abortions due to rape. So before you castigate me as being totally anti-abortion, I've seen what abortion does to women after the fact.

The "abortion because of rape" argument just boggles my mind, what did the fetus/unborn child do to deserve that fate?

Its too bad that domestic terrorism of this sort actually worked, because it will only serve to promote even more cases of domestic terrorism (especially amongst the anti-abortionist crowd).

32 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:47:36pm

re: #18 Flyers1974

Why the distinction between Bush and post-Bush regarding terrorism working?

Well look at the North Koreans. They have taken a couple of Americans hostage. I know they are Gorebots that have been "arrested", but the fact is they are Americans held for political gain by a hostile regime.

And Obama is taking some sort of high road labeled "whatever you do don't piss them off."

Expect terror. Carter II

33 Perplexed  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:48:34pm

re: #30 ShanghaiEd

Sanger is a convenient distraction for people who try to avoid the hard questions. I've never seen any evidence that her views 70 years ago play a role in the operation of Planned Parenthood today.

(Cue follow-up argument: But Planned Parenthood isn't perfect! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who is? Please, let's stick to current facts.)

Look at the majority of the women who have had abortions then get back to me with the demographics of those women. Look at where many of the clinics are set up.

34 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:48:35pm

re: #1 Dar ul Harbarian

WTF was that?

35 Perplexed  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:49:39pm

re: #31 Hengineer

You really believe that? The guy who killed Tiller was a nut burger.

36 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:49:50pm

re: #31 Hengineer

Either life is sacred or it is not.

& a late term abortion is only justified in my mind in extremely unusual cases, such as, if nothing were done, the mother and child would certainly both die.

Much bad news lately.

37 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:50:24pm

re: #28 _RememberTonyC

it should have been

You are absolutly correct in my opinion. But attitudes were so different then. I'm not saying everyone or even a majority were pro-klan or pro-lynching in the 1930's for example. But I would say that attitudes about race were mind-boggling when compared to today.

38 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:50:51pm

re: #33 Perplexed

Look at the majority of the women who have had abortions then get back to me with the demographics of those women. Look at where many of the clinics are set up.


In this day and age where travel really isn't all that hard anymore, why is this question even relevant?

39 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:51:30pm

re: #31 Hengineer

The "abortion because of rape" argument just boggles my mind, what did the fetus/unborn child do to deserve that fate?

Its too bad that domestic terrorism of this sort actually worked, because it will only serve to promote even more cases of domestic terrorism (especially amongst the anti-abortionist crowd).

the fetus would become a child that is despised by the mother. if a woman carrying that child has the courage to carry it to term and put it up for adoption, she is a saint. but I doubt many women could make that choice. it's a bad deal all around, but I can understand why Perp's wives made those choices.

40 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:51:34pm

re: #37 Flyers1974

More interbreeding would be good, don't you think?

For a more peaceful world.

41 Lincolntf  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:51:56pm

re: #32 karmic_inquisitor

The fact that those two have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor is maddening. I have no easy solution to offer, but the horror of their future (even if it's "only" ultimately a year or two) recalls "Denisovich" and "Papillon".

42 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:52:00pm
43 Last Mohican  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:52:12pm

re: #33 Perplexed

Look at the majority of the women who have had abortions then get back to me with the demographics of those women. Look at where many of the clinics are set up.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I'll answer it for you.

Margaret Sanger has nothing to do with the murder of Dr. Tiller. And you had no point whatsoever to make about Dr. Tiller in mentioning her. You just decided to bring up Margaret Sanger, as a total non sequitur, because you wanted to take every possible opportunity to draw a connection between anyone who performs abortions and Nazi-sympathizing eugenics advocates.

Am I wrong?

44 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:52:33pm

I went & looked at the charges filed on the murderer, Scott Roederer, and the three counts do not include a hate crime charge. I wonder if Kansas has hate crime charges?

45 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:52:51pm

re: #39 _RememberTonyC

But people should try to be saints.

46 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:53:06pm

re: #33 Perplexed

Look at the majority of the women who have had abortions then get back to me with the demographics of those women. Look at where many of the clinics are set up.

Please. Cart before the horse, Perplexed. We've dissected the tired, absurd "abortion is racism" canard here in just the past day or so.

Let's say more poor people have abortions than rich people. Let's say more poor people are minorities. Let's say that clinics, like all establishments, are placed where there's the greatest need for them. You're saying we should put the clinics a few hundred miles away from poor communities so that...I don't know, they're less likely to have abortions?

This line of argument is so unrealistic it's pathetic.

47 AFVetWife  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:53:07pm

The killing of Tiller was reprehensible. However, his actions were also very reprehensilble. I am glad that his clinic is now permanently closed. Regarding Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, just read about her. Another reason that it's wildly amazing that so many Blacks support Democrats!

48 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:53:15pm

BBL with the Towercam.

49 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:53:24pm

Would I like to see fewer abortions.

YES.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!

50 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:53:39pm

re: #31 Hengineer

The "abortion because of rape" argument just boggles my mind, what did the fetus/unborn child do to deserve that fate?

Its too bad that domestic terrorism of this sort actually worked, because it will only serve to promote even more cases of domestic terrorism (especially amongst the anti-abortionist crowd).

The same reason its not wholly a good thing that the clinic is closing is why I believe an exception for rape should be allowed in abortion laws. Salamantis makes the argument best, but I will give it my all:

To force a woman who has been raped to carry a child to term would be to give the rapist the power to force her to bear his child. To do so is to cause her to suffer for an event that is not her fault and grant the rapist a victory. Abortion is an evil, but a greater evil would be allowing rapist and terrorist to gain rewards for their outrages.

51 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:54:49pm

re: #21 Killgore Trout

It's common rhetoric that people use to justify these killings and demonize the victims.

Nothing can justify these killings. Or bombing clinics. I sincerely hope this yutz gets the death penalty.

If a woman wants an abortion and can live with the choice, she should be able to get one. However, I believe that there should be at least two layers of bureaucracy between the woman and the physician, if only because having to do that much paperwork might well make her think twice about getting an abortion.

52 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:55:07pm

re: #34 DEZes

WTF was that?

I don't know if Dar ul Harbarian is still around, but I think I get what s/he means. It means that absent legal abortions, women will resort to illegal abortions. If that's not what Dar meant, then consider it what I mean.

53 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:55:08pm

I just updinged spacejesus.
The world is upside down, I swear.

54 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:55:13pm

re: #45 Ojoe

But people should try to be saints.

point taken ... but if it were easy to be a saint, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

55 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:55:19pm

re: #15 Thanos

Other clinics might take this up - who knows. It's legal in Kansas, and as long as the law permits it then it will take place. Rather than terrorize and demonize and politically stump on this the answer lies in the legislature. Unfortunately these rabid crazies have made it near impossible for Republicans to control the state anymore.

Unfortunately Tiller was one of only three doctors in the country who was skilled enough to perform some of the procedures that we call 'late term abortions'. And his murder will certainly intimidate many people from offering those procedures. Let's not forget his clinic had been previously pipe bombed and he was shot once back in 92.

56 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:56:01pm

re: #35 Perplexed

You really believe that? The guy who killed Tiller was a nut burger.

Meaning what? How many other nut burgers are out there who would notice? Think about true believers of any stripe (all of whom are nut burgers!).

Are you forgetting that logic and restraint oftentimes escapes these people?re: #50 Dark_Falcon

The same reason its not wholly a good thing that the clinic is closing is why I believe an exception for rape should be allowed in abortion laws. Salamantis makes the argument best, but I will give it my all:

To force a woman who has been raped to carry a child to term would be to give the rapist the power to force her to bear his child. To do so is to cause her to suffer for an event that is not her fault and grant the rapist a victory. Abortion is an evil, but a greater evil would be allowing rapist and terrorist to gain rewards for their outrages.

I guess in a way I can see this line of reasoning, even if I disagree with it.

57 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:56:02pm

re: #53 DEZes

I just updinged spacejesus.
The world is upside down, I swear.

LOL! Cognitive dissonance when that happens.

58 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:56:06pm

re: #52 iLikeCandy

I don't know if Dar ul Harbarian is still around, but I think I get what s/he means. It means that absent legal abortions, women will resort to illegal abortions. If that's not what Dar meant, then consider it what I mean.

I will assume your right, I didnt down ding the comment, but it did seem crass.

59 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:56:19pm

re: #52 iLikeCandy

I don't know if Dar ul Harbarian is still around, but I think I get what s/he means. It means that absent legal abortions, women will resort to illegal abortions. If that's not what Dar meant, then consider it what I mean.

That is what I meant.

60 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:57:02pm

re: #55 iceweasel

Unfortunately Tiller was one of only three doctors in the country who was skilled enough to perform some of the procedures that we call 'late term abortions'. And his murder will certainly intimidate many people from offering those procedures. Let's not forget his clinic had been previously pipe bombed and he was shot once back in 92.

iceweasel ... I seriously doubt Tiller was one of only three doctors "skilled" enough to perform the operations ... he was one of only three "willing" to perform the procedures ... big difference ...

61 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:57:16pm

re: #32 karmic_inquisitor

Well look at the North Koreans. They have taken a couple of Americans hostage. I know they are Gorebots that have been "arrested", but the fact is they are Americans held for political gain by a hostile regime.

And Obama is taking some sort of high road labeled "whatever you do don't piss them off."

Expect terror. Carter II

Didn't China do something very similiar under Bush with the airforce plane that "trespassed" over Hainan (sp) Island? My guess is that both actions were attempts to blackmail the US when they are in a weak position - and this weakness has nothing to do with the president. China knew we weren't going to war over this and sought to take a little advantage at our expense - I'm sure to show their citizens how tough they were. Same with North Korea. Many problems posed with going to war here. So they take petty advantage while they can.

62 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:57:37pm

I'm pro-life, but I don't think abortion is murder. I think Dr. Tiller's murder was exactly that-- cold-blooded murder.

I find no satisfaction in the closing of the business of a murder victim. Gloat over a murder? How dare they!

63 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:58:04pm

re: #54 _RememberTonyC

point taken ... but if it were easy to be a saint, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I gotta a better chance entering the Hall of Fame than a Saint.. :)

64 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:58:14pm

Think you are smart? Figure out this thing: Hallucigenia

65 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:59:28pm

re: #44 Floral Giraffe

I went & looked at the charges filed on the murderer, Scott Roederer, and the three counts do not include a hate crime charge. I wonder if Kansas has hate crime charges?

Nope, Kansas is one of the few ststes with NO hate crime statutes.

66 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:59:28pm

re: #63 HoosierHoops

I gotta a better chance entering the Hall of Fame than a Saint.. :)


I dunno Hoosier ... Reggie Bush has a shot

67 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 5:59:47pm

re: #63 HoosierHoops

I gotta a better chance entering the Hall of Fame than a Saint.. :)

You sure about that? I heard there are some Saints with a wicked layup

68 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:00:12pm

re: #53 DEZes

I just updinged spacejesus.
The world is upside down, I swear.

Lucky for you I have the Cell phone number of the Shrink on the Saprono's..
She can see you friday at 2pm..Don't be late..
*wink*

69 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:01:07pm

re: #51 Steffan

Nothing can justify these killings. Or bombing clinics. I sincerely hope this yutz gets the death penalty.

there should be at least two layers of bureaucracy between the woman and the physician, if only because having to do that much paperwork might well make her think twice about getting an abortion.

Yes this is important, because as we all know, women are silly little feather-brained idiots who should defer to the morally and intellectually superior government bureaucrats on whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

The idea! Women -- the very last people who would know about such things!

70 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:01:21pm

re: #61 Flyers1974

Didn't China do something very similiar under Bush with the airforce plane that "trespassed" over Hainan (sp) Island? My guess is that both actions were attempts to blackmail the US when they are in a weak position - and this weakness has nothing to do with the president. China knew we weren't going to war over this and sought to take a little advantage at our expense - I'm sure to show their citizens how tough they were. Same with North Korea. Many problems posed with going to war here. So they take petty advantage while they can.

Remember when China played footsie with the P-3?
April '01

No one dicked with GWB after Sept. 11. not China, Iran played it low key as did the Norks.

The New Sheriff is in town and the town badasses are seeing what the new Sheriff has hangin'. So far they are finding he doesn't have much.

71 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:01:28pm

re: #60 JacksonTn

iceweasel ... I seriously doubt Tiller was one of only three doctors "skilled" enough to perform the operations ... he was one of only three "willing" to perform the procedures ... big difference ...

I should clarify, JacksonTn...some of the procedures he performed, not all of them, are very complicated and not many people are capable of them.

Many others are procedures that other doctors/hospitals won't do, whether out of personal fear or other reasons.

72 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:01:34pm

re: #40 Ojoe

Already happening I think, at least here. I wonder if true for the rest of the world.

73 Bloodnok  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:01:42pm

re: #47 AFVetWife

The killing of Tiller was reprehensible. However, his actions were also very reprehensilble. I am glad that his clinic is now permanently closed. Regarding Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, just read about her. Another reason that it's wildly amazing that so many Blacks support Democrats!

So even though you didn't like the murder aspect of it, you're glad the terrorism part worked?

74 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:02:02pm

All I know is that if pols have vids and pics of themselves with Randall Terry and crowd those are certainly going to come into play in the 2010 elections. You can absolutely count on it.

If you are associated with Terry, you better put as much distance as you can between you.

75 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:02:42pm

re: #71 iceweasel

I should clarify, JacksonTn...some of the procedures he performed, not all of them, are very complicated and not many people are capable of them.

Many others are procedures that other doctors/hospitals won't do, whether out of personal fear or other reasons.

iceweasel ... I do not agree with the first part ... I do agree with the second part ...

76 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:03:06pm

re: #65 Floral Giraffe

Nope, Kansas is one of the few ststes with NO hate crime statutes.

I applaud Kansas by noting that all crimes that would be considered "hate" crimes are normally caused by hate anyway.

77 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:03:11pm

re: #68 HoosierHoops

Lucky for you I have the Cell phone number of the Shrink on the Saprono's..
She can see you friday at 2pm..Don't be late..
*wink*

See what he posted, he was right, and 6 other Lizards updinged it too.
I have whiskey for my pain docha know. ;)

78 jim in virginia  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:04:03pm

re: #49 jcm

Would I like to see fewer abortions.

YES.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!

Amen.

79 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:04:19pm

The death penalty can't be asked for on Roeder either, only certain types of crimes qualify for death here.

80 Lincolntf  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:04:35pm

re: #74 Thanos

What if Randall Terry was "just some guy in the neighborhood"?

81 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:05:10pm

re: #71 iceweasel

I should clarify, JacksonTn...some of the procedures he performed, not all of them, are very complicated and not many people are capable of them.

Many others are procedures that other doctors/hospitals won't do, whether out of personal fear or other reasons.

I have to agree with JacksonTN on this one, although I have no reason to doubt your statement that the procedures are so incredibly complicated that few people are capable of performing them.

And while there may indeed be some who stay out of this business due to personal fear, there are also others who, like JacksonTN said, just do not want to perform these procedures. I wish you wouldn't tiptoe around that.

82 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:05:24pm

re: #49 jcm

Would I like to see fewer abortions.

YES.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!

You desreve this upding.

83 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:05:53pm

re: #69 iLikeCandy

Yes this is important, because as we all know, women are silly little feather-brained idiots who should defer to the morally and intellectually superior government bureaucrats on whether or not to carry a fetus to term.

The idea! Women -- the very last people who would know about such things!

To think his statement is spawned by misogyny reaks of misandry.

84 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:06:01pm

re: #80 Lincolntf

What if Randall Terry was "just some guy in the neighborhood"?

He's not. He's a rabid demagogue who some have made political careers on in Kansas. Look what it did for Kline and Kobach: Both deselected by the voters.

85 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:06:21pm

re: #80 Lincolntf

What if Randall Terry was "just some guy in the neighborhood"?


the media won't buy it ... and I think we both know why

86 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:06:32pm

re: #79 Thanos

The death penalty can't be asked for on Roeder either, only certain types of crimes qualify for death here.

What sort of crimes are those?

87 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:07:18pm

re: #62 quickjustice

I'm pro-life, but I don't think abortion is murder. I think Dr. Tiller's murder was exactly that-- cold-blooded murder.

I find no satisfaction in the closing of the business of a murder victim. Gloat over a murder? How dare they!

I'm pro-life, I do believe abortion is murder, and I also believe that the murder of Dr. Tiller was a heinous act and such actions can never be condoned. Dr. Tiller had a family who loved him and will miss him terribly because some idiot decided to play God.

88 Last Mohican  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:08:39pm

re: #46 ShanghaiEd

This line of argument is so unrealistic it's pathetic.

It's worse than pathetic. It's flat-out disgusting. I really think that Perplexed is trying to argue that the entire practice of performing abortion is a genocidal endeavor, which aims to eliminate people of certain races by preventing them from reproducing.

Perplexed, if I'm wrong in interpreting what you're saying, then accept my apology. If I'm right, however, then you're a mind-bogglingly stupid freak, and it truly scares me that there are people like you in the world. One of my fellow physicians dedicated his career to a perfectly legal practice of medicine, in which he helped women whom few others could help, despite putting himself and his family in danger in the process. Now he has paid the ultimate price for his courage. His family is grieving, and his patients now have no place to turn, because the terrorists who killed him have been successful in circumventing the law and addressing a disagreement with violence. And what's your response to the terrorists' success? To offer a string of complete non sequiturs, in which you gratuitously insert your moronic argument that doctors who perform abortions are, in general, attempting to practice genocide.

89 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:08:44pm

re: #86 Dark_Falcon

What sort of crimes are those?

WICHITA, Kan. — Sedgewick County District Attorney Nola Foulston has said she will not seek the death penalty for Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of abortion provider George Tiller. The reason lies in Kansas law, which allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty only when a killing involves specific circumstances. None of those circumstances apply in the Tiller case, Foulston said.

The seven circumstances are:

-- Killing in the commission of a kidnapping.

-- Killing as part of a contract or an agreement.

-- Killing by a prison inmate.

-- Killing a victim of rape or sodomy.

-- Killing a law enforcement officer.

-- Killing more than one person.

-- Killing a child younger than age 14 as part of a kidnapping during the commission of a sexual offense.


[Link: www.miamiherald.com...]

90 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:09:10pm

re: #70 jcm

That's what I was referring to by the China example. I think N. Korea and Iran are way different animals even if the former had no nukes. A real war with N. Korea would end bad for them, but what about S. Korea? A real difficulty not posed by Iran, giving pause to any president thinking about war v. N. Korea. And as far as Bush right after 9-11, he would have been feared more than Obama - or any president under regular conditions. Right after 9-11 and at least for a while, Bush had more support domestically and worldwide for obvious reasons.

91 shiplord kirel  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:09:18pm

re: #5 freetoken

Well, the Freepers are happy:


Plenty of people in the country cheered at the murder of Dr. Tiller.

From your link:

LOL this is why liberals always kiss the muslims’ butts - because if you get muslims angry you will die, period.

Liberals have been walking all over Christians and Conservatives for decades because we always politely disagree and quietly “request” that they stop their hideously evil practices.

And now the first time a Conservative uses violence against them, they sit down, shut up and are afraid to re-open the clinic? Hmmm...interesting. I guess this is why muslims slaughter people. I’d imagine the lesson won’t be lost on extremist groups around the country. =)

I've been afraid of this for a long time, that some high-profile event might serve to convince the masses of wingnuts and conspiraloons that violence IS the answer. Violence has always been a big part of their part of their rhetoric; insurrection, survivalism, "we have all the guns" (sic) etc.
A clear success from their point of view, which this is, could open the floodgates.

92 HoosierHoops  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:09:22pm

re: #77 DEZes

See what he posted, he was right, and 6 other Lizards updinged it too.
I have whiskey for my pain docha know. ;)

LOL Spacejesus is ok...I'm pissed off that Avanti updinged me once..
I was ready to open the stove door and stick my head inside...
It's like..Avanti..No matter what I say..Even if I usurp E=MC2.. For God's sake man,,have a heart...Don't upding me..nothing personal...LOL
12,500 posts and in one swell swoop Avanti car jacks me...Help!
/Just teasing ya

93 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:09:54pm

Lizards, Thanks for the company and keeping me sane.
I will see you all later.

94 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:10:01pm

re: #75 JacksonTn

iceweasel ... I do not agree with the first part ... I do agree with the second part ...

I'll try to find a reference for it. My understanding is that there is a (very) small percentage of late term abortions that involve cases where the health of the mother is compromised to such an extent that neither emergency C-section or induced labour are viable options-- and (on this I may be wrong) also that there aren't many skilled enough to perform those procedures-- partly because they're infrequent, partly because many people don't want to perform them, either out of fear or other reasons (like moral issues).

95 Last Mohican  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:10:33pm

re: #22 Steffan


It's also worth noting that most Planned Parenthood clinics are in urban areas...

No, it is not worth noting. Not unless you can provide a reason why it's relevant, and you can't, because it's not.

96 DEZes  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:10:39pm

re: #92 HoosierHoops

LOL Spacejesus is ok...I'm pissed off that Avanti updinged me once..
I was ready to open the stove door and stick my head inside...
It's like..Avanti..No matter what I say..Even if I usurp E=MC2.. For God's sake man,,have a heart...Don't upding me..nothing personal...LOL
12,500 posts and in one swell swoop Avanti car jacks me...Help!
/Just teasing ya

Makers Mark. ;)

97 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:11:12pm

Looking through an old Webster's...

Its interesting how Misandronistic our culture has become.

Misogyny is in the Dictionary
Misandry isn't

In fact, right here in my browser, I mispelled Misogyny and it popped up the correct spelling when I right clicked. Misandry continues to have that red line underneath it, I just added it to my "dictionary".

Wikipedia: Misandry

98 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:11:37pm

re: #91 shiplord kirel

Exactly and the chances of a copycat now that the clinic closed are pretty large between now and election 2010. This is going to hurt us, and all our causes if it continues.

99 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:11:49pm

re: #50 Dark_Falcon

Further substantiation please: How is it a victory for a rapist to have his victim carry his child to term? Perhaps it is plausible, but it hardly seems intuitive.

100 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:11:49pm

re: #83 Hengineer

To think his statement is spawned by misogyny reaks of misandry.

What do men have to do with it? What does hatred of men have to do with it? Plenty of anti-choice women have the same view about putting obstacles between women and their legal rights.

101 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:12:06pm

Since the topic of Margaret Sanger came up here are some quotes:

Contraceptives or Abortion?

While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

and

Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography

To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.

Quite the contrast from the usual chatter regarding Sanger.

102 freetoken  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:12:31pm

Slightly OT: Court: Okla. 10 Commandments display is religious

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court in Denver ruled Monday that a Ten Commandments monument outside the Haskell County, Okla., courthouse endorses religion based on public comments made by county commissioners after it was installed.

[...]

"Whoever was the judge in this, I feel sorry for him on Judgment Day," said Haskell County Commissioner Mitch Worsham, who represents the where the county courthouse and monument are located. "We're not going to take it down."

[...]

/The law? We don't need to follow any stinkin' law...

103 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:13:07pm

re: #69 iLikeCandy

It's not so simple. Prior to Roe, abortion in the U.S. was a misdemeanor offense in most states, meaning it was punishable by less than a year in jail. (Here in NY, it had been legalized prior to Roe, turning N.Y. into a destination of choice for pregnant women seeking abortions.)

I think it reasonable for society to regulate abortions, just as other medical procedures are regulated. I also think the father of an unborn child should have some say in the decision, as well as members of the mother's and father's immediate families. I don't think a woman should be stripped of her autonomy in the process, but I think bringing a child into the world is something that should be a collective decision. I also understand that these ideals aren't always attainable.

104 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:13:19pm

re: #99 krkrawiec

Further substantiation please: How is it a victory for a rapist to have his victim carry his child to term? Perhaps it is plausible, but it hardly seems intuitive.

i think the victim might see it as a victory for the rapist, even if the rapist himself does not.

105 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:13:30pm

re: #81 reine.de.tout

I have to agree with JacksonTN on this one, although I have no reason to doubt your statement that the procedures are so incredibly complicated that few people are capable of performing them.

And while there may indeed be some who stay out of this business due to personal fear, there are also others who, like JacksonTN said, just do not want to perform these procedures. I wish you wouldn't tiptoe around that.

I'm not tiptoeing around that by any means, merely making the (uncontroversial) point that the murder of George Tiller is going to scare the crap out of many people who don't have those moral objections.

That's why it's an act of terrorism; it will terrorise people from offering those procedures and terrorise people who seek them-- and whatever one's moral views on it, they are legal.

106 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:13:38pm

re: #76 Hengineer

I applaud Kansas by noting that all crimes that would be considered "hate" crimes are normally caused by hate anyway.

Hatred toward a group is different than hatred toward an individual. If you hate an individual, your problem is solved once the individual is dead. If you hate a group, you've got thousands more opportunities left to kill and, once you've already committed murder, nothing to lose. Can't you see that difference?

107 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:13:43pm

re: #30 ShanghaiEd

Sanger is a convenient distraction for people who try to avoid the hard questions. I've never seen any evidence that her views 70 years ago play a role in the operation of Planned Parenthood today.

(Cue follow-up argument: But Planned Parenthood isn't perfect! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who is? Please, let's stick to current facts.)

Liberal Fascism, page 276:

Abortion ends more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African-Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions. That rate has held relatively constant, though in some reasons the numbers are much starker; in Mississippi, black women receive some 72 percent of all abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Nationwide, 512 out of every 1,000 black pregnancies end in an abortion. Revealingly enough, roughly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion centers are in or near minority communities.

108 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:14:09pm

re: #105 iceweasel

I'm not tiptoeing around that by any means, merely making the (uncontroversial) point that the murder of George Tiller is going to scare the crap out of many people who don't have those moral objections.

That's why it's an act of terrorism; it will terrorise people from offering those procedures and terrorise people who seek them-- and whatever one's moral views on it, they are legal.

Now that, I can agree with.

109 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:14:11pm

Folks need to step back and look at just what the Roe/Wade social engineering enterprise has wrought. This overstep of the rights of States to work the problem has permanently fragmented society and it need not have been. More than a political divide, people are killing one another. Ugly.

I am a man who, many years ago, participated with my wife in the decision to have an abortion by the way. I am not at all proud of that, in fact I regret it now as does she. We had just had success with a vas reversal when a second pregnancy quickly followed. I suspect this makes me a target of both sides of the argument. But, fact is, it is none of the US governments business one way or the other.

110 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:14:17pm

re: #94 iceweasel

I'll try to find a reference for it. My understanding is that there is a (very) small percentage of late term abortions that involve cases where the health of the mother is compromised to such an extent that neither emergency C-section or induced labour are viable options-- and (on this I may be wrong) also that there aren't many skilled enough to perform those procedures-- partly because they're infrequent, partly because many people don't want to perform them, either out of fear or other reasons (like moral issues).

iceweasel ... go ahead and find a reference ... but I will not engage on the issue any more than I have already said ... it is an issue that holds people hostage ... I was stating that I believe there are many many doctors who could perform these procedures ... there are few who choose to do so ... if you have evidence to show otherwise post it ...

111 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:14:29pm

re: #102 freetoken

Slightly OT: Court: Okla. 10 Commandments display is religious

Djever see the Reno 911 episode where they have to get rid of a big statue with the Ten Commandments? Friggen hilarious.

112 NukeAtomrod  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:10pm

This is another sad development in this story. As much as I disdain the majority of abortions, they are legal and the murder of a doctor who performs them is absolutely unjustified. Criminal nutjobs like Roeder should not get a victory out of their evil acts. I can't blame Tiller's family for shutting down their practice- they're probably worried that there are more Roeders out there. But it isn't right that they have to live in fear of these crazies.

113 Last Mohican  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:24pm

re: #101 Gus 802

Since the topic of Margaret Sanger came up...

Well, to be precise, it only came up because an incoherent, irrational hateful moron decided to post her name, even though it wasn't related at all to the topic at hand, in a feeble attempt to smear all physicians who perform abortions by labeling them as genocidal racists.

114 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:27pm

re: #100 iLikeCandy

What do men have to do with it? What does hatred of men have to do with it? Plenty of anti-choice women have the same view about putting obstacles between women and their legal rights.

By your reasoning, putting obstacles between Citizens and the guns they are given the right to own by the U.S. Constitution falls along the same lines?

115 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:37pm

re: #108 reine.de.tout

Now that, I can agree with.

I strongly suspected that we actually agreed on this (and JacksonTN does as well.)

116 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:49pm

re: #101 Gus 802

Charles Lindbergh was a douchebag too but it has nothing to do with my opinions on air travel.

117 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:15:51pm

re: #90 Flyers1974

That's what I was referring to by the China example. I think N. Korea and Iran are way different animals even if the former had no nukes. A real war with N. Korea would end bad for them, but what about S. Korea? A real difficulty not posed by Iran, giving pause to any president thinking about war v. N. Korea. And as far as Bush right after 9-11, he would have been feared more than Obama - or any president under regular conditions. Right after 9-11 and at least for a while, Bush had more support domestically and worldwide for obvious reasons.

No real argument with that.

Iran can be dealt with, if anyone in foggy bottom had a friggin' clue as how to go about it but I haven't seen a sign of that for 30 years.

It's the Norks that scare me, no telling what might set Lil' Kim off and on a suicidal plunge into the south, a internal threat, a perceived external threat. Hell that twerp might just go off if we cancel his favorite TV show he pirates off the satellite.

So far both are pushing pretty hard on the new admin. A little push back has to occur or things can get out of hand PDQ.

118 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:16:25pm

re: #109 The Shadow Do

Folks need to step back and look at just what the Roe/Wade social engineering enterprise has wrought. This overstep of the rights of States to work the problem has permanently fragmented society and it need not have been. More than a political divide, people are killing one another. Ugly.

I know what you mean, Shadow, but I hate to think that I might live in a country where a woman could be compelled, by force of guns and cops, to carry to term a pregnancy that she wanted to terminate. It seems damn un-American to me.

119 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:16:28pm

re: #109 The Shadow Do

Folks need to step back and look at just what the Roe/Wade social engineering enterprise has wrought. This overstep of the rights of States to work the problem has permanently fragmented society and it need not have been. More than a political divide, people are killing one another. Ugly.

I am a man who, many years ago, participated with my wife in the decision to have an abortion by the way. I am not at all proud of that, in fact I regret it now as does she. We had just had success with a vas reversal when a second pregnancy quickly followed. I suspect this makes me a target of both sides of the argument. But, fact is, it is none of the US governments business one way or the other.

No, it makes you human
{shadow}

120 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:16:50pm

re: #102 freetoken

Slightly OT: Court: Okla. 10 Commandments display is religious

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court in Denver ruled Monday that a Ten Commandments monument outside the Haskell County, Okla., courthouse endorses religion based on public comments made by county commissioners after it was installed.

[...]

"Whoever was the judge in this, I feel sorry for him on Judgment Day," said Haskell County Commissioner Mitch Worsham, who represents the where the county courthouse and monument are located. "We're not going to take it down."

[...]

/The law? We don't need to follow any stinkin' law...

If they had just kept their mouths shut...
Some people just can't let sleeping gods lie.

121 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:16:59pm

re: #106 ShanghaiEd

Hatred toward a group is different than hatred toward an individual. If you hate an individual, your problem is solved once the individual is dead. If you hate a group, you've got thousands more opportunities left to kill and, once you've already committed murder, nothing to lose. Can't you see that difference?

Maybe, but what does it matter when a crime is actually committed? What does your opinion of a certain person matter when you commit a crime.

You commit a crime, you suffer the punishment.

I'm not saying they should get off scott-free. I just don't understand the justification of a harsher punishment for it.

122 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:17:04pm

re: #107 Steffan

I don't question those statistics. I wonder if any other factor comes into play, here. Can you say "poverty"?

What is your actual evidence that abortion is, as you continue to coyly hint at, a racist plot against black people?

123 John Neverbend  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:17:34pm

re: #64 Dar ul Harbarian

Think you are smart? Figure out this thing: Hallucigenia

Remembering something from the previous thread, this is a creature that really doesn't know its arse from its elbow.

124 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:17:35pm

Frank Schaeffer has some to say on this at huffpo:

As a former lifelong Republican from an influential family of religious right leaders, I look at the national village idiot that the Republican Party has become the way I'd contemplate a demented cousin pissing on the picnic basket at a family reunion. If it is fair to blame the years of Wahhabist hate that spewed from Saudi clerics for at least part of the 9/11 outcome (and it is) then it's also going to be fair to blame their American equivalent when domestic terror ramps up here.

125 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:18:01pm

re: #113 Last Mohican

Well, to be precise, it only came up because an incoherent, irrational hateful moron decided to post her name, even though it wasn't related at all to the topic at hand, in a feeble attempt to smear all physicians who perform abortions by labeling them as genocidal racists.

Well, I know that once the topic of Sanger and abortion pops up I am reminded of the same ideology that likes to "blame" Darwin for Sanger. Sanger wasn't a proponent of abortion but contraception. Either way it's the same Darwin created Sanger, Hitler, etc., mentality that doesn't make sense.

126 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:18:02pm

re: #89 Thanos

[Link: www.miamiherald.com...]

Thank you, Thanos.

127 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:18:51pm

re: #121 Hengineer

Maybe, but what does it matter when a crime is actually committed? What does your opinion of a certain person matter when you commit a crime.

You commit a crime, you suffer the punishment.

I'm not saying they should get off scott-free. I just don't understand the justification of a harsher punishment for it.

Because they're more likely to commit the same crime against others, and because they're more likely to urge other people to commit those crimes against others. Heard of "mitigating factors"? Why shouldn't that be one?

128 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:18:53pm

re: #37 Flyers1974

You are absolutly correct in my opinion. But attitudes were so different then. I'm not saying everyone or even a majority were pro-klan or pro-lynching in the 1930's for example. But I would say that attitudes about race were mind-boggling when compared to today.

Racism was very casual back then. Read just about anything by Zane Grey or H.P. Lovecraft.

129 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:19:43pm

re: #104 _RememberTonyC

i think the victim might see it as a victory for the rapist, even if the rapist himself does not.

People may choose to see things in any number of ways, and the choices of a woman subjected to the horror of rape are difficult to objectively evaluate, granted. Nonetheless, on the merits, it seems consideration as a victory is tenuous.

130 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:19:49pm

re: #22 Steffan

It's also worth noting that most Planned Parenthood clinics are in urban areas...

(source: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg)

It's kind of hard to get customers for ANY business built out in the sticks...

131 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:20:03pm

re: #87 reine.de.tout

IIRC, you're a professing Roman Catholic. You follow the doctrine of your church on this issue. I admire the church's respect for unborn children, and its celebration of life itself. I think the label "murder", however, raises the stakes to the point that desperate crimes (murders) are committed to prevent what the church regards as other desperate crimes (abortions). In the United States, abortion never has been murder.

I don't think there's moral parity in the two situations. I do think treating unborn children with respect and affection is the superior norm in this situation.

132 freetoken  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:20:23pm

re: #111 iLikeCandy

Can't say I ever saw that show.

133 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:20:37pm

re: #99 krkrawiec

Further substantiation please: How is it a victory for a rapist to have his victim carry his child to term? Perhaps it is plausible, but it hardly seems intuitive.

Some men might want to force a woman to have their child. It's not intuitive, but then again, few things are when it comes to rape. Such a man would view it as a victory if the law forced his victim to bear his child. And that cannot be permitted. Criminals must not profit from their crimes.

134 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:20:38pm

re: #124 Thanos

Frank Schaeffer has some to say on this at huffpo:

Schaeffer is going a bit broader brush than I would in his article, but there's some hard truths in it.

135 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:21:18pm

re: #127 ShanghaiEd

Because they're more likely to commit the same crime against others, and because they're more likely to urge other people to commit those crimes against others. Heard of "mitigating factors"? Why shouldn't that be one?


So then why not just apply the harsher sentence on ALL of those who commit that very crime and be done with it? Why have a tolerant view of crime at all?

136 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:21:41pm

re: #117 jcm

No real argument with that.

Iran can be dealt with, if anyone in foggy bottom had a friggin' clue as how to go about it but I haven't seen a sign of that for 30 years.

It's the Norks that scare me, no telling what might set Lil' Kim off and on a suicidal plunge into the south, a internal threat, a perceived external threat. Hell that twerp might just go off if we cancel his favorite TV show he pirates off the satellite.

So far both are pushing pretty hard on the new admin. A little push back has to occur or things can get out of hand PDQ.

Lil' Kim, I like that one. That's the thing. Most of the time dictators are rational, that's why they survive. But Lil' Kim seems to be an exception to that rule. Which could lead to interesting debate over Sadaam. Was he rational? I'd say he was at one point, but all those years of complete control and looking over his shoulder led to not being rational.

137 Dar ul Harbarian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:21:49pm

re: #128 Steffan

Racism was very casual back then. Read just about anything by Zane Grey or H.P. Lovecraft.

It is a crying shame, too. Lovecraft is a fantastic writer but that provincial racism and antisemitism of his...ick.

138 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:22:43pm

re: #133 Dark_Falcon

Some men might want to force a woman to have their child. It's not intuitive, but then again, few things are when it comes to rape. Such a man would view it as a victory if the law forced his victim to bear his child. And that cannot be permitted. Criminals must not profit from their crimes.

Can you show me that? I've only ever heard of Rape as either a power thing or a revenge thing, not a forced procreative thing.

139 Tatterdemalian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:23:22pm

Chuck the bastard in jail for murder, then chuck everyone else who has ever threatened Tiller's life or suggested he be killed in jail for incitement.

We didn't just go after the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists who destroyed the WTC (not just because they were already dead). We don't jail just the gangland hitmen, and let the leaders who order and pay out money for the hits off the hook. We didn't just hang the low-ranking Nazis who dropped the Zyklon-B pills into the gas chanbers.

Why should Scott Roeder be the only one to take the fall in the Tiller murder, when he clearly had so many people supporting him and inciting him to violence?

140 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:23:54pm

re: #129 krkrawiec

People may choose to see things in any number of ways, and the choices of a woman subjected to the horror of rape are difficult to objectively evaluate, granted. Nonetheless, on the merits, it seems consideration as a victory is tenuous.

i do see your side of this

141 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:08pm

re: #136 Flyers1974

Lil' Kim, I like that one. That's the thing. Most of the time dictators are rational, that's why they survive. But Lil' Kim seems to be an exception to that rule. Which could lead to interesting debate over Sadaam. Was he rational? I'd say he was at one point, but all those years of complete control and looking over his shoulder led to not being rational.

Flyers1974 ... how would you define "rational" below:

Most of the time dictators are rational

I am not understanding your definition of rational ...

142 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:14pm

re: #137 Dar ul Harbarian

It is a crying shame, too. Lovecraft is a fantastic writer but that provincial racism and antisemitism of his...ick.

Read the encyclopedia Americana or Britanica from back then. They are both alarmingly ugly on the subject of races.

143 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:26pm

re: #131 quickjustice

IIRC, you're a professing Roman Catholic. You follow the doctrine of your church on this issue. I admire the church's respect for unborn children, and its celebration of life itself. I think the label "murder", however, raises the stakes to the point that desperate crimes (murders) are committed to prevent what the church regards as other desperate crimes (abortions). In the United States, abortion never has been murder.

I don't think there's moral parity in the two situations. I do think treating unborn children with respect and affection is the superior norm in this situation.

I do not believe the Church would EVER condone murder (as in the murder of Dr. Tiller).

There are some poeple (Roeder) who reach that point through some means, and I cannot even begin to fathom how people get to that point. No clue at all.

In my post, I specifically said what I believe - I never claimed anything about what abortion is or is not considered to be in the U.S. And you will not change my mind on that.

144 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:29pm

re: #138 Hengineer

Can you show me that? I've only ever heard of Rape as either a power thing or a revenge thing, not a forced procreative thing.

Sal, can you help me out here?

145 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:31pm

re: #139 Tatterdemalian

Chuck the bastard in jail for murder, then chuck everyone else who has ever threatened Tiller's life or suggested he be killed in jail for incitement.

We didn't just go after the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists who destroyed the WTC (not just because they were already dead). We don't jail just the gangland hitmen, and let the leaders who order and pay out money for the hits off the hook. We didn't just hang the low-ranking Nazis who dropped the Zyklon-B pills into the gas chanbers.

Why should Scott Roeder be the only one to take the fall in the Tiller murder, when he clearly had so many people supporting him and inciting him to violence?

Upding, but sadly that's not how we do things in a "Civilized" country.

However if we were to, then its a slippery slope to jailing people for "thought" crimes.

146 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:24:41pm

re: #138 Hengineer

The legal exceptions to statutory prohibition of abortion prior to Roe were rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

147 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:25:00pm

re: #33 Perplexed

Look at the majority of the women who have had abortions then get back to me with the demographics of those women. Look at where many of the clinics are set up.

Trying to play the race card, I see.

But clinics aren't in the business of rounding up people and forcing abortions on them. They simply advertize in the Yellow Pages, and people come to them. Clinics in built the sticks wouldn't get much of anyone's business. They're built in the urban areas, because that where the people are - of ALL races. And if a greater percentage of some races than others frequent them, that's the choice of members of those races, and not the choice of the clinics.

148 stevedecatur  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:25:18pm

Damn, under Obama the terrorists are winning, the homegrown type too.

149 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:25:19pm

re: #114 Hengineer

By your reasoning, putting obstacles between Citizens and the guns they are given the right to own by the U.S. Constitution falls along the same lines?

Hengineer, seriously. Making a woman jump through bureaucratic hoops and get permission from any number of Circumlocation Office employees to legally terminate a biological process is not an ethical mechanism. It's an artifice-laden, lawyered-up slap at her wisdom.

150 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:25:31pm

re: #119 reine.de.tout

No, it makes you human
{shadow}

thanks, when you been there and done it, it becomes pretty confusing.

151 brookly red  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:26:12pm

re: #138 Hengineer

Can you show me that? I've only ever heard of Rape as either a power thing or a revenge thing, not a forced procreative thing.

forced procreation would fall under power thing, no?

152 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:26:43pm

re: #110 JacksonTn

iceweasel ... go ahead and find a reference ... but I will not engage on the issue any more than I have already said ... it is an issue that holds people hostage ... I was stating that I believe there are many many doctors who could perform these procedures ... there are few who choose to do so ... if you have evidence to show otherwise post it ...

We can agree that it is an issue that holds many people hostage.

One problem is that we lump a number of medical procedures together under the phrase 'late term abortion'; some of them are more complicated to perform (medically) than others. Many of them are cases that that even someone who is very pro-life could wind up supporting. Now there is one less place in the country where these can be performed.

I think it's probably better that we not continue to discuss it, as you've already stated you don't want to engage any further on it beyond what you've said, and I don't wish to antagonise you. Peace.

153 freetoken  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:26:57pm

Meanwhile, over in the La-La Land (aka WND):

RE: Finally, Justice
Posted by Rooster Cogburn on Jun 09, 2009 12:21

So Tiller was aborted! Big deal...This sounds like a job for the Common Law Court System, which was abandoned in this country in favor of Admiralty Law. A ringing verdict of guilty from the people of this country is all the sanction needed. Abort all the abortionists and let God sort 'em out...


-
And the reply:

Reply to: by316387
It was sad that the Killer's family had to witness justice administered to him while he was in "church". However, Tiller's execution for his crimes was long overdue. It has been reported that he was responsible for the slaughter of over 60,000 precious, innocent babies. 60,000! 60,000! SIXTY THOUSAND! Tiller burnt, dismembered, decapitated, and destroyed what would be a larger population than most American towns. In the 30's and early 40's we called him Hitler. But Tiller's crimes were even more dispicable and heinous. Not only did he murder the most-innocent of victims who neither had the power or voice to defend themselves, BUT HE BECAME A MILLIONAIRE FROM THE SHEDDING OF THEIR BLOOD! He amounted to one of the worst serial mass-murderers in all of history! Every other baby-murderer should be put on notice now! Although you may escape ultimate justice in this life that finally caught up with Tiller the Baby-Killer (some of you will not), you can be assured that unless you repent of your most-evil of deeds, your place in hell is going to be very, VERY HOT!
Byrch Griffin
Maple Hill, NC


[emphasis added]

154 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:27:27pm

re: #149 iLikeCandy

Hengineer, seriously. Making a woman jump through bureaucratic hoops and get permission from any number of Circumlocation Office employees to legally terminate a biological process is not an ethical mechanism. It's an artifice-laden, lawyered-up slap at her wisdom.

And all the bureaucratic red-tape permits, etc... aren't an artifice-laden, lawyered-up slap at a wannabe- gunowner's wisdom?

Since when is EVERY woman the Female equivalent to Socrates?
At least require Counseling!

155 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:27:32pm

re: #135 Hengineer

So then why not just apply the harsher sentence on ALL of those who commit that very crime and be done with it? Why have a tolerant view of crime at all?

Because a different crime is not "that very crime" if there are different motivating factors. Maybe there's an argument for not considering the details whatever, in which case "sentencing hearings" would be unnecessary. But our legal system has long considered the details, so why should this detail be an exception?

(Actually, I know the answer to that, but I'm hoping you'll make it specific rather than beating around the bush. This is a straw argument in the same sense that abortion-as-genocide is, just with different game pieces.)

156 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:27:48pm

re: #118 iLikeCandy

I know what you mean, Shadow, but I hate to think that I might live in a country where a woman could be compelled, by force of guns and cops, to carry to term a pregnancy that she wanted to terminate. It seems damn un-American to me.

It would never come to that. Abortion has become pretty much institutionalized. Some few States would take a hard stand, some less. Not unlike the world before RvsW.

157 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:05pm

If you had to go through the physical and emotional changes of a pregnancy for NINE MONTHS and be reminded every minute of every day, that it was caused by a rapist, I think you'd feel it was a victory for the rapist. I think it would complicate and delay the healing process.
Especially, if carrying the baby was your ONLY option.

re: #104 _RememberTonyC

i think the victim might see it as a victory for the rapist, even if the rapist himself does not.

re: #129 krkrawiec

People may choose to see things in any number of ways, and the choices of a woman subjected to the horror of rape are difficult to objectively evaluate, granted. Nonetheless, on the merits, it seems consideration as a victory is tenuous.

158 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:05pm

re: #132 freetoken

Can't say I ever saw that show.

Check it out. They spare no one. Only way to be ruthlessly humorless.

159 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:07pm

re: #125 Gus 802

Well, I know that once the topic of Sanger and abortion pops up I am reminded of the same ideology that likes to "blame" Darwin for Sanger. Sanger wasn't a proponent of abortion but contraception. Either way it's the same Darwin created Sanger, Hitler, etc., mentality that doesn't make sense.

Sanger and Darwin often get cited together as part of some half-assed anti-evolution rhetoric that purports to show that Darwin is somehow connected to Hitler, genocide, abortion, etc.

160 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:17pm

re: #128 Steffan

Racism was very casual back then. Read just about anything by Zane Grey or H.P. Lovecraft.

Zane Grey... I've heard of him, can't remember what he was about. I'll check it out. Maybe the following is an exaggeration, but from the reading I have done about and related to racism and that time, I'd guess the attitude of a person considered racist today wouldn't be much worse that that of a fairly "progressive" person of the 1930's. I know this wasn't the 1930's but look at Woodrow Wilson's attitudes towards blacks for example.

161 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:35pm

re: #47 AFVetWife

The killing of Tiller was reprehensible. However, his actions were also very reprehensilble. I am glad that his clinic is now permanently closed. Regarding Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, just read about her. Another reason that it's wildly amazing that so many Blacks support Democrats!

Are you glad that women carrying lethasl pregnancies might face triage to decide which of them will live and which of them will die? And would you be even gladder if the other few clinics offering late-term abortions were closed, so that ALL women facing lethal pregnancies wouldf be doomed?

162 MandyManners  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:40pm

re: #74 Thanos

All I know is that if pols have vids and pics of themselves with Randall Terry and crowd those are certainly going to come into play in the 2010 elections. You can absolutely count on it.

If you are associated with Terry, you better put as much distance as you can between you.

Somewhere I have a link to a story about Al Gora and Phelps together.

163 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:28:42pm

re: #143 reine.de.tout

I'm not attacking the church. And I don't expect to change your mind on this issue. I would be pleased to see Roe v. Wade repealed, with the determination of the legality of abortion returned to the state legislatures. Here in NY, it would make no difference. In states that are heavily Roman Catholic, it might.

164 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:29:59pm

re: #154 Hengineer

And all the bureaucratic red-tape permits, etc... aren't an artifice-laden, lawyered-up slap at a wannabe- gunowner's wisdom?

Since when is EVERY woman the Female equivalent to Socrates?
At least require Counseling!

Yes! Make it even more difficult for women to get abortions, because the bureaucrats are trying to take our guns.

Wait. What?

165 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:30:08pm

re: #133 Dark_Falcon

Some men might want to force a woman to have their child. It's not intuitive, but then again, few things are when it comes to rape. Such a man would view it as a victory if the law forced his victim to bear his child. And that cannot be permitted. Criminals must not profit from their crimes.

Agreed that there is no accounting for tastes. However, it seems that the law can only go so far in preventing the realization of "profit." If I committed a terrorist act with the intent of receiving the "profit" of martyrdom but failed to die, should the state then deny me that "profit" as punishment? (walking in circles between typing)

166 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:30:09pm

re: #153 freetoken

Meanwhile, over in the La-La Land (aka WND):

People who cheer on terrorists are barbarians. There is such a thing in this country as the Rule of Law and I happen to like the protections it affords me. People who want to replace that with the Rule of the Gun are the enemies of civilization.

167 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:30:37pm

re: #156 The Shadow Do

It would never come to that. Abortion has become pretty much institutionalized. Some few States would take a hard stand, some less. Not unlike the world before RvsW.

I don't mean the whole country; I simply mean any law, any state -- any woman denied. I bet states that outlaw abortion would also outlaw leaving the state for the purpose of obtaining one. I believe South Dakota's law outlaws transporting a minor out for that purpose.

168 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:30:56pm

re: #151 brookly red

forced procreation would fall under power thing, no?

Only partially crossing over, but rape as power is a subjugation concept, and a forced desire to procreate would come from a completely different spectrum.

I'm not saying some of the rapists don't have that mind set, just that I've never heard it touted in the media.

169 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:31:02pm

re: #60 JacksonTn

iceweasel ... I seriously doubt Tiller was one of only three doctors "skilled" enough to perform the operations ... he was one of only three "willing" to perform the procedures ... big difference ...

Same difference. The other doctors would rather let women die than to risk death themselves.

170 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:31:05pm

re: #141 JacksonTn

Flyers1974 ... how would you define "rational" below:

Most of the time dictators are rational

I am not understanding your definition of rational ...

They wish to stay in power kind of rational. Certainly not rational by our standards, but rational by theirs. Enough so that if we understand their rationality it's easier to work with or against them.

172 Big Sam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:31:32pm

Let a Kansas tell it like it is. Tiller carried out abortions that virtually every other abortion doctor finds abhorrent. In addition, it made him a wealthy man. However, the most galling thing about his practice wasn't that he was a late term abortion doctor. What is bothersome is how he took advantage of a loophole in the Kansas law to carry out his services in a more broad-based manner than was intended. Kansas statute stated that a late term abortion was legal in cases that endangered the life of the mother. It required another doctor to sign off (not part of the same practice). Tiller not only expanded this "endangered the life of the mother" to include a psychological endangerment, but he used the same psychiatrist to carry out the diagnosis - usually on a same day basis, without actually seeing the patient (examine files, have a phone call, sign off).

This is what was abhorrent about Tiller's activities. He chose to skirt the law via technicalities to pursue an ideological goal that happened to make him wealthy as well. It is unfortunate that the Kansas court system in the end allowed it to continue (let's not consider the Kansas Supreme Court above politics - it isn't). In addition, party politics used the Tiller case to expand the power of those that supported not so much abortion rights, but the right to privacy (abortion not often the issue in the ads and press) to increase its power while avoiding discussing the real issue - Tiller may have found a loophole in the law, but he was disregarding the intent of the law.

I have to note I'm not anti-abortion. However, I'm against the abuse of the legal system by individuals such as Tiller and those who supported him.

Finally, I'm tired of him being sainted by the state's press (his murder is still at the top of the page for the Topeka Capital Journal - as if his murder is the only news in the state for over a week).

Sam S.

173 Tatterdemalian  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:32:19pm

re: #145 Hengineer

Only the ones that can be proven to lead to actual killing. Still, you're right, that could lead to thought crime legislation if not used carefully. I wish the ACLU would quit trying to get the Pledge of Allegiance banned from schools and actually get to work on something like this. Wasn't their original purpose to put an end to the KKK lynch mobs by finding ways to track down the leaders behind the mobs and legally get them chucked in jail, or at least ruin them with lawsuits?

174 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:32:37pm

re: #163 quickjustice

I'm not attacking the church. And I don't expect to change your mind on this issue. I would be pleased to see Roe v. Wade repealed, with the determination of the legality of abortion returned to the state legislatures. Here in NY, it would make no difference. In states that are heavily Roman Catholic, it might.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you (this is an emotional topic for me)

175 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:32:38pm

38 million abortions in 35 years. Seems like there is no problem getting an abortion in the USA...a lot of cheerleaders too.

176 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:32:38pm

re: #164 ShanghaiEd

Yes! Make it even more difficult for women to get abortions, because the bureaucrats are trying to take our guns.

Wait. What?

My last comment equates the two.

Not all Women are wise, not all possible gunowners are wise.

Would you prefer counseling before the abortion or counseling after the abortion? I say that because at least some women who get an abortion come to regret it later.

177 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:32:51pm

re: #148 stevedecatur

Damn, under Obama the terrorists are winning, the homegrown type too.

Strange - when that report on homegrown right wing terrorism came out, many on the right went nuts, claiming that it was nothing but politically motivated paranoia.

178 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:33:02pm

re: #153 freetoken

Meanwhile, over in the La-La Land (aka WND):


[emphasis added]

Serious ugliness over there.

*GAH*

Don't these twits understand they are doing more harm for the pro-life cause than good?

ARRGGHH!

179 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:33:14pm

re: #147 Salamantis

Trying to play the race card, I see.

But clinics aren't in the business of rounding up people and forcing abortions on them. They simply advertize in the Yellow Pages, and people come to them. Clinics in built the sticks wouldn't get much of anyone's business. They're built in the urban areas, because that where the people are - of ALL races. And if a greater percentage of some races than others frequent them, that's the choice of members of those races, and not the choice of the clinics.

I'd only add that it may also reflect something about the availability of birth control in certain areas and to certain demographics as well.

180 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:33:15pm

re: #169 Salamantis

Same difference. The other doctors would rather let women die than to risk death themselves.

Sal ... I don't agree ... that may be the reason that some do not choose to perform procedures they are qualified to do ... there are many reasons they choose not to ... malpractice is one ... fear of attack ... I am sure the list goes on ...

181 pat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:33:32pm

It seems that there are few buyers for such a practice. I am not surprised.

182 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:34:47pm

re: #157 Floral Giraffe

If you had to go through the physical and emotional changes of a pregnancy for NINE MONTHS and be reminded every minute of every day, that it was caused by a rapist, I think you'd feel it was a victory for the rapist. I think it would complicate and delay the healing process.
Especially, if carrying the baby was your ONLY option.

re: #104 _RememberTonyC

i think the victim might see it as a victory for the rapist, even if the rapist himself does not.

And that's the line of reasoning I can see. As my mother put it, even if the mother put it up for adoption after 9 months, the kid may still end up looking for their "real mother", only to have the door slammed in the face "YOU WERE THE PRODUCT OF RAPE".

I wish such a thing didn't exist, but as I said, that's the line of reasoning I can definitely see.

183 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:34:53pm

re: #162 MandyManners

Somewhere I have a link to a story about Al Gora and Phelps together.

One pic doesn't mean a lot, but whole speeches, joint appearances at gatherings, etc. will.

184 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:35:24pm

re: #172 Big Sam

You're making a fair point-- that Tiller was gaming the system. Even so, that doesn't justify his murder. We're not required to admire physicians who perform late-term abortions. We may even despise them. They have the right to carry on legal businesses of which we don't approve.

I'm not cheer-leading for Dr. Tiller. I strongly condemn his murder.

185 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:35:40pm

re: #154 Hengineer

And all the bureaucratic red-tape permits, etc... aren't an artifice-laden, lawyered-up slap at a wannabe- gunowner's wisdom?

Since when is EVERY woman the Female equivalent to Socrates?
At least require Counseling!

I concede, I could see prohibiting someone with a violent criminal record or serious mental illness from buying a gun, but let's not compare those people to ordinary women who want abortions.

Since you think women should get the government's permission to terminate a pregnancy, what about going ahead with one? It's a big decision, having a baby. Plenty of women aren't up to it. They ain't Socrates. How about layers of bureaucracy for permission to birth?

186 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:35:40pm

re: #167 iLikeCandy

I don't mean the whole country; I simply mean any law, any state -- any woman denied. I bet states that outlaw abortion would also outlaw leaving the state for the purpose of obtaining one. I believe South Dakota's law outlaws transporting a minor out for that purpose.

I was in HS pre Roe. Girls got pregnant then just as they do now. They went to NY or other States to abort. Others simply dropped out for a year and had the baby - putting it up for adoption.

I don't know of a single case during the period where someone was forced to have a baby. Not one.

There is so much hyperbole and fear-mongering about this issue, and that is evidence of the very wrongful decision of a very liberal court that has brought nothing but grief to this nation ever since.

187 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:36:01pm

re: #141 JacksonTn

Flyers1974 ... how would you define "rational" below:

Most of the time dictators are rational

I am not understanding your definition of rational ...

Rational: Acting in your own self-interest. Rational doesn't mean nice or doing what is morally good, at least in my context here. I may have no morals and desire to steal your wallet, but as a rational being, I won't if you are bigger than I am - I'll get beat up and not get the wallet. Even if I have a weapon and you don't, as a rational being, there are easier ways to get a few dollars than risk getting caught and going to prison. Dictators are usually rational enough to protect their own interests. Which is why Fidel Castro hasn't attempted to invade and annex Florida, for example. He may want to, but that would be going to far and he'd cease to exist.

188 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:36:14pm

re: #157 Floral Giraffe

If you had to go through the physical and emotional changes of a pregnancy for NINE MONTHS and be reminded every minute of every day, that it was caused by a rapist, I think you'd feel it was a victory for the rapist. I think it would complicate and delay the healing process.
Especially, if carrying the baby was your ONLY option.

re: #104 _RememberTonyC

i think the victim might see it as a victory for the rapist, even if the rapist himself does not.

You may be right. Since I was born without ovaries, we'll never know.

189 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:37:05pm

re: #165 krkrawiec

Agreed that there is no accounting for tastes. However, it seems that the law can only go so far in preventing the realization of "profit." If I committed a terrorist act with the intent of receiving the "profit" of martyrdom but failed to die, should the state then deny me that "profit" as punishment? (walking in circles between typing)

Apples and oranges. First or early second trimester abortion is not the same thing as murder, at least in my eyes. It is still an evil, though sometimes a necessary evil. I also cannot abide the idea of a man being able to conscript a woman like that while the law stand aside. It condemns her to emotional ruin and hands sadists and psychos a victory.

190 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:37:56pm

re: #99 krkrawiec

Further substantiation please: How is it a victory for a rapist to have his victim carry his child to term? Perhaps it is plausible, but it hardly seems intuitive.

It empowers stalkers to haunt trashcans for signs of menstration so they can rape their targets of obsessive fixation at the most propitious moment, knowing that if they succeed in impregnating their prey, that the two of them will be genetically bound together forever.

I can also foresee such sick puppies demanding visitation rights from prison as the biological fathers.

191 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:38:16pm

re: #188 krkrawiec

You may be right. Since I was born without ovaries, we'll never know.

(Although Jessica Lange in Rob Roy did. OK, OK, ...it's only a movie)

192 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:38:46pm

re: #116 Killgore Trout

Charles Lindbergh was a douchebag too but it has nothing to do with my opinions on air travel.

And Henry Ford was viciously anti-Semitic, but I've never heard that argued as a reason not to buy Ford cars.

193 jcm  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:38:52pm

re: #187 Flyers1974

Rational is highly contextual. I understand Iran better than many, but only because I lived there for ten years.

194 auldtrafford  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:39:05pm

Can anyone direct me to a definition of "terrorism"? I was under the impression that there was either an element of mass-murder or at least randomness to it, but scanning this thread, I am not sure.

Don't see it defined here. Anyone know where Charles has set out a definition? Or referred to something definitive?

Thanks.

195 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:39:29pm

re: #172 Big Sam

Do you have a link for this information? Your points may be valid, but they must be sourced.

196 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:39:29pm

re: #185 iLikeCandy

I concede, I could see prohibiting someone with a violent criminal record or serious mental illness from buying a gun, but let's not compare those people to ordinary women who want abortions.

Since you think women should get the government's permission to terminate a pregnancy, what about going ahead with one? It's a big decision, having a baby. Plenty of women aren't up to it. They ain't Socrates. How about layers of bureaucracy for permission to birth?

I'm not saying having a government's permission, just a requirement to at least have counseling, like a requirement to go through a gun safety course to own a gun.

If you go through counseling and still feel you wish to terminate the pregnancy, then by all means, by whatever laws of the state and federal governments allow you to terminate it, then do it.

197 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:40:29pm

re: #192 ShanghaiEd

And Henry Ford was viciously anti-Semitic, but I've never heard that argued as a reason not to buy Ford cars.

i know a lot of Jews who won't buy Mercedes cars because of Germany's antisemitism back in the day.

198 Bloodnok  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:40:47pm

re: #172 Big Sam


Let a Kansas tell it like it is.

Let a New Hampshirite downding you.

What Dr. Tiller did was legal. "An ideological goal"? Hogwash. His patients came to him for help.

199 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:41:03pm

re: #186 The Shadow Do

I don't know of a single case during the period where someone was forced to have a baby. Not one.

There is so much hyperbole and fear-mongering about this issue, and that is evidence of the very wrongful decision of a very liberal court that has brought nothing but grief to this nation ever since.

Okay, if you say. But do you think there will be more newborns in dumpsters in states where abortion is illegal? I do.

200 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:41:42pm

OT: Child prodigy paints highly accomplished but tacky pictures of God etc:

[Link: www.artakiane.com...]

201 Jim in Virginia  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:41:48pm

re: #179 iceweasel

I'd only add that it may also reflect something about the availability of birth control in certain areas and to certain demographics as well.

Birth control is available just about everywhere.

202 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:42:05pm

re: #174 reine.de.tout

I was unclear. I'm pro-life, but I'm not Roman Catholic. I think unborn children precious, but I can conceive of situations where abortion might be necessary. Even if necessary, I think that very sad. I also think the state legislatures, representing the people of each state, should decide the issue of the legality of abortion.

203 MandyManners  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:42:35pm

re: #183 Thanos

One pic doesn't mean a lot, but whole speeches, joint appearances at gatherings, etc. will.

IIRC, this was a joint appearance.

204 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:42:44pm

re: #186 The Shadow Do

I was in HS pre Roe. Girls got pregnant then just as they do now. They went to NY or other States to abort. Others simply dropped out for a year and had the baby - putting it up for adoption.

I don't know of a single case during the period where someone was forced to have a baby. Not one.

There is so much hyperbole and fear-mongering about this issue, and that is evidence of the very wrongful decision of a very liberal court that has brought nothing but grief to this nation ever since.

Especially now, that even if it IS a High School teen, and the parents are VERY overbearing, there are SAFE HOUSES that house teens who are pregnant.

205 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:43:34pm

re: #199 iLikeCandy

Okay, if you say. But do you think there will be more newborns in dumpsters in states where abortion is illegal? I do.

I'll tell you another thing we'll certainly have--- more women and girls dying because they attempted to self-abort.

Abortion has been and always will be with us, legal or not. Make it illegal and we won't 'save babies' -- we'll ensure that many desperate women and girls will die.

206 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:43:40pm

re: #190 Salamantis

To my knowledge, rape always has been grounds for legal abortion. Why are you going there?

207 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:43:57pm

Randall Terry and crowd are out to destroy the Republican party. Rudy Guiliani doesn't have to fear any Terry associations btw:

208 John Neverbend  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:44:08pm

re: #194 auldtrafford

Can anyone direct me to a definition of "terrorism"? I was under the impression that there was either an element of mass-murder or at least randomness to it, but scanning this thread, I am not sure.

Don't see it defined here. Anyone know where Charles has set out a definition? Or referred to something definitive?

Thanks.

The only place that I ever saw a vague definition was in the Geneva Convention, and it was an implied definition. The Convention sets out what would be a legitimate combatant in a war. I think that a combatant who did not fall under the definition could be regarded as a terrorist. For example, there was the need to wear a recognizable insignia, limit targets to those of the military and a whole host of other items that I can't remember.

This was many years ago, and I came to the conclusion that both the PLO and IRA were terrorists, according to the definitions of legitimate combatants.

209 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:44:24pm

re: #201 Jim in Virginia

Birth control is available just about everywhere.

Not easily everywhere, and not readily to everyone. Education makes a difference, so does money.

210 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:44:31pm

re: #196 Hengineer

I'm not saying having a government's permission, just a requirement to at least have counseling

Okay. You and I got engaged when you jumped in on my objection to Steffan @51:

I believe that there should be at least two layers of bureaucracy between the woman and the physician, if only because having to do that much paperwork might well make her think twice about getting an abortion.

I'll assume you don't endorse this position.

211 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:44:44pm

Whoops: Warning that is Randall Terry's Youtube channel.

212 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:45:14pm

re: #110 JacksonTn

iceweasel ... go ahead and find a reference ... but I will not engage on the issue any more than I have already said ... it is an issue that holds people hostage ... I was stating that I believe there are many many doctors who could perform these procedures ... there are few who choose to do so ... if you have evidence to show otherwise post it ...

Dr. Tiller gave special classes in late term abortion techniques to doctors willing to learn them. Such procedures are complex, and a woman suffering a life-threatening pregnancy would quite naturally want someone with a modicum of experience and expertise in such a procedure to perform it. And there aren't many of those around, and even less who both CAN and WILL do it, because quite a few of them have been terrorized by all-too-real murder threats.

213 Steffan  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:45:26pm

re: #122 ShanghaiEd

I don't question those statistics. I wonder if any other factor comes into play, here. Can you say "poverty"?

What is your actual evidence that abortion is, as you continue to coyly hint at, a racist plot against black people?

Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" of 1939 encouraged black women to use birth control specifically so that the black population would not increase. She founded Planned Parenthood. Do the math.

Racism isn't really the point, however. It's more a question of the Roe Effect.

It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost--surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000.

214 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:45:27pm

re: #205 iceweasel

Are you certain that state legislatures would outlaw abortion today? Given that Roe was decided in 1974, I'd think that the vast majority of states would keep abortion legal. Why do you think otherwise?

215 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:45:49pm

re: #205 iceweasel

I'll tell you another thing we'll certainly have--- more women and girls dying because they attempted to self-abort.

Abortion has been and always will be with us, legal or not. Make it illegal and we won't 'save babies' -- we'll ensure that many desperate women and girls will die.

A slightly older man told me a story once where he had to travel across a state boundary to the back door of a doctor before Roe vs Wade, to pay for the abortion of a child he had conceived with a girl once. He was lucky there, but just imagine the days of coat hangers and teenage high school girls who "went to live with grandparents" or something...

216 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:46:39pm

re: #205 iceweasel

I'll tell you another thing we'll certainly have--- more women and girls dying because they attempted to self-abort.

Abortion has been and always will be with us, legal or not. Make it illegal and we won't 'save babies' -- we'll ensure that many desperate women and girls will die.

Yes.

217 shiplord kirel  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:47:08pm

Looks like none other than Michael Steele has drunk the GOP's hyperbole kool-aid:

Steele: God Help White Men Appearing Before A Sotomayor Court

"God help you if you're a white male," said Steele. "If you're seeking justice, this may not be the bench you want to go before."

Didn't we hire this guy as a voice of moderation, with at least some hope that he might hold the crazies in check? If so, the dog-catcher has joined the pack.

(I won't apologize for linking to Huffpo, since the original source is Steele's own mouth on CNN video)

218 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:47:17pm

re: #210 iLikeCandy

I'll assume you don't endorse this position.

I don't endorse his position, I apologize for jumping at you, but it was your comment that seemed to equate any "obstacle" as a woman-hating obstacle.

If that was not your intention, I apologize.

219 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:47:21pm

re: #205 iceweasel


In our slut culture no women will die. They are actually venerated.

220 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:47:29pm

Folks, I must get to work. Thanks for the discussion.

221 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:47:40pm

re: #193 jcm

Rational is highly contextual. I understand Iran better than many, but only because I lived there for ten years.

Absolutely. And when I speak of being rational, I mean being able to understand what will keep them alive and in power and to act accordingly. Hence, one could argue that Hafez Al-Assad was rational because he knew how far he could push the US and Israel. And he wasn't so paranoid that his own advisors were afraid to tell him military truths, unlike say, Sadaam.

222 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:48:14pm

re: #218 Hengineer

I don't endorse his position, I apologize for jumping at you, but it was your comment that seemed to equate any "obstacle" as a woman-hating obstacle.

If that was not your intention, I apologize.

No need to apologize.

223 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:48:33pm

re: #189 Dark_Falcon

Apples and oranges. First or early second trimester abortion is not the same thing as murder, at least in my eyes. It is still an evil, though sometimes a necessary evil. I also cannot abide the idea of a man being able to conscript a woman like that while the law stand aside. It condemns her to emotional ruin and hands sadists and psychos a victory.

The point was missed; I made it badly. If you create laws to preclude realization of a subjectively defined profit, virtually any result can be achieved.

224 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:48:55pm

Night all.

225 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:49:37pm

re: #138 Hengineer

Can you show me that? I've only ever heard of Rape as either a power thing or a revenge thing, not a forced procreative thing.

Isn't abusing the legal machinery of the state in order to force your rape victim to bear your child the ultimate exercise of power over her?

226 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:49:42pm

re: #199 iLikeCandy

Okay, if you say. But do you think there will be more newborns in dumpsters in states where abortion is illegal? I do.

Possibly, in today's environment. Not so, back when.
More likely you would see some sort of underground pipeline to abortion by sympathetic groups. Also more likely you would see kids available for adoption. The dumpster thing is pretty rare even with today's standards.

227 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:50:33pm

re: #225 Salamantis

Isn't abusing the legal machinery of the state in order to force your rape victim to bear your child the ultimate exercise of power over her?

So now you're saying every rapist is a pro-lifer?

228 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:50:38pm

re: #202 quickjustice

I was unclear. I'm pro-life, but I'm not Roman Catholic. I think unborn children precious, but I can conceive of situations where abortion might be necessary. Even if necessary, I think that very sad. I also think the state legislatures, representing the people of each state, should decide the issue of the legality of abortion.

I have a huge conflict in my conscience over this.

The fact is that even when abortion was illegal, there were women who sought them. And many of those procedures were not performed safely, and people died or were harmed for life.

I would prefer if there were no abortions. But if women will seek them, then I believe they should have decent care and legal services. Like I said, a huge conflict I haven't quite worked out yet for myself.

229 Christene  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:50:42pm

GOOD!
Close them all!
As a former fetus, I oppose abortion!

230 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:51:32pm

re: #215 Hengineer

A slightly older man told me a story once where he had to travel across a state boundary to the back door of a doctor before Roe vs Wade, to pay for the abortion of a child he had cout nceived with a girl once. He was lucky there, but just imagine the days of coat hangers and teenage high school girls who "went to live with grandparents" or something...

Yes. Not only teenage high school girls, but women who are poor and isolated and desperate, women for whom travelling to another state is impossible, women who are already living in poverty and have children and cannot bear--physically, emotionally, financially--in all possible ways-- to have another child.

Your friend was lucky in another way too, in that he found an actual doctor who could do the procedure, as opposed to some quack or fake doctor. A lot of abortions were performed by such people back then, and women would die from those as well.

231 auldtrafford  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:51:48pm

re: #208 John Neverbend

The only place that I ever saw a vague definition was in the Geneva Convention, and it was an implied definition. The Convention sets out what would be a legitimate combatant in a war. I think that a combatant who did not fall under the definition could be regarded as a terrorist. For example, there was the need to wear a recognizable insignia, limit targets to those of the military and a whole host of other items that I can't remember.

This was many years ago, and I came to the conclusion that both the PLO and IRA were terrorists, according to the definitions of legitimate combatants.

Thanks. I looked in Wiki (don't bother - I know) and it says, "Terrorism is more commonly understood as an act which is intended to create fear (terror), is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence or unconventional warfare, but at present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism."

Basically, as you read that, and the rest of that article, one is led to the conclusion that "terrorism" usually accompanies a political struggle - and more specifically, usually an armed political struggle (or war). And I guess if there are "combatants", Tiller would have to be idenitified as a pro-choice player. I would be interested in the argument that he was less of a combatant than most people.

Bottom line: I am struggling with this as an act of "terrorism" under most definitions. An act to affect a political result, certainly, but not one intended to obtain that result by creating terror in the general public. I don't believe Charles has declared himself as pro-choice or pro-life, but I would have to say his language selection here (especially in the context of most of the Tiller-related postings), lead me to believe LGF leans pro-choice.

232 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:51:49pm

re: #214 quickjustice

Are you certain that state legislatures would outlaw abortion today? Given that Roe was decided in 1974, I'd think that the vast majority of states would keep abortion legal. Why do you think otherwise?

I agree. Which states would outlaw abortion? I'd say most of the south and states like Idaho, Utah, Alaska, the Dakotas. A few states which could go either way. But majority would not outlaw.

233 The Shadow Do  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:51:53pm

re: #205 iceweasel

I'll tell you another thing we'll certainly have--- more women and girls dying because they attempted to self-abort.

Abortion has been and always will be with us, legal or not. Make it illegal and we won't 'save babies' -- we'll ensure that many desperate women and girls will die.

Same BS argument thriving during the Wade/Roe debate.

234 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:52:03pm

You can't be serious?

Are you applauding the murder's efforts to attack Dr. Tiller just so the clinic would close down?

235 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:53:30pm

re: #176 Hengineer

My last comment equates the two.

Not all Women are wise, not all possible gunowners are wise.

Would you prefer counseling before the abortion or counseling after the abortion? I say that because at least some women who get an abortion come to regret it later.

But isn't "personal responsibility" one of the cornerstone values of Conservatism? Motorcycle riders "come to regret" having their bare heads hit the pavement, but what business is it of the government's to make us wear helmets against our will?

236 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:53:54pm

Oh brother.

237 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:54:03pm

re: #232 Flyers1974

I agree. Which states would outlaw abortion? I'd say most of the south and states like Idaho, Utah, Alaska, the Dakotas. A few states which could go either way. But majority would not outlaw.

Isn't that enough of a problem, though? Consider the plight of a poor woman who lives in the middle of a large red state and is surrounded by other states that outlaw it.

238 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:54:56pm

re: #235 ShanghaiEd

But isn't "personal responsibility" one of the cornerstone values of Conservatism? Motorcycle riders "come to regret" having their bare heads hit the pavement, but what business is it of the government's to make us wear helmets against our will?

When it became the government's job to take care of those who couldn't afford to pay for the medical procedures to fix their mistakes.

239 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:55:41pm

re: #227 Hengineer

Downding. Don't put words in Sal's mouth. You won't like what happens.

240 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:56:28pm

re: #237 iceweasel

Isn't that enough of a problem, though? Consider the plight of a poor woman who lives in the middle of a large red state and is surrounded by other states that outlaw it.

In my opinion yes. I have no problems with abortion. That was merely my opinion on the position most states would take.

241 krkrawiec  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:56:49pm

re: #205 iceweasel

I'll tell you another thing we'll certainly have--- more women and girls dying because they attempted to self-abort.

Abortion has been and always will be with us, legal or not. Make it illegal and we won't 'save babies' -- we'll ensure that many desperate women and girls will die.

You may be correct, but I do not believe it is a certainty. Society has changed significantly from the time of Roe. An unmarried pregnant woman was then a mark of shame. Now it's a sitcom.

242 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:57:02pm

re: #225 Salamantis

Isn't abusing the legal machinery of the state in order to force your rape victim to bear your child the ultimate exercise of power over her?

OT in re: the US abortion debate, but it's worth noting that rape and enforced impregnation has been used as a tool of warfare for centuries - Rwanda being one such recent example.

243 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:57:41pm

re: #172 Big Sam

Let a Kansas tell it like it is. Tiller carried out abortions that virtually every other abortion doctor finds abhorrent. In addition, it made him a wealthy man. However, the most galling thing about his practice wasn't that he was a late term abortion doctor. What is bothersome is how he took advantage of a loophole in the Kansas law to carry out his services in a more broad-based manner than was intended. Kansas statute stated that a late term abortion was legal in cases that endangered the life of the mother. It required another doctor to sign off (not part of the same practice). Tiller not only expanded this "endangered the life of the mother" to include a psychological endangerment, but he used the same psychiatrist to carry out the diagnosis - usually on a same day basis, without actually seeing the patient (examine files, have a phone call, sign off).

This is what was abhorrent about Tiller's activities. He chose to skirt the law via technicalities to pursue an ideological goal that happened to make him wealthy as well. It is unfortunate that the Kansas court system in the end allowed it to continue (let's not consider the Kansas Supreme Court above politics - it isn't). In addition, party politics used the Tiller case to expand the power of those that supported not so much abortion rights, but the right to privacy (abortion not often the issue in the ads and press) to increase its power while avoiding discussing the real issue - Tiller may have found a loophole in the law, but he was disregarding the intent of the law.

I have to note I'm not anti-abortion. However, I'm against the abuse of the legal system by individuals such as Tiller and those who supported him.

Finally, I'm tired of him being sainted by the state's press (his murder is still at the top of the page for the Topeka Capital Journal - as if his murder is the only news in the state for over a week).

Sam S.

Dr. Tiller was the object of a continuing jihad by a committed antiabortion attorney general, and after years of going through his medical records with a fine toothed comb, the only charges he could mamage to bring against Dr. Tiller were dismissed within an hour - not by a judge, but by a jury of his peers. And the people of Kansas were so disgusted by their attorney general's anti-Tiller crusade that they refused to re-elect him to his post.

244 poteen  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:58:15pm

The value of a human life is proportional to it's distance from your own. The loss of a loved one is more painful than that of a stranger. That horrible fact is apparent to Dr. Tillers family. They're afraid to reopen their clinic. Other Drs. are afraid to work there. His patients are afraid. But then they already know that fear. The pregnant teenager who's afraid of what her parents will say. Afraid to be beaten. Afraid to have an abortion. Afraid not to. A young woman who is not sure she can support a baby but afraid to give up to another.An older woman who's unsure she can handle a special needs child. All of them afraid of what they will feel later.
Tiller, whatever his faults, understood that. As do other abortion providers, priests, rabbis, ministers , parents,grandparents, friends and any other compassionate person brought close for advice.
It is not for absolutist, loudmouthed fools like Terry or the NOW to determine.
It is not for any court to determine. It is not for the Congress to determine.
It is damn sure not a political determination.
It is for the individual to determine.
Babies should not be made just to abort them. With the advances in birth control there is little excuse for 'unplanned pregnancy' and even less for late term abortion. But it happens. And it is the most divisive issue of our time.
The issue should be moot.
In the land of personal freedom, the decision is the responsibility of only one.
All those at a distance have only an opinion to offer.

245 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:58:17pm

re: #239 Dark_Falcon

Downding. Don't put words in Sal's mouth. You won't like what happens.

I was trying to follow Sal's reasoning. Abusing the legal machinery of the state would make the rapist a pro-lifer who would want to disallow abortion so that when they actually impregnate someone with their vile act, that woman cannot get an abortion.

246 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:58:27pm

OK Everyone -

The MURDER of Dr. Tiller was a CRIME. 3rd Trimester Abortions are no fun either. Ponder. That is all.

-S-

247 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:58:52pm

Here are a woman's choices:
Pre sex:

1. The pill
2. Demand a condom+spermicide
3. Deprovera shot
4. IUD
5. Tubal Ligation
6. Diaphragm
7. Demand he get a vasectomy
8. Abstinence (say no!)
9. Withdrawal
10. Calendar method
11. Use some or all

Post sex:
1. Morning after pill
and of course...
2. Abortion (irrespective of whether the father wants the child)
38 million of 'em...The Horror, the Horror.

248 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:59:07pm

re: #175 Osama Bin Asshat

38 million abortions in 35 years. Seems like there is no problem getting an abortion in the USA...a lot of cheerleaders too.

There are sure a helluva lot of cheerleaders for Dr. Tiller's murder, and for his murderer. Charles has brought out attention to a shitload of them.

249 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 6:59:45pm

re: #245 Hengineer

I was trying to follow Sal's reasoning. Abusing the legal machinery of the state would make the rapist a pro-lifer who would want to disallow abortion so that when they actually impregnate someone with their vile act, that woman cannot get an abortion.

THINK ABOUT WHAT SAL SAID AND WHAT I REPLIED WITH.

Thank you, just use your noggin instead of a knee-jerk response.

250 Christene  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:00:50pm

re: #205 iceweasel

Please post one documented case of a coat hanger abortion resulting in death.

251 Jim in Virginia  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:01:15pm

re: #228 reine.de.tout

I have a huge conflict in my conscience over this.

The fact is that even when abortion was illegal, there were women who sought them. And many of those procedures were not performed safely, and people died or were harmed for life.

I would prefer if there were no abortions. But if women will seek them, then I believe they should have decent care and legal services. Like I said, a huge conflict I haven't quite worked out yet for myself.

The Clintons used to say they wanted to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. They did everything they could for the first two and nothing for the third.

252 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:01:24pm

re: #180 JacksonTn

Sal ... I don't agree ... that may be the reason that some do not choose to perform procedures they are qualified to do ... there are many reasons they choose not to ... malpractice is one ... fear of attack ... I am sure the list goes on ...

You most certainly cannot deny that fear is one of the reasons, and that such fear is quite rational and reasonable.

253 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:02:04pm

re: #251 Jim in Virginia

The Clintons used to say they wanted to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. They did everything they could for the first two and nothing for the third.

Yep.

254 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:02:36pm

re: #250 Christene

Please post one documented case of a coat hanger abortion resulting in death.

[Link: www.exit.com...]

255 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:02:54pm

re: #252 Salamantis

You most certainly cannot deny that fear is one of the reasons, and that such fear is quite rational and reasonable.

Didn't appear to me she was denying that at all.
It appeared to me she was saying there are also other reasons, that you don't seem to want to recognize.

256 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:03:28pm

re: #250 Christene

Please post one documented case of a coat hanger abortion resulting in death.

Please familiarise yourself with the history of abortion in America pre: 1973, and the history of illegal abortion worldwide.

Thanks in advance.

257 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:03:56pm
258 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:04:42pm

re: #248 Salamantis

Sal: Though the murder of Dr. Tiller was terrible and counter productive to the abortion debate, that does not make someone's opinion on abortion as immoral any less important. You have no moral authority over them, irrespective of their religion or an atheist like me.

259 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:04:42pm

Oops, wrong string. Sorry. Please delete.

260 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:05:05pm

re: #213 Steffan

Steffan, I'm speechless. The fact that you, or anyone, would argue that the race or political persuasion of an aborted fetus is in any way relevant to the issue of abortion is absolutely repugnant to me. Just sickening. I'll have to cut this argument with you short, and hold my tongue.

261 Jim in Virginia  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:05:08pm

re: #254 Salamantis
Anecdotal evidence!

///

262 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:06:13pm

re: #194 auldtrafford

Can anyone direct me to a definition of "terrorism"? I was under the impression that there was either an element of mass-murder or at least randomness to it, but scanning this thread, I am not sure.

Don't see it defined here. Anyone know where Charles has set out a definition? Or referred to something definitive?

Thanks.

[Link: www.google.com...]

263 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:07:13pm

re: #247 Osama Bin Asshat

Here are a woman's choices:
Pre sex:

1. The pill
2. Demand a condom+spermicide
3. Deprovera shot
4. IUD
5. Tubal Ligation
6. Diaphragm
7. Demand he get a vasectomy
8. Abstinence (say no!)
9. Withdrawal
10. Calendar method
11. Use some or all

Post sex:
1. Morning after pill
and of course...
2. Abortion (irrespective of whether the father wants the child)
38 million of 'em...The Horror, the Horror.

Aren't you forgetting someone? What about mens role in this:

1. abstinence
2. condoms
3. outercourse
4. vasectomy
5. withdrawal

I'm having trouble grasping at your generalization at "post sex" number two in which you say: irrespective of whether the father wants the child.

By the way I got my list from Planned Parenthood.

264 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:08:57pm

re: #199 iLikeCandy

Okay, if you say. But do you think there will be more newborns in dumpsters in states where abortion is illegal? I do.

There would also be many more back alley butcher abortions, and attempts at self-abortion, and many more septic and bled out women flooding ERs and morgues. Just like there were before.

265 BryanS  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:10:02pm

What a terrible outcome. This is most definitely not a win for those opposed to abortion. It is a win for those who want to blow things up to get their way. I'm no abortion advocate, but the success of this lunatic extremist will only inspire future similar acts.

266 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:10:21pm

re: #263 Gus 802

Aren't you forgetting someone? What about mens role in this:

1. abstinence
2. condoms
3. outercourse
4. vasectomy
5. withdrawal

I'm having trouble grasping at your generalization at "post sex" number two in which you say: irrespective of whether the father wants the child.

By the way I got my list from Planned Parenthood.

Gus I think he's referring to the "Having your cake and eating it too" nature of our society. Once the child is conceived, ONLY THE WOMAN can decide whether they want to keep it, but once the woman wishes to keep it, THE MAN is REQUIRED to provide sustenance for that child, in the form of Child Support (if the couple is not together).

267 Christene  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:11:38pm

re: #254 Salamantis

Via"Feministe"?...I also clicked on "Read her story here." and the link was only a picture.
Abortion America, Dr Nathanson who co-founded the pro-abortion organization NARAL, who is responsible for 75,000 abortions, admits the statistics as to how women would die in "back alleys" were "totally false".

268 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:11:40pm

re: #264 Salamantis

There would also be many more back alley butcher abortions, and attempts at self-abortion, and many more septic and bled out women flooding ERs and morgues. Just like there were before.

Let's not forget the deaths we will have from folk abortifacients either.
[Link: www.cababstractsplus.org...]

269 auldtrafford  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:11:56pm

re: #262 Salamantis

[Link: www.google.com...]

Mama Mia! Es El Loco, otra vez.

Hasta Luego, por favor! (Wiki is better; see you.)

270 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:12:27pm

re: #250 Christene

Please post one documented case of a coat hanger abortion resulting in death.

Christene ... come on ... if you are going to defend your stance on abortion you need to come to the table with something better than that ... really ... and I am not taking sides with or against you ...

271 Jim in Virginia  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:12:41pm

re: #209 iceweasel

Not easily everywhere, and not readily to everyone. Education makes a difference, so does money.

In my experience, condoms are neither expensive nor hard to find.
The Pill, I have no idea.

272 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:12:52pm

Gus: Consenting to sexual intecourse is not consenting too fatherhood.

You're letting chivalry guide your morality. If two consenting adults, mutually agree to have intercourse, the STATE should not be able to force a man to pay 18 years child support against his will if a mistake happens...regardless of birth control.

As it stands now, SHE can kill his offspring or make him pay c/s, irrespective of whether he wants fatherhood. This is misandry and a violation of his rights.

273 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:13:33pm

There's a new Free Republic string on this story, with this lovely headline:

Family Of Murdered Doctor Closes Abortion Clinic Permanently (Victory!)

274 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:13:52pm

re: #265 BryanS

What a terrible outcome. This is most definitely not a win for those opposed to abortion. It is a win for those who want to blow things up to get their way. I'm no abortion advocate, but the success of this lunatic extremist will only inspire future similar acts.

And finally, a post I think pretty much everyone here would agree on, regardless of his or her feelings about abortion.

Thanks for that.

275 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:14:24pm

re: #251 Jim in Virginia

The Clintons used to say they wanted to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. They did everything they could for the first two and nothing for the third.

As I recall, it wasn't the Clintons who have religiously (pun intended) opposed contraception during the past 8 years or so. Do you not see contraception as a factor?

276 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:14:25pm

re: #272 Osama Bin Asshat

Gus: Consenting to sexual intecourse is not consenting too fatherhood.

You're letting chivalry guide your morality. If two consenting adults, mutually agree to have intercourse, the STATE should not be able to force a man to pay 18 years child support against his will if a mistake happens...regardless of birth control.

As it stands now, SHE can kill his offspring or make him pay c/s, irrespective of whether he wants fatherhood. This is misandry and a violation of his rights.

Let's not go into parents' rights of a pregnant 16 year old girl.

277 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:15:10pm

re: #219 Osama Bin Asshat

In our slut culture no women will die. They are actually venerated.

Typical of some antiabortionists, who despise women to the degree that they value them less than they value the pregnancies they can carry. In fact, their ability to have children is often the only reason that a few of them value women at all.

278 Christene  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:15:32pm

re: #256 iceweasel

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm well informed of the FACTS pertaining to abortion,...not liberal P.C "facts".

279 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:17:35pm

re: #244 poteen

Beautifully said. Bless your heart.

280 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:18:11pm

re: #278 Christene

So how many abortions do you think Dr Tiller performed?

281 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:18:44pm

re: #272 Osama Bin Asshat

Gus: Consenting to sexual intecourse is not consenting too fatherhood.

You're letting chivalry guide your morality. If two consenting adults, mutually agree to have intercourse, the STATE should not be able to force a man to pay 18 years child support against his will if a mistake happens...regardless of birth control.

As it stands now, SHE can kill his offspring or make him pay c/s, irrespective of whether he wants fatherhood. This is misandry and a violation of his rights.

Let me see if I have this right. In part what you're saying is that consenting to intercourse is not consenting to fatherhood. Does that mean that consenting to intercourse is a consent to motherhood instead --according to you?

282 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:18:49pm

re: #267 Christene

That doesn't change the fact that women would die in such events. I'm not defending Nathanson, whom I deplore, but you you seem to be trying to change the subject.

283 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:18:52pm

Sal, if they valued themselves they'd get pregnant when they were capable of raising the child..or wanted a child. We have created a culture that venerates single motherhood, and denegrates a fathers role in parenting.

284 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:19:09pm

re: #227 Hengineer

So now you're saying every rapist is a pro-lifer?

Nope. But I'm saying that rapist stalkers might well use blanket antiabortion laws as tools by means of which to force their victims to bear their children in order to connect them and their prey forever, and furthermore, to carefully choose WHEN they rape the targets of their twisted fixations in order to maximize their chances of impregnating them. Obsessives can be very calculating.

285 Bloodnok  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:19:37pm

re: #278 Christene

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm well informed of the FACTS pertaining to abortion,...not liberal P.C "facts".

You have linked to neither in any of your posts.

286 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:19:57pm

re: #281 Gus 802

Let me see if I have this right. In part what you're saying is that consenting to intercourse is not consenting to fatherhood. Does that mean that consenting to intercourse is a consent to motherhood instead --according to you?

Don't bother him with logic. He's busy building his strawman.

287 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:20:33pm

re: #283 Osama Bin Asshat

I know a few single mothers who would argue that society acknowledges that such a thing is possible, but it's far from veneration.

288 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:21:23pm

re: #286 Dark_Falcon

Don't bother him with logic. He's busy building his strawman.

I was wondering what he was doing: building the strawman.

289 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:21:45pm

re: #271 Jim in Virginia

In my experience, condoms are neither expensive nor hard to find.
The Pill, I have no idea.

Condoms break. They're not effective 100% of the time anyway, even when properly used.
Some men refuse to wear them.
Some women don't have enough money for the pill. Or their health insurance doesn't cover it. (these are just some of the problems, obviously).

There are many obstacles for many people in obtaining birth control, and I think it's a damn shame that the anti-abortion people and the prochoice people can't work together in reducing the need for abortions in the first place, by ensuring better education and better access to birth control for all.

Also access to better forms of birth control. I think it's disgusting that emergency contraception only became available here recently.

290 freetoken  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:22:06pm

re: #278 Christene

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm well informed of the FACTS pertaining to abortion,...not liberal P.C "facts".

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

291 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:22:49pm

re: #283 Osama Bin Asshat

I'm a father in this culture and haven't experience denigration. Where do you get this non-sense?

292 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:23:13pm

re: #278 Christene

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm well informed of the FACTS pertaining to abortion,...not liberal P.C "facts".

Christene: As some wise person once said, "Facts have a liberal bias."

293 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:23:35pm
294 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:24:34pm

re: #293 jimboster

Magical thinking.

295 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:24:50pm

re: #286 Dark_Falcon

Weak.

No, consenting to intercourse, is consenting to fucking! Filling a mutual urge, both the male and the female. Not consenting to parenthood. And you can fuck stawmen too.

296 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:25:21pm

re: #291 Dan G.


Been to family court?

297 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:25:27pm

re: #245 Hengineer

I was trying to follow Sal's reasoning. Abusing the legal machinery of the state would make the rapist a pro-lifer who would want to disallow abortion so that when they actually impregnate someone with their vile act, that woman cannot get an abortion.

No, it would mean that such a person would use whatever was available as a means to victimize his target.

298 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:25:34pm

re: #295 Osama Bin Asshat

You can? You've been successful in this?

299 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:26:03pm

re: #283 Osama Bin Asshat

Sal, if they valued themselves they'd get pregnant when they were capable of raising the child..or wanted a child. We have created a culture that venerates single motherhood, and denegrates a fathers role in parenting.

Culture venerate single motherhood? How? Maybe at some points in popular culture but that doesn't reflect reality. Tell me how it's celebrated when a single mother has to work, find child care, provide health care for the child, schooling, pay for the rent, buy food, buy clothing for the kid, etc.

300 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:26:09pm

re: #296 Osama Bin Asshat

Explain further.

301 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:27:31pm

re: #284 Salamantis

Nope. But I'm saying that rapist stalkers might well use blanket antiabortion laws as tools by means of which to force their victims to bear their children in order to connect them and their prey forever, and furthermore, to carefully choose WHEN they rape the targets of their twisted fixations in order to maximize their chances of impregnating them. Obsessives can be very calculating.

It should be noted that we do already have cases like this and we don't have to posit cases where strangers are stalking and raping strangers: consider the obsessive abusive ex who rapes his wife or his exwife; the stepfather who is raping his stepdaughter, in some cases fathers or grandfathers who rape their daughters and granddaughters. These people often have impregnation as an AIM: it serves to bind the victim more closely to them, to cement power over her, and in the worst cases, to provide themselves with a fresh crop of victims.

302 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:27:41pm

re: #295 Osama Bin Asshat

Weak.

No, consenting to intercourse, is consenting to fucking! Filling a mutual urge, both the male and the female. Not consenting to parenthood. And you can fuck stawmen too.

Wait a minute. Now you're saying that intercourse isn't consenting to parenthood? I'm confused. Which is it?

303 teleskiguy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:28:13pm

This stinks like yesterday's diapers. Terrorism seems to work, especially in the case of Dr. Tiller. Bad craziness. The right wing in this country is getting scarier and scarier as the days go by. This Scott Roeder dipshit is a hero to a good chunk of the population in this country. Eric Rudolph had plenty of help from citizens when he was on the run. I'm reminded of The Onion's issue after 9/11, with a headline that said "GOD ANGRILY CLARIFIES 'DON'T KILL' RULE. A good lot of people need this clarification in this country.

304 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:28:21pm

re: #293 jimboster

Fuck off. I don't curse on the forums much but you earned that one. Approving of a terrorist murder is a vile thing that ensures that there will be more terrorist murders. Enjoy the ban stick.

305 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:28:40pm

re: #251 Jim in Virginia

The Clintons used to say they wanted to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. They did everything they could for the first two and nothing for the third.

Well, sex education plus contraceptive access has worked in Europe. Even though abortion is legal there, their abortion rates are much lower than ours.

But socons balk at both sex ed for kids and at allowing them unhindered access to contraceptives.

306 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:28:43pm

re: #302 Gus 802

He's too busy fucking his strawman (he claimed it could be done).

307 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:29:25pm

I've heard that Tiller was due to go before the medical board in Kansas, for a license revocation hearing. So, he might not have been practicing much longer anyway.

308 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:29:48pm

re: #306 Dan G.

He's too busy fucking his strawman (he claimed it could be done).

Is that like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz?

//I better not go there.

309 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:30:04pm

Gus...here's a heads up:

With Marriage 2.0 you pretty much guarantee her bad behavior. The State underwrites and backstops it the whole way with these laws:

- No-Fault Divorce (i.e. she gets paid to walk)
- No-Fault Equitable Division (i.e. she gets paid)
- No-Fault Alimony (i.e. she gets paid)
- Mom Always Wins Custody (i.e. PAS perpetrator gets paid)
- Lose Every Argument while Married (restraining order)
- Hubby Has No Recourse if she has another man’s child (she can now be with other guys for fun AND profit)
- Lying in Court Pays Off Even When You Get Caught (Female Sentencing Discount; non-existent punishment for false allegations of sexual assault, false abuse, false child-abuse charges)


...need I say more...

310 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:30:13pm

re: #255 reine.de.tout

Didn't appear to me she was denying that at all.
It appeared to me she was saying there are also other reasons, that you don't seem to want to recognize.

No, I recognize that there are a multiplicity of reasons. But the threat of assassination has to be a major one.

311 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:30:34pm

re: #307 Ward Cleaver

I've heard that Tiller was due to go before the medical board in Kansas, for a license revocation hearing. So, he might not have been practicing much longer anyway.

He just got out of court, and was found not guilty by a jury of Kansans in April, is that what you are referring to, or do you have a link?

312 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:30:38pm

re: #302 Gus 802


That's what I said all along...read.

313 jones  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:30:59pm

re: #306 Dan G.

He's too busy fucking his strawman (he claimed it could be done).

In my youth I baled a lot of hay and it really itched my arms and neck where the bales made contact. I shudder to think of his actions.

314 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:31:26pm

And now we've had our first meltdown of the night. I'm putting the charcoal on the grill now, this troll was fairly rancid so I'm going to make sure he's well-done before I serve him. As always, soda and side-dish orders are now welcome.

315 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:32:08pm

re: #299 Gus 802

You're a naive dude...I'll see you in court, I charge $400 an hour.

316 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:32:38pm

re: #258 Osama Bin Asshat

Sal: Though the murder of Dr. Tiller was terrible and counter productive to the abortion debate, that does not make someone's opinion on abortion as immoral any less important. You have no moral authority over them, irrespective of their religion or an atheist like me.

No, but antiabortionists want precisely that moral authority over womens' choices as to what happens with and within their own bodies. And they want it codified into coercive law.

317 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:33:01pm

re: #314 Dark_Falcon

Dark...I've been here for years, but bring it, so far you've offered nothing.

318 kansas  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:33:08pm

re: #195 Dark_Falcon

Do you have a link for this information? Your points may be valid, but they must be sourced.

[Link: www.ksbha.org...]
I think this gives some support to Sam's point.

319 kansas  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:34:01pm

re: #307 Ward Cleaver

I've heard that Tiller was due to go before the medical board in Kansas, for a license revocation hearing. So, he might not have been practicing much longer anyway.

[Link: www.ksbha.org...]

320 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:34:17pm

re: #316 Salamantis


...and is why the argument will continue ad nauseum...because they beleive it is not just about the women. There is a growing human, and a father.

321 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:34:35pm

re: #309 Osama Bin Asshat

Maybe you should have hired a better attorney.

322 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:34:45pm

re: #309 Osama Bin Asshat

Gus...here's a heads up:

With Marriage 2.0 you pretty much guarantee her bad behavior. The State underwrites and backstops it the whole way with these laws:

- No-Fault Divorce (i.e. she gets paid to walk)
- No-Fault Equitable Division (i.e. she gets paid)
- No-Fault Alimony (i.e. she gets paid)
- Mom Always Wins Custody (i.e. PAS perpetrator gets paid)
- Lose Every Argument while Married (restraining order)
- Hubby Has No Recourse if she has another man’s child (she can now be with other guys for fun AND profit)
- Lying in Court Pays Off Even When You Get Caught (Female Sentencing Discount; non-existent punishment for false allegations of sexual assault, false abuse, false child-abuse charges)

...need I say more...

All He's doing is pointing out the Misandry in our current culture, nothing more.

As for consenting to intercourse isn't consenting for parenthood...

Well I'm not sure where that came from, but I personally believe in consequences of your actions. No prevention is 100%, and so its not that consenting to intercourse is consenting to pregnancy, but it should accept that there might be a consequence of Pregnancy, just like there's a consequence of an STD (AND NO I'M NOT COMPARING PREGNANCY TO STD'S,). Both are claimed to be prevented by some of those contraceptives (Condoms), and yet both have failure rates.

323 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:34:47pm

re: #309 Osama Bin Asshat

Oh I get it. You're basically blaming women for everything.

324 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:35:32pm

I missed this article: Roeder might have been vandalizing and terrorizing clinics in KC (ones that don't do late term abortions) for a while.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

325 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:36:02pm

re: #316 Salamantis

No, but antiabortionists want precisely that moral authority over womens' choices as to what happens with and within their own bodies. And they want it codified into coercive law.

As long as Women get complete control over a pregnancy, then Men can have free reign to support or not support that child if he wishes.

326 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:36:03pm

re: #313 jones

I"ve played in hay as well, and I too shuttered at his statement that strawmen could be the objects of intercourse.

327 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:36:26pm

re: #305 Salamantis

Well, sex education plus contraceptive access has worked in Europe. Even though abortion is legal there, their abortion rates are much lower than ours.

But socons balk at both sex ed for kids and at allowing them unhindered access to contraceptives.

ironically, the so-cons have been doing every thing they can to increase the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies in the country, by impeding access to emergency contraception, nonsurgical forms of abortion (such as RU 486), and trying to redefine abortion in such a way that even taking the Pill counts. If you support a pharmacists "right to refuse" to dispense the birth control pill, you're in effect supporting a measure that will result in more pregnancies.

328 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:37:00pm

re: #317 Osama Bin Asshat

Dark...I've been here for years, but bring it, so far you've offered nothing.

You're not who I was referring to. I was referring to the asshole who called himself 'jimboster'. He got banned for cheering Tiller's murder. You haven't done anything nearly as bad, ever.

329 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:37:08pm

re: #267 Christene

Via"Feministe"?...I also clicked on "Read her story here." and the link was only a picture.
Abortion America, Dr Nathanson who co-founded the pro-abortion organization NARAL, who is responsible for 75,000 abortions, admits the statistics as to how women would die in "back alleys" were "totally false".

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor who is the author of the antiabortion film Silent Scream, is one of the two propaganda jewels in the antiabortion crown, the other one being Norma McCorvey, the original Jane Roe. Neither of them have to fear for their lives any more, and both of them are well and continually compensated for their services to the cause.

330 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:38:06pm

re: #305 Salamantis

Well, sex education plus contraceptive access has worked in Europe. Even though abortion is legal there, their abortion rates are much lower than ours.

But socons balk at both sex ed for kids and at allowing them unhindered access to contraceptives.

OTOH, Europe is now in a population decline, so they have to import workers (i.e., muslims). So, it cuts both ways.

331 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:38:40pm

re: #323 Gus 802

No, I am actually promoting equality, real equality. If a man and a woman make a mistake together (note: no blame), both he and she should have options. He has none. She can abort, or extort him for cash...against his wishes.

332 BLBfootballs  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:38:55pm

I think there's plenty of data indicating that in the right circumstances terrorism is a winning strategy. It's been successful for the Palestinians, it was successful for the Tamil Tigers (until the Sri Lankan government learned to tie its shoes), it's worked well for Hezbollah and Iran and probably al Qaeda too. Obviously all of these take place in different contexts and settings. But yes, from the perpetrator's perspective it can work.

In most respects it's still too early to know whether the murder of Tiller will "work" as intended by Roeder or not. Will there be a social backlash against anti-abortion rights activists? Greater sympathy for rational anti-abortion activists? A social backlash against late-term abortion? Who knows.

333 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:39:07pm

re: #238 Hengineer

When it became the government's job to take care of those who couldn't afford to pay for the medical procedures to fix their mistakes.

OK. So how do you think this principle applies to areas such as preventive medicine? I.e., should the government control the availability of cigarettes, alcohol, high-cholesterol and high-sucrose foods, etc.?

334 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:39:38pm

re: #328 Dark_Falcon

Sorry, I agree with you then. Unacceptable.

335 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:40:03pm

re: #333 ShanghaiEd

OK. So how do you think this principle applies to areas such as preventive medicine? I.e., should the government control the availability of cigarettes, alcohol, high-cholesterol and high-sucrose foods, etc.?

Only if the government continues to pay out for emergency healthcare.

Wait till Obamacare, you'll start seeing lots and lots of nanny-state measures.

336 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:40:50pm

re: #324 Thanos

I missed this article: Roeder might have been vandalizing and terrorizing clinics in KC (ones that don't do late term abortions) for a while.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

I'm glad you posted that. I saw one recently that said his license plate had been reported twice to the FBI in the week before the murder, in reference to clinic vandalism. Gluing a door shut, in one case, I think.

337 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:40:51pm

re: #331 Osama Bin Asshat

No, I am actually promoting equality, real equality. If a man and a woman make a mistake together (note: no blame), both he and she should have options. He has none. She can abort, or extort him for cash...against his wishes.

Child support is "extortion"? Jeez, all this time I'm an extortion victim and didn't know it.

338 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:41:50pm

re: #311 Thanos

He just got out of court, and was found not guilty by a jury of Kansans in April, is that what you are referring to, or do you have a link?

Here's a link (PDF) date 03/27/2009, from the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA).

339 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:43:30pm

re: #335 Hengineer

Only if the government continues to pay out for emergency healthcare.

Wait till Obamacare, you'll start seeing lots and lots of nanny-state measures.

I thought you were supporting the idea of intervening in the abortion process. But now you're talking about "nanny-state" measures? I'm confused. Gotta take one side or the other, I would think.

340 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:43:58pm

re: #337 ShanghaiEd

No child support is the moral thing to do if you and an ex agree to have a child and thing s don't work out.

It is against a man's rights to force him to pay c/s for a child he never agreed to have. Feminists want their cake and to eat it too. Chivalrous politicians bank rolled it for votes.

341 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:44:03pm

re: #332 BLBfootballs

I think there's plenty of data indicating that in the right circumstances terrorism is a winning strategy. It's been successful for the Palestinians, it was successful for the Tamil Tigers (until the Sri Lankan government learned to tie its shoes), it's worked well for Hezbollah and Iran and probably al Qaeda too. Obviously all of these take place in different contexts and settings. But yes, from the perpetrator's perspective it can work.

In most respects it's still too early to know whether the murder of Tiller will "work" as intended by Roeder or not. Will there be a social backlash against anti-abortion rights activists? Greater sympathy for rational anti-abortion activists? A social backlash against late-term abortion? Who knows.

Great post, I agree with everything except including the Palestinians in examples of terrorism working. I think it backfired on them.

342 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:44:06pm

re: #283 Osama Bin Asshat

Sal, if they valued themselves they'd get pregnant when they were capable of raising the child..or wanted a child. We have created a culture that venerates single motherhood, and denegrates a fathers role in parenting.

Contraception sometimes fails. I do not think that a couple that has taken reasonable precautions against pregnancy should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term should their reasonable precautions fail. Neither do I believe that a couple that cannot afford another child should have to resort to celibacy because they fear contraceptive failure.

343 kansas  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:44:27pm

re: #338 Ward Cleaver

Here's a link (PDF) date 03/27/2009, from the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA).

Here's the whole petition. [Link: www.ksbha.org...]

344 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:46:26pm

re: #342 Salamantis

Agree...then give the man a legal option to opt out if he DOESN'T want the child and she does. That way she has CHOICE and so does he. EQUALITY!

345 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:47:23pm

re: #344 Osama Bin Asshat


Of course you won't agree with this out of chivalry or radical feminist social engineering.

346 odorlesspaintthinner  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:47:51pm

re: #26 Perplexed

Sanger's writings formed the foundations of planned parenthood. You might want to read what she wrote about abortion and planned parenthood.

Oh, and both my first wife and second wife had abortions due to rape. So before you castigate me as being totally anti-abortion, I've seen what abortion does to women after the fact.

I'm interested to know what you mean "what abortion does to women after the fact." That's what I think does a lot of harm and is ignored, is the psychological effect on the mother.

347 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:48:57pm

re: #340 Osama Bin Asshat

No child support is the moral thing to do if you and an ex agree to have a child and thing s don't work out.

It is against a man's rights to force him to pay c/s for a child he never agreed to have. Feminists want their cake and to eat it too. Chivalrous politicians bank rolled it for votes.

A child needs food and shelter. In our society those are the responsibility, jointly, of his parents. The child doesn't give a sh*t what the parents "agreed to" or whether it "worked out."

What is this "cake" that "feminists" are wanting, and what does it have to do with the fact I just mentioned?

348 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:49:27pm

re: #345 Osama Bin Asshat

Of course you won't agree with this out of chivalry or radical feminist social engineering.

SMACK!

349 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:50:06pm

re: #338 Ward Cleaver

Here's a link (PDF) date 03/27/2009, from the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA).

Considering the 11 counts were trumped up charges leftover from Phil Kine's regime that he was found not guilty of, it's doubtful he would have lost his license, but neither of us can know that now that he's been brutally slain by a terrorist.

350 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:50:09pm

re: #248 Salamantis

I agree. There are cheerleaders on this and other threads for Tiller's murder and murderer. There are also cheerleaders for Tiller and his procedures on this thread and others.

There are also people like me that will never attempt to justify the murder of Tiller. His murder cannot be justified by any clear thinking person and his murderer should face additional charges of terrorism and be fast-tracked to the electric chair. However, just because I don't give a rip about Tiller or his clinic closing doesn't make me a fanatic or anti-abortion zealot or a cheerleader for his murder.

There are people holding candle light vigils for Tiller, and people celebrating his murder - but there's also a whole lotta room in between.

I know what Tiller did was legal, but what he chose to practice was immoral in my opinion, and I didn't much care for the guy or his practice. That doesn't mean I wanted to see him murdered - and not because of what it might do to the anti-abortion movement or how it would reflect Christians, but because murder is wrong legally and morally.

351 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:51:55pm

re: #343 kansas

Here's the whole petition. [Link: www.ksbha.org...]

Apparently the board has a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts, so Tiller wasn't out of the woods even after his acquittal.

352 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:52:11pm

re: #343 kansas

Here's the whole petition. [Link: www.ksbha.org...]

Thanks for the link btw

353 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:52:52pm

re: #350 happycamper

That is a sane and responsible position.

354 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:53:03pm

re: #346 odorlesspaintthinner

I'm interested to know what you mean "what abortion does to women after the fact." That's what I think does a lot of harm and is ignored, is the psychological effect on the mother.

I've seen thousands of articles about the psychological effect of abortion on the mother. It's a huge factor in the equation. Who do you think is "ignoring" this?

355 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:54:29pm

re: #347 ShanghaiEd


I am not talking about post-birth. I agree with you on your point.

My point is, as soon as a women finds out she is pregnant she and the "biological father" need to discuss what will happen. Because she can terminate 50% of his contribution, he should have a say in whether he chooses fatherhood...legally. He owes her nothing, nor does she owe him.

Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood...feminists validate this fact by robbing men of their reproductive rights.

356 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:55:18pm

re: #348 Dark_Falcon

...DOWN!

357 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:55:56pm

re: #320 Osama Bin Asshat

...and is why the argument will continue ad nauseum...because they beleive it is not just about the women. There is a growing human, and a father.

The father can do his business in a few ecstatic minutes, and impregnate hundreds of woman in the nine months it requires a woman to become a mother of one. And then, after the pain of childbirth - a pain that the father never experiences - she nourishes the infant from her own body.

Not exactly even steven.

358 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:56:28pm

re: #354 ShanghaiEd

I've seen thousands of articles about the psychological effect of abortion on the mother. It's a huge factor in the equation. Who do you think is "ignoring" this?

The women getting abortions certainly aren't ignoring it; this is not a decision women engage in lightly or casually, no matter how prochoice they may be.

359 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:56:31pm

re: #349 Thanos

Considering the 11 counts were trumped up charges leftover from Phil Kine's regime that he was found not guilty of, it's doubtful he would have lost his license, but neither of us can know that now that he's been brutally slain by a terrorist.

But they were still pursuing the case even after the personnel changes at KSBHA. The former executive director had a long-standing friendship with Tiller. It may lead nowhere, but the investigation continues.

360 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:57:55pm

re: #354 ShanghaiEd

I've seen thousands of articles about the psychological effect of abortion on the mother. It's a huge factor in the equation. Who do you think is "ignoring" this?

I read one time about a study in Finland that showed that post-abortive women there had a higher rate of suicide. Of course these woman may have had other problems as well.

361 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:58:40pm

re: #359 Ward Cleaver

But they were still pursuing the case even after the personnel changes at KSBHA. The former executive director had a long-standing friendship with Tiller. It may lead nowhere, but the investigation continues.

We'll find out. There's a lot of people lucky they aren't in jail for leaking those patient records all over too. One's now teaching at Jerry Falwell's university, if he tries to run in Kansas again he's toast, but watch for him to pop up somewhere else in a few years.

362 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:58:54pm

re: #355 Osama Bin Asshat

I am not talking about post-birth. I agree with you on your point.

My point is, as soon as a women finds out she is pregnant she and the "biological father" need to discuss what will happen. Because she can terminate 50% of his contribution, he should have a say in whether he chooses fatherhood...legally. He owes her nothing, nor does she owe him.

Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood...feminists validate this fact by robbing men of their reproductive rights.

Who is robbing men of their reproductive rights?
Maybe we need to see more and better forms of male birth control, and more men willing to use them. Why do we have Viagra, but not a pill that would lower sperm count?

363 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 7:59:46pm

re: #339 ShanghaiEd

I thought you were supporting the idea of intervening in the abortion process. But now you're talking about "nanny-state" measures? I'm confused. Gotta take one side or the other, I would think.

No, I'm on the side of consistency, its not a side at all, but forces both sides to at least be HONEST about what their positions entail.

364 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:00:35pm

re: #357 Salamantis

Your argument is biology, God or whomever designed it that way. That said, if the baby were to die, the emotional trauma on the mother and father would be equal. Although the father doesn't expereince the physical pain, he has an emotional investment...for the life of the child.

365 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:00:54pm

re: #325 Hengineer

As long as Women get complete control over a pregnancy, then Men can have free reign to support or not support that child if he wishes.

I believe that if a couple are not married, that if the man does not want a child, does not want to support a child, and does not want to be a father to a child, he should tell the woman this straight up from the get-go, and get her to sign an agreement that if she does get pregnant, whether through choice or happenstance, and decides to carry the pregnancy to term, that it is solely her responsibility.

But of course marriage is in itself a contract to jointly support and raise any children born within the union.

366 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:02:22pm

re: #360 Ward Cleaver

I read one time about a study in Finland that showed that post-abortive women there had a higher rate of suicide. Of course these woman may have had other problems as well.

Hence why I mentioned counseling.

367 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:03:32pm

re: #350 happycamper

I know what Tiller did was legal, but what he chose to practice was immoral in my opinion, and I didn't much care for the guy or his practice.

The man saved women's lives. Many women's lives. So regardless of the (admitted) merits of the rest of your comment, your characterization of saving women's lives as "immoral" is reprehensible. IMO.

368 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:04:03pm

re: #355 Osama Bin Asshat

I am not talking about post-birth. I agree with you on your point.

My point is, as soon as a women finds out she is pregnant she and the "biological father" need to discuss what will happen. Because she can terminate 50% of his contribution, he should have a say in whether he chooses fatherhood...legally. He owes her nothing, nor does she owe him.

Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood...feminists validate this fact by robbing men of their reproductive rights.

So if a single woman becomes pregnant she needs to discuss this with the biological father. The father then has the option of either a) becoming the father or b) washing his hands of his fatherhood and signing a waiver relinquishing himself of any financial responsibility. He also get to choose whether or not he wants to become the father. If not he signs off on this. Is that what you're saying?

But then you say that consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood. Which means you are absolving the man from any responsibility prior what you stated prior to this. Thus the man can say, "hey we just had sex that doesn't mean I agreed to be the father." Why even bother with step two which you mention above? And feminists are responsible for this behavior? Seems like it's a rather common practice.

369 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:04:23pm

re: #365 Salamantis

I believe that if a couple are not married, that if the man does not want a child, does not want to support a child, and does not want to be a father to a child, he should tell the woman this straight up from the get-go, and get her to sign an agreement that if she does get pregnant, whether through choice or happenstance, and decides to carry the pregnancy to term, that it is solely her responsibility.

But of course marriage is in itself a contract to jointly support and raise any children born within the union.

I completely agree, but even if they attempt to sign a document like that, I bet it wouldn't hold up today in a court of law if the woman later changes her mind.

370 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:04:36pm

re: #362 iceweasel

Great point, I agree.

On reproductive rights:

1. Women can abort his offspring against his will.
2. The state aided and abetted by radical feminism can force him to pay c/s for a child he never agreed to.

Men have no reproductive rights.

A condom is not a reproductive right.

The choice to have or terminate a pregnancy is a right...a man has none.

371 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:05:49pm

re: #355 Osama Bin Asshat

I am not talking about post-birth. I agree with you on your point.

My point is, as soon as a women finds out she is pregnant she and the "biological father" need to discuss what will happen. Because she can terminate 50% of his contribution, he should have a say in whether he chooses fatherhood...legally. He owes her nothing, nor does she owe him.

Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood...feminists validate this fact by robbing men of their reproductive rights.

False equivalence, I think. Biology is not even-handed with the sexes, so trying to impose "fairness" upon it after the fact is impossible. If birth were truly a 50/50 contribution, they could split the fetus equally and go their ways. Can't be done. If a woman "chooses" to become pregnant by having sex, it works both ways.

372 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:07:09pm

re: #365 Salamantis


Great post...then join us...of course this will promote more abortions.

373 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:07:18pm

re: #346 odorlesspaintthinner

I'm interested to know what you mean "what abortion does to women after the fact." That's what I think does a lot of harm and is ignored, is the psychological effect on the mother.

Having her arm twisted into bearing a child and giving it up for adoption still haunts my ex-wife more than 30 years later. She still curses the bastard who coerced her into having it, and has nightmares about meeting it.

374 Christene  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:07:34pm

re: #329 Salamantis

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor who is the author of the antiabortion film Silent Scream, is one of the two propaganda jewels in the antiabortion crown, the other one being Norma McCorvey, the original Jane Roe. Neither of them have to fear for their lives any more, and both of them are well and continually compensated for their services to the cause.

Compensated for facts? I guess that's better on the soul then compensation for killing Innocent babies. The Dr stepped up to the plate w/facts. As of date many of the pro-abortion folks seem a little low on actual facts, as w/the coat hanger abortions, as of date U.S department of vital statistics has zip!

375 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:08:59pm

re: #367 Lynn B.

The man saved women's lives. Many women's lives. So regardless of the (admitted) merits of the rest of your comment, your characterization of saving women's lives as "immoral" is reprehensible. IMO.

Show me where every abortion he performed saved the mother's life and I'll rethink my statement.

376 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:09:06pm

re: #370 Osama Bin Asshat

You say:

Women can abort his offspring against his will.

But you've also said:

Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to fatherhood.

How could it be against his will if you're claiming that it is not a consent to fatherhood in the first place?

377 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:09:24pm

re: #363 Hengineer

No, I'm on the side of consistency, its not a side at all, but forces both sides to at least be HONEST about what their positions entail.

OK. Consistency. So if you support mandatory counseling for women seeking abortions, you're also in support of mandatory food, beverage, and exercise guidelines to prevent people from having those costly heart attacks we have to pay for? Honesty, I've got no problem with.

378 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:09:38pm

re: #370 Osama Bin Asshat

Great point, I agree.

On reproductive rights:

1. Women can abort his offspring against his will.
2. The state aided and abetted by radical feminism can force him to pay c/s for a child he never agreed to.

Men have no reproductive rights.

A condom is not a reproductive right.

The choice to have or terminate a pregnancy is a right...a man has none.

But at the same time you can agree that the whole reason for Child Support is that too many men kept skipping out leaving the mother to (more often than not) be a burden on society. Especially in the 60's up through to today when we started to have an entire section of our population entirely dependent on welfare.

I agree with you but there ARE limits.

379 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:10:00pm

re: #369 Hengineer

It's against the LAW, it wouldn't hold up...radical feminsits would fight it tooth and nail...princess can have sex and abort or cash in...the state will support the fembots so the state doesn't have to support the single moms...and they'll get the votes...politics 101.

380 kansas  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:11:00pm
Apparently the board has a lower standard of proof than the criminal courts, so Tiller wasn't out of the woods even after his acquittal.

No, I think it was likely there were violations of the healing arts act. I've noted some comments about the criminal case being trumped up, but I don't think it was. Nonetheless, the jury acquitted.

381 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:11:54pm

re: #375 happycamper

Show me where every abortion he performed saved the mother's life and I'll rethink my statement.

Allow me to clarify. IF he saved a woman's LIFE through the procedure, then that IS moral in my opinion.

382 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:12:01pm

re: #377 ShanghaiEd

OK. Consistency. So if you support mandatory counseling for women seeking abortions, you're also in support of mandatory food, beverage, and exercise guidelines to prevent people from having those costly heart attacks we have to pay for? Honesty, I've got no problem with.

If we still have to pay for them through our freakin tax dollars, then YES I actually am in support of it.

TOO MANY PEOPLE THINK SHIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.

Whatever happened to the attitude "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

383 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:13:09pm

re: #371 ShanghaiEd

It's simple, by law it would be her obligation to tell him of the pregnancy. At that time he can "abort" his financial responsibility and demand he not be named on the birth certificate (legal writ at a law office)...if she CHOOSES to have the baby.

384 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:14:05pm

re: #342 Salamantis

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're for abortions for convenience sake? ie: broken condom?

385 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:15:03pm

re: #379 Osama Bin Asshat

It's against the LAW, it wouldn't hold up...radical feminsits would fight it tooth and nail...princess can have sex and abort or cash in...the state will support the fembots so the state doesn't have to support the single moms...and they'll get the votes...politics 101.

Osama, it's been my experience that anyone who mentions the term "radical feminist" and "princess" as often as you have, here, has been very badly treated by women in his life. I regret that this is so, and I feel for you, but it does not automatically have a bearing on the factual arguments at hand.

386 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:15:22pm

Whelp, I enjoyed the conversation, but I have to get to bed.

Early callout for UNREPs...

0445, blech...


'night!

387 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:15:38pm

re: #379 Osama Bin Asshat

It's against the LAW, it wouldn't hold up...radical feminsits would fight it tooth and nail...princess can have sex and abort or cash in...the state will support the fembots so the state doesn't have to support the single moms...and they'll get the votes...politics 101.

You say, princess can have sex and abort or cash in. Princess? Abort or cash-in? You make it sound like a walk in the park.

388 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:15:41pm

re: #378 Hengineer


This is another lie promoted by feminists...most dead beats are dead poor...they're unemployed or in low paying vocations. The reality is most men want to see their children, it should be 50-50 where NO child support is exchanged at all...callled shared parenting...another issue feminsits fight to keep the c/s gravy train rolling.

389 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:17:25pm

re: #382 Hengineer

If we still have to pay for them through our freakin tax dollars, then YES I actually am in support of it.

TOO MANY PEOPLE THINK SHIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.

Whatever happened to the attitude "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

Fair enough. Now I understand where you're coming from. Thank you.

390 BryanS  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:17:58pm

re: #373 Salamantis

Having her arm twisted into bearing a child and giving it up for adoption still haunts my ex-wife more than 30 years later. She still curses the bastard who coerced her into having it, and has nightmares about meeting it.

I'll tell you that unlike what happens on made for TV specials, I don't really want to meet the person who gave birth to me a bit over 30 years ago. My point of view on the issue is likely colored by my personal experience, but I'm rather ok with the idea some convincing happened to make my life possible.

Agreed on above posts regarding male contraceptive. It is a fact, however, that less priority has been placed on "men's health" issues than "women's health" issues by federal research programs. Better male contraception would certainly level the fairness issue and make abortions much less necessary in the first place.

391 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:18:06pm

re: #372 Osama Bin Asshat

Great post...then join us...of course this will promote more abortions.

I have no interest in joining a mens' rights movement. As a clinic escort, I have seen what men have done to women trying to enter abortion clinics, and to their doctors, and to clinic staff, and to anyone else who tried to help them - including me.

I'm also 3/4 caucasian (1/4 native american) and straight, yet feel no need to join either a white rights movement or a heterosexual rights movement.

392 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:18:29pm

re: #385 ShanghaiEd


I fight for men in court. I see the same shaming language you just used on me in court everyday...you must do better.

393 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:19:27pm

re: #379 Osama Bin Asshat

It's against the LAW, it wouldn't hold up...radical feminsits would fight it tooth and nail...princess can have sex and abort or cash in...the state will support the fembots so the state doesn't have to support the single moms...and they'll get the votes...politics 101.

OBAss ... "Princess"? ... I am thinking you should have not worries about getting a woman pregnant ... what woman would want to actually have sex with you ... of course ... I am assuming you are a male ... if you are female ... you really really suck ...

394 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:19:29pm

re: #365 Salamantis

I believe that if a couple are not married, that if the man does not want a child, does not want to support a child, and does not want to be a father to a child, he should tell the woman this straight up from the get-go, and get her to sign an agreement that if she does get pregnant, whether through choice or happenstance, and decides to carry the pregnancy to term, that it is solely her responsibility.

But of course marriage is in itself a contract to jointly support and raise any children born within the union.

Sal, in an ideal world that might be how it would work. But this is exactly where I have a problem with your bright line on rape. I totally agree with the arguments you make, as far as they go, but translate it to this scenario:

Jane meets Bob. They date for 2 days or 2 weeks. He tells her he has fallen madly in love with her and can't live another moment without ... the next day, the next week, he disappears. She discovers she's pregnant. It turns out (a) he's pulled the same act on several dozen other women and/or (b) he has a wife and a few kids he has no intention of leaving, he just gets itchy sometimes. No, it's not rape. OTOH, she feels violated and (believe it or not) just as much so as if she had been raped because while physical violence wasn't a factor, psychological and emotional violence was.

But the rape exception doesn't apply, because at the time, she "consented." (Legally, consent due to fraud is invalid but somehow that never seems to apply to the seduction of women.)

395 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:19:56pm

re: #387 Gus 802


If he's poor, she aborts or the state supports her.

If he's rich, she has the child and an 18 year annuity based on his gross income. (Against his will)

396 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:20:08pm

re: #383 Osama Bin Asshat

It's simple, by law it would be her obligation to tell him of the pregnancy. At that time he can "abort" his financial responsibility and demand he not be named on the birth certificate (legal writ at a law office)...if she CHOOSES to have the baby.

I have to agree with Salamantis, here. The time for this whole discussion/agreement is before conception takes place. Seems very fair to me.

397 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:20:15pm

re: #373 Salamantis

Having her arm twisted into bearing a child and giving it up for adoption still haunts my ex-wife more than 30 years later. She still curses the bastard who coerced her into having it, and has nightmares about meeting it.

Many people fail to realise that being forced to bring a child to term that you do not want, even if you give it up for adoption, is a horrific act.

Abortion isn't solely about one's right to not be a mother; it is about one's right to become a mother only when and how one chooses.

398 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:20:26pm

re: #375 happycamper

Show me where every abortion he performed saved the mother's life and I'll rethink my statement.

Dr. Tiller's abortions were either to save a woman's life, or to preserve her physical health against a serious and severe hazard, or to remove an already dead fetus, or to remove a fetus that was so horrifically damaged or deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

399 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:21:34pm

re: #362 iceweasel

Truthfully, serendipity. Viagra was intended to treat heart disease.

400 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:21:51pm

re: #388 Osama Bin Asshat

This is another lie promoted by feminists...most dead beats are dead poor...they're unemployed or in low paying vocations. The reality is most men want to see their children, it should be 50-50 where NO child support is exchanged at all...callled shared parenting...another issue feminsits fight to keep the c/s gravy train rolling.

One last comment, It isn't a lie, it DID happen quite a bit, most notoriously amongst a certain section of a population (it sounds bad but thats the statistics I remember). You are really brainwashed, society may be a bit misandry-leaning, but it DEFINITELY isn't that one-sided.

401 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:22:06pm

re: #393 JacksonTn

Embarrassing hyperbole.

402 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:23:01pm

re: #396 ShanghaiEd

You're denying human urges, and the ubiquitous mistake.

403 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:23:04pm

re: #379 Osama Bin Asshat

It's against the LAW, it wouldn't hold up...radical feminsits would fight it tooth and nail...princess can have sex and abort or cash in...the state will support the fembots so the state doesn't have to support the single moms...and they'll get the votes...politics 101.

Whose just waiting for Osama to drop the F Bomb?

/Feminazi

404 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:23:43pm

re: #381 happycamper

Allow me to clarify. IF he saved a woman's LIFE through the procedure, then that IS moral in my opinion.

Thank you. Now perhaps we can move on to some of the scenarios Salamantis has laid out in previous threads, e.g.,

women suffering heart conditions or cancer or severe and permanent breathing problems due to emphysema or to those suffering from pregnancy induced diabetes, who carried viable fetuses but who would have died without the abortion. Nor would you shed a tear for the women who would have been doomed to blindness, or brain damage, or paralysis, or comprehensive renal failure condemning them to a short life filled with the necessity of undergoing regualr kidney dialysis. And I'm sure your eyes would be quite dry for the women who would have been forced to give birth to a monstrously deformed infant, only to watch it inevitably die days or hours later.

405 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:24:14pm

re: #395 Osama Bin Asshat

If he's poor, she aborts or the state supports her.

If he's rich, she has the child and an 18 year annuity based on his gross income. (Against his will)

I did some quick research and according to my data 18% of single mothers receive child support. That leaves 82% of single mothers raising their child regardless of whether they receive state support.

406 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:24:15pm

re: #400 Hengineer

I am a realist, because I see it everyday.

407 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:24:29pm

re: #384 happycamper

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're for abortions for convenience sake? ie: broken condom?

Only in the 1st trimester.

408 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:25:08pm

re: #403 Salamantis

I prefer fembot...like a female robot.

409 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:25:38pm

re: #392 Osama Bin Asshat

I fight for men in court. I see the same shaming language you just used on me in court everyday...you must do better.

Well, I certainly didn't assume you fight for women in court. :)

No shame in being mistreated by women...the only shame is in letting it distort your view of reality to such an extent. But I'll certainly defer to others you know who might have phrased it better than I did.

410 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:26:23pm

re: #398 Salamantis

But according to your own post #342, it's also ok if an abortionist does the procedure because of a broken condom. That's called a "convenience" abortion. So, why always bring up women's health, life, or whatever. It wouldn't matter to you either way.

411 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:26:33pm

re: #403 Salamantis

Whose just waiting for Osama to drop the F Bomb?

/Feminazi

Too late. You missed his "Fembot" earlier. He's got the whole tool kit.

412 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:27:44pm

re: #399 Dan G.

Truthfully, serendipity. Viagra was intended to treat heart disease.

It still remains true that while Viagra is covered by tons of insurance plans--the birth control pill is not. And I've never heard of any pharmacist invoking a conscience clause and refusing to dispense Viagra.

We ought to have more and better forms of birth control available to men. One way for men to avoid being confronted with supporting a child they don't want would be for them to be sharing at least equal responsibility for the prevention of pregnancies. As it is now, every form of (medical) birth control involves the woman. Apart from condoms, abstinence, withdrawal, or a vasectomy, what can men do? -- we need male birth control.

413 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:28:11pm

re: #409 ShanghaiEd

i fight for equality, and therefore women too. I do not believe men are superior to women, I also do not believe in chivalry.

414 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:28:53pm

re: #413 Osama Bin Asshat

i fight for equality, and therefore women too. I do not believe men are superior to women, I also do not believe in chivalry.

re: #219 Osama Bin Asshat

In our slut culture no women will die. They are actually venerated.

415 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:29:28pm

re: #411 ShanghaiEd


Stick to my argument, though you can't win, because I am promoting equality.

416 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:29:53pm

re: #414 Gus 802

Well, i think it's fair to say he was telling the truth when he said he didn't believe in chivalry...

417 Hengineer  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:30:14pm

re: #405 Gus 802

I did some quick research and according to my data 18% of single mothers receive child support. That leaves 82% of single mothers raising their child regardless of whether they receive state support.

Another last comment (sorry)

Many of those single mothers either can afford it, or the other case, they "don't want that bastards' money".

418 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:30:37pm

re: #414 Gus 802


Paris Hilton

419 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:31:14pm

re: #404 Lynn B.


Like the scenario where a couple's birth control fails? (see #342).

420 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:32:26pm

re: #417 Hengineer

Another last comment (sorry)

Many of those single mothers either can afford it, or the other case, they "don't want that bastards' money".

True. My sister was a single mother. Got some state support but let me tell you it wasn't much. She almost had an abortion but decided against it.

421 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:32:40pm

re: #416 iceweasel

Well, i think it's fair to say he was telling the truth when he said he didn't believe in chivalry...

No sh*t! :)

422 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:33:31pm

re: #402 Osama Bin Asshat

You're denying human urges, and the ubiquitous mistake.

Men who don't wanna deal with pregnant women should put a sock on it...and squirt some spermicide in, too. Or even persuade the women to get pill prescriptions that the men pay for, and wait a month.

If they can't bear a thin sheath of latex because it doesn't feeel as good, tough turds.

423 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:34:26pm

re: #408 Osama Bin Asshat

I prefer fembot...like a female robot.

Implying that women are soulless?

How disgusting of you.

424 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:34:36pm

re: #416 iceweasel

Well, i think it's fair to say he was telling the truth when he said he didn't believe in chivalry...

I'm kind of confused as to what he believes in. Chivalry is a good thing in many respects.

425 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:35:28pm

re: #412 iceweasel

As it is now, every form of (medical) birth control involves the woman. Apart from condoms, abstinence, withdrawal, or a vasectomy, what can men do? -- we need male birth control.

Wear a Keith Olberman mask.

426 poteen  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:36:55pm

re: #425 Mich-again

Wear a Keith Olberman mask.

Now that there's funny.

427 Dan G.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:37:11pm

re: #412 iceweasel

I agree.

428 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:38:20pm

re: #425 Mich-again

Wear a Keith Olberman mask.

heh...or BE keith olbermann, if some of what I've read is true.

429 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:38:58pm

re: #415 Osama Bin Asshat

Stick to my argument, though you can't win, because I am promoting equality.

So, in your #392 when you said, "I fight for men," we should just erase that? Freudian slip?

And exactly what legal status do "human urges" and "ubiquitous mistakes" have? The couple of times I've been in court, the answer was "zip."

430 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:39:04pm

re: #422 Salamantis

Totally agree...but she has even more BC options. Tough turds? So she gets to sport fuck and he gets to pay for it, if by chance she gets pregnant? Or maybe he wants it...nevermind, it doesn't matter what he wants...it is all about HER...right. Selfish radical femlogic.

431 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:39:44pm

re: #429 ShanghaiEd

He did say 'fight' and not 'win.'

432 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:40:42pm

re: #419 happycamper

Like the scenario where a couple's birth control fails? (see #342).

Uh ... no. Not like that at all.

Let's try again.

women suffering heart conditions or cancer or severe and permanent breathing problems due to emphysema or to those suffering from pregnancy induced diabetes, who carried viable fetuses but who would have died without the abortion... women who would have been doomed to blindness, or brain damage, or paralysis, or comprehensive renal failure condemning them to a short life filled with the necessity of undergoing regualr kidney dialysis... women who would have been forced to give birth to a monstrously deformed infant, only to watch it inevitably die days or hours later

How dare you equate these situations to "a couple's birth control fails?"

And Sal has always and consistently made it clear that IHO in the latter case justifies abortion in the first trimester only.

Ghoul.

433 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:41:17pm

re: #423 Salamantis


No they regurgitate the same boilerplate ad nauseum...like a robot kinda...that's all...but ya, there are plenty of radical feminists that are soulless. Kinda like an aborted fetus!

434 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:41:28pm

re: #410 happycamper

But according to your own post #342, it's also ok if an abortionist does the procedure because of a broken condom. That's called a "convenience" abortion. So, why always bring up women's health, life, or whatever. It wouldn't matter to you either way.

Ist trimester abortions and 3rd trimester abortions are different. For one thing, there's the question of fetal viability. The people that have attacked Dr. Tiller have done so on the basis that he performed 3rd trimester abortions, with very good reason.

I will not allow you to confuse and conflate the two. A 3rd trimester fetus is nothing like a 1st trimester zygote or embryo. There has been a lot of development in between. That's why there are restrictions on late term abortions that are not found regarding firsttrimester abortions.

435 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:41:36pm
436 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:42:13pm

re: #418 Osama Bin Asshat

Paris Hilton

Claiming that Paris Hilton is representative of anything or anyone except herself--let alone somehow a role model to or representative of all women-- is ridiculous.

437 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:42:21pm

re: #430 Osama Bin Asshat

You only need one workable option.

438 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:43:37pm

re: #429 ShanghaiEd


Exactly my point, and why men should not be forced agaisnt their will into fatherhood upon discovering a pregnancy. It's his right in a free country, just like it's her right to abort her mistake...right?

439 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:44:05pm

re: #434 Salamantis

The people that have attacked Dr. Tiller have done so on the basis that he performed 3rd trimester abortions, with very good reason.

Its not altogether clear from that who had the very good reason.

440 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:44:19pm

re: #430 Osama Bin Asshat

Totally agree...but she has even more BC options. Tough turds? So she gets to sport fuck and he gets to pay for it, if by chance she gets pregnant? Or maybe he wants it...nevermind, it doesn't matter what he wants...it is all about HER...right. Selfish radical femlogic.

Sweeping generalization. 18% of single mother receive child support. That means only a percentage of that 18% fit your mythical scenario.

441 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:44:32pm

re: #418 Osama Bin Asshat

Paris Hilton

Why are promiscuous women denigrated as sluts but promiscuous men are admired as playas?

/not by me

442 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:44:33pm

re: #431 jaunte


great point...men lose their children all the time in court...your point?

443 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:45:36pm

re: #442 Osama Bin Asshat

If you are using the same arguments in court that you use here, you're doing your clients a disservice.

444 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:46:18pm

re: #438 Osama Bin Asshat

Exactly my point, and why men should not be forced agaisnt their will into fatherhood upon discovering a pregnancy. It's his right in a free country, just like it's her right to abort her mistake...right?

Nope. Totally wrong. Men don't discover a pregnancy. They cause them. Your logic is hopeless. It might make sense to a bunch of drunks at a party but don't try it in Court. just sayin.

445 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:46:47pm

re: #440 Gus 802


1. Women receive child support.
2. Women receive state support.

Your numbers are laughable...I have an arsenal of numbers I know you'd never read...and I am too lazy to copy and paste.

446 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:47:15pm

re: #419 happycamper

Like the scenario where a couple's birth control fails? (see #342).

The women who sought out Dr. Tiller's services on the advice of their physicians in most cases wanted the child, and are devastated that they are compelled to resort to an abortion. If they had wanted to abort it, they would have done so much earlier, when it would be much less expensive and much easier on them.

447 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:47:47pm

re: #445 Osama Bin Asshat

and I am too lazy to copy and paste.

No wonder you think condoms are an undue burden.

448 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:48:13pm

re: #438 Osama Bin Asshat

Exactly my point, and why men should not be forced agaisnt their will into fatherhood upon discovering a pregnancy. It's his right in a free country, just like it's her right to abort her mistake...right?

You misunderstood. When I say it mattered "zip" in court, I meant that my (1) human urges and (2) ubiquitous mistakes were cut no slack at all by the judge. I lived by his rulings, and I paid the costs for my behavior. As should we all.

449 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:48:20pm

re: #443 jaunte


I don't make that argument in court because men have been legally robbed of their reproductive rights, and have no recourse. I already have stated this.

450 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:48:32pm

re: #315 Osama Bin Asshat

You're a naive dude...I'll see you in court, I charge $400 an hour.

Osama Bin Misogynist. Piece of advise. Lower your rates. You charge way to much for your services.

451 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:49:57pm

re: #449 Osama Bin Asshat

I don't make that argument in court because men have been legally robbed of their reproductive rights, and have no recourse

In that case you accept a fee for no reason.

452 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:50:22pm

re: #430 Osama Bin Asshat

Totally agree...but she has even more BC options. Tough turds? So she gets to sport fuck and he gets to pay for it, if by chance she gets pregnant? Or maybe he wants it...nevermind, it doesn't matter what he wants...it is all about HER...right. Selfish radical femlogic.

Most 'sport fucking' in marriages is indulged in by the men. But I would like to see a male birth control pill.

453 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:50:39pm

Woops, advice that is.

454 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:51:15pm

re: #441 Salamantis


Tell men why women like thugs and bad boys and we can both answer your question.

I have represented plenty of men who have lost 60% of their wealth, their children, their homes to an ex wife that banged her personal trainer, gardner, neighbor...and then deny a great father access to his kids?

455 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:51:24pm

re: #430 Osama Bin Asshat

Totally agree...but she has even more BC options. Tough turds? So she gets to sport fuck and he gets to pay for it, if by chance she gets pregnant? Or maybe he wants it...nevermind, it doesn't matter what he wants...it is all about HER...right. Selfish radical femlogic.

What is this "sport fuck" of which you speak?

Would that be the ability to have sex and not worry about becoming pregnant?

In other words, the ability to have sex the way that every man can -- because biology has decreed that only one sex can get pregnant?

Is your real issue here that women can have control over their bodies and their reproductive destinies? Because I have to say that's what it's looking like.

456 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:52:17pm

re: #450 Gus 802

Business was slow 15 years ago...now very busy. Lining up.

457 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:52:34pm

re: #449 Osama Bin Asshat


men have been legally robbed of their reproductive rights

Lorena Bobbit style?

458 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:52:37pm

re: #439 Mich-again

Its not altogether clear from that who had the very good reason.

Dr. Tiller did.

459 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:53:26pm

re: #455 iceweasel

YES! Have your freedom to choose, let him too!

460 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:54:53pm

re: #459 Osama Bin Asshat

Choose what? Didn't he already choose?

461 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:55:10pm

re: #454 Osama Bin Asshat

Tell men why women like thugs and bad boys and we can both answer your question.

I have represented plenty of men who have lost 60% of their wealth, their children, their homes to an ex wife that banged her personal trainer, gardner, neighbor...and then deny a great father access to his kids?

Ah, so now it's the "women like thugs and bad boys" cliche.

What is this high school?

462 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:55:12pm

re: #452 Salamantis


I am not talking about marriage...marriage would counter a slut culture...marriage is on the decline, with divorce and train wreck marriages the status quo.

Women would not trust men to take a male pill...but I agree.

463 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:55:49pm

re: #456 Osama Bin Asshat

My mom taught me to at least try ending any unpleasant situation on a positive note. I must say that your choice of nickname is spot-on. :)

464 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:56:27pm

re: #454 Osama Bin Asshat

Tell men why women like thugs and bad boys and we can both answer your question.

I have represented plenty of men who have lost 60% of their wealth, their children, their homes to an ex wife that banged her personal trainer, gardner, neighbor...and then deny a great father access to his kids?

And how many men have you represented who lost all of those things because they banged their secretaries, or some other woman?

465 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:56:44pm

re: #460 Mich-again


He and she chose to have sex...YES!...not get pregnant. That was a mistake remember and why she is free to abort...as should he...financially, socially, physically if he so wishes.

466 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:58:00pm

re: #462 Osama Bin Asshat


Women would not trust men to take a male pill...

I have no sympathy for men who won't use a condom and then bitch about child support. None.

467 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 8:59:28pm

re: #463 ShanghaiEd

I was respecting your stance on abortion, you have excellent arguments, but you're frustrated with my argument, and name call. Don't do it...think about what I have written..it will get cearer once the social engineering in gleaned from your veins.

468 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:01:00pm

re: #466 iceweasel

Suppose the condom breaks and she isn't practicing BC? Does he deserve to be extorted for c/s?

469 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:02:16pm
470 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:02:46pm

re: #464 Salamantis

Plenty...and they win almost never! I simply try to stop the bleeding...my main goal is to ensure they get equal custody of the children (if any)...which in many cases eliminates c/s.

471 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:04:22pm

re: #469 Iron Fist

As something of an aside, I was in conversation with someone the other day, and it struck me as interesting that nearly all of the dancers (i.e. strippers) I've ever known have had children. In a couple of instances the woman happened to be married, but for the most part we are talking about un-wed single moms. Sure, in someways that comes with the territory. Who expects a dancer to be virginal, after all?

But what struck me as interesting was that most of these women have chosen to bear the child rather than abort it. That isn't a money issue. Any decent dancer can make a lot more money keeping on dancing than she can taking the time off for maternity leave (figure at least three months before the child is born to at least a couple of weeks getting back into shape before going back to work).

The economic calculus is simple. Yet all of these women have children. It would make an interesting psychological study.

IF ... did you ask them if they had abortions? before or after they had children ... just because women have a child does not mean they did not or will not have abortions in the future ... I am not following what you are writing on this issue ...

472 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:06:22pm

re: #467 Osama Bin Asshat

I was respecting your stance on abortion, you have excellent arguments, but you're frustrated with my argument, and name call. Don't do it...think about what I have written..it will get cearer once the social engineering in gleaned from your veins.

Yeeeah. Riiight. Shuuure.

And alla those doctors and nurses and guards have it all wrong, and are massively and tragically mistaken; but all the other asylum inmates agree that you're Jesus...and they're willing to follow you...

If you can just manage to tie the staff down, gag them, and simply TALK to them for a few days, keep EXPLAINING things until they COMPREHEND them, then these benighted people will surely become enlightened, and see the errors in their understanding, and the immaculate pristineness of yours...they'll be SURE to agree with you before you set them free...

473 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:06:50pm

re: #454 Osama Bin Asshat

Asshat ... (well, if the foo shits...)

I seriously doubt that you're an attorney. If you are, I hope your state disciplinary board gets wind of your ... approach.

You sound a lot more like a deadbeat dad who's been slapped on the wrist or a guy who got the short end of the stick in a messy divorce who's now gotten all macho and whiny about it.

Whatever. It's now after midnight here and I have to go resume my womanly duty of trying to ruin my husband's life and steal all his money.

//

Later.

474 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:08:33pm

re: #469 Iron Fist

As something of an aside, I was in conversation with someone the other day, and it struck me as interesting that nearly all of the dancers (i.e. strippers) I've ever known have had children. In a couple of instances the woman happened to be married, but for the most part we are talking about un-wed single moms. Sure, in someways that comes with the territory. Who expects a dancer to be virginal, after all?

But what struck me as interesting was that most of these women have chosen to bear the child rather than abort it. That isn't a money issue. Any decent dancer can make a lot more money keeping on dancing than she can taking the time off for maternity leave (figure at least three months before the child is born to at least a couple of weeks getting back into shape before going back to work).

The economic calculus is simple. Yet all of these women have children. It would make an interesting psychological study.

In many instances, the kid came first, and the stripper job came later, as a way that a pretty girl with no marketable skills could support herself and a child without resorting to prostitution.

475 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:09:39pm

re: #468 Osama Bin Asshat

Suppose the condom breaks and she isn't practicing BC? Does he deserve to be extorted for c/s?

if he's stupid enough not to have discussed it all with her beforehand, and stupid enough not to have insisted that she be performing some other form of birth control as well, and stupid enough to have gone on and had sex with her after having those discussions-- then he's not being 'extorted'. He's sharing the financial responsibility for a child who he helped bring into being. It's not the child's fault.

476 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:11:03pm

re: #473 Lynn B.

More shaming language...brilliant.

I hope your state disciplinary board gets wind of your... ?

Who are you, the thought police? Are you going to try and stifle debate because I am right or you're devoid of thought. Confusing post their kid.

477 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:12:00pm

re: #474 Salamantis

In many instances, the kid came first, and the stripper job came later, as a way that a pretty girl with no marketable skills could support herself and a child without resorting to prostitution.

This is the case in my experience.

Bear in mind also that many of these women had their education interrupted by the pregnancy also, so after having the child stripping was one of the best and most lucrative ways she could support them both.

478 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:12:53pm

It's not the child's fault.


Exactly...I rest my case! Thanks for the debate...most of you. :-)

479 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:13:59pm

re: #475 iceweasel

I am discussing prior to birth...not post birth.

480 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:14:05pm

re: #467 Osama Bin Asshat

If your choice of nickname was intended to be ironical rather than descriptive, I apologize. As to your hopes for me, unfortunately the joy of fatherhood and the misery of two divorces have long ago gleaned any social engineering from my veins.

481 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:16:41pm

re: #468 Osama Bin Asshat

Suppose the condom breaks and she isn't practicing BC? Does he deserve to be extorted for c/s?

That's a 50/50 proposition. One could say the mother would be entitled to at least 50% of the standard child support. However, what is the value of compensation for each person? Who shares the larger burden? You keep bringing up "rich guys." Does the "rich guy" bare a larger or lesser personal burden from paying child support than the single mother? As an attorney should you then place the burden on the condom manufacturer? What if it broke due to negligence by the user?

482 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:16:42pm

re: #480 ShanghaiEd

That was meant for Salamantis..sorry. She has strong arguments for abortion, but my Roe vs. Wade for MEN has really confused the women here.

Want.Cake.Eat.Too

483 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:17:53pm
484 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:18:23pm

re: #482 Osama Bin Asshat

That was meant for Salamantis..sorry. She has strong arguments for abortion, but my Roe vs. Wade for MEN has really confused the women here.

Want.Cake.Eat.Too

"She" is a HE.

I still would like to know what this business about having the cake and eating it too is about.

485 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:18:27pm

re: #482 Osama Bin Asshat

That was meant for Salamantis..sorry. She has strong arguments for abortion, but my Roe vs. Wade for MEN has really confused the women here.

Want.Cake.Eat.Too

I'm male, as I remarked before. And you're biased to the point of myopia.

486 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:18:43pm

re: #482 Osama Bin Asshat

That was meant for Salamantis..sorry. She has strong arguments for abortion, but my Roe vs. Wade for MEN has really confused the women here.

Want.Cake.Eat.Too

She has strong arguments for abortion?

And you charge how much per hour?

487 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:21:03pm

re: #481 Gus 802


I know what you're trying to say here. But it is irrelevent because a mistake is a mistake and women can abort, as should men...financically if they choose...equality.


It's incredible how great the onus woman are putting on the MAN to prevent the pregnancy (condoms, male bc pill, etc)...then out of the other side of your mouth you say a man has NO say in the birth or wheather he chooses fatherhood... which is it?

488 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:22:17pm

re: #483 Iron Fist

The Chinese government is pro-abortion, as they mandate it after the birth of the first child.

Pro-choice people support whatever choice the woman makes, and her right to make it, and her ability to make it for herself, whether that choice is to terminate a pregnancy, or carry it to term.

489 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:22:40pm

re: #483 Iron Fist

I think it would make an interesting study in psychology. At some point, the majority of dancers choose life, even when we live in a society condones abortion to the degree that we do.

I suspect some of the cause and effect reasoning here may be off, in that like Salamantis I think in at least some of these cases, if not most, the child came first. I also have only anecdotal evidence to go on, however, based on the strippers I have known.

It'd be interesting to see a study done in any case.

490 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:23:27pm

re: #484 iceweasel

Women want it both ways. The freedom to terminate OR the freedom to have the child...but the man has to pay. That's bullshit and a violation of his freedom of choice.

491 Scion9  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:23:44pm

re: #441 Salamantis

You are in the wrong generation if you think this is close to truth. The difference in social stigma between "sluts" and "playas" are nearly indistinguishable for anyone between 19-30 in urban America (except where it is praised instead of stigmatized). "Slut" or "whore" aren't necessarily even a derogatory terms.

The only real group of any size that has a truly dichotomous standard that puts forward chastity as a virtue for women and promiscuity as a virtue for men is among urban blacks and latinos; where machismo is an influence on culture, but even that is fading fast.

Chauvinism is very far from being a man only thing, today. In the pursuit of social gender equality we now have women that exemplify (and are reinforced by praise from their peers) the worst traits of male youth culture instead of holding men to the higher standards that women were in the past. Not particularly surprising really.

I could go on, but there are a lot of serious cultural issues with my generation that need addressing.

492 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:24:11pm
493 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:25:00pm

re: #487 Osama Bin Asshat

I know what you're trying to say here. But it is irrelevent because a mistake is a mistake and women can abort, as should men...financically if they choose...equality.

It's incredible how great the onus woman are putting on the MAN to prevent the pregnancy (condoms, male bc pill, etc)...then out of the other side of your mouth you say a man has NO say in the birth or wheather he chooses fatherhood... which is it?

There is no such thing as a male birth control pill. Not yet.

But when one is developed, its very existence will undermine your whole rationale. As, in a way, the existence of condoms already does, unless they fail.

494 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:25:52pm

re: #484 iceweasel

"She" is a HE.

I still would like to know what this business about having the cake and eating it too is about.

Apparently, that's the popular Feminazi/Fembot Cake. Secret recipe, supposed to be delicious, but guys can't have any. I've tried to buy one, but the women at bake shops won't even admit they exist. Hussies.

495 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:26:03pm

re: #485 Salamantis

Thank you for your service, especially tonight, on this thread!
*salute*

496 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:26:08pm

re: #490 Osama Bin Asshat

Women want it both ways. The freedom to terminate OR the freedom to have the child...but the man has to pay. That's bullshit and a violation of his freedom of choice.

In other words, you think freedom of choice is about a man's choice. Thanks for clearing that up.

497 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:27:28pm

re: #494 ShanghaiEd

Apparently, that's the popular Feminazi/Fembot Cake. Secret recipe, supposed to be delicious, but guys can't have any. I've tried to buy one, but the women at bake shops won't even admit they exist. Hussies.

Ok, I'll let you in on one secret about it-- It's chocolate. And it's delicious. ;)

Don't tell my sisterhood, please!

498 jaunte  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:28:45pm
499 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:29:09pm

re: #493 Salamantis


One of the spin offs of the gender war promulgated by the feminist movements is the pick up artist, as well as men that will never marry. The invention of a male bc pill would only give them more notches on the bed post and even less interest inhaving children...in essence, there would be a male sexual revolution...minus the babies.

500 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:29:27pm

re: #487 Osama Bin Asshat

I know what you're trying to say here. But it is irrelevent because a mistake is a mistake and women can abort, as should men...financically if they choose...equality.

It's incredible how great the onus woman are putting on the MAN to prevent the pregnancy (condoms, male bc pill, etc)...then out of the other side of your mouth you say a man has NO say in the birth or wheather he chooses fatherhood... which is it?

I can speak for no one other than myself. If I got a woman pregnant then I would share the responsibility regardless of how it evolved. If you say that society places the onus on men to prevent pregnancies that is simply not true. Not only that the final burden on pregnancies falls upon women and women alone since single mothers by and large sustain themselves regardless of your claims. There might be an argument regarding the inequalities that men face in court but the reality is that in the end the majority of single mothers raise their children on their own.

501 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:30:15pm

re: #499 Osama Bin Asshat

One of the spin offs of the gender war promulgated by the feminist movements is the pick up artist, as well as men that will never marry. The invention of a male bc pill would only give them more notches on the bed post and even less interest inhaving children...in essence, there would be a male sexual revolution...minus the babies.

So apparently you have as low an opinion of men as you do women; you assume that men aren't interested in marriage and having children.

502 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:30:52pm

re: #496 iceweasel

Are you thick...where does she lose choice? She can abort or have the child...the only difference is he would have choice too. Are you not for equality? I mean REAL equality?

503 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:31:25pm

re: #500 Gus 802

Bravo, sir.

504 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:32:23pm

re: #503 iceweasel

Bravo, sir.

Thanks. =]

505 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:33:34pm

re: #500 Gus 802


Yes that is why they call them single mothers. If a man and a women agree to have said child...he should help pay for the child financially. If she comes to hil 2 months after they've had intercourse and says I am pregnant...he whould have the legal right to say...well do what you want to do...it is your choice, but I will not be taking part financially or emotionally...I don't want to be a father.

506 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:33:35pm

re: #497 iceweasel

Ok, I'll let you in on one secret about it-- It's chocolate. And it's delicious. ;)

Don't tell my sisterhood, please!

Sisterhood. Right. Is that what you young people call your covens, these days?

507 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:34:17pm

re: #503 iceweasel

*salute*
To a valiant warrior!

508 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:34:40pm

re: #501 iceweasel


My opinion is irrelevent, marriage has steadly declined for 40 years.

509 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:34:51pm

re: #504 Gus 802

Good arguments, also!
Thank you!

510 Pianobuff  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:36:28pm

re: #454 Osama Bin Asshat

Tell men why women like thugs and bad boys and we can both answer your question.

You, sir, are a nitwit. A prattling nitwit as well an asshat.

511 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:36:29pm

re: #502 Osama Bin Asshat

Buddy, I don't even think you believe any of what you're saying. I think you're trolling.

Predictable signs:
--"slut culture"
"fembots"
men's rights
child support canards/divorce
"feminists getting their cake and eating it too"
--the use of the term "sportfucking", which I have only ever seen used by misogynists, usually to condemn women for having sex with anyone who isn't them
the trope about "women loving thugs and bad boys"

I think you normally run this troll on blogs like Feministing or Pandagon, and today you're running it here.

512 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:36:44pm

re: #509 Floral Giraffe

Good arguments, also!
Thank you!

You're welcome and thank you.

513 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:37:20pm

re: #505 Osama Bin Asshat

Yes that is why they call them single mothers. If a man and a women agree to have said child...he should help pay for the child financially. If she comes to hil 2 months after they've had intercourse and says I am pregnant...he whould have the legal right to say...well do what you want to do...it is your choice, but I will not be taking part financially or emotionally...I don't want to be a father.

He shouldn't at least offer to help pay for the abortion, if that is her choice? Some "equality" there.
///

514 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:38:30pm

re: #511 iceweasel


Argue, don't shame...you were doing well. I am not trying to change your mind, just make you aware of how you've been socially engineered.

515 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:38:38pm

re: #507 Floral Giraffe

*salute*
To a valiant warrior!

Aw thanks, I just follow in the wake of you, Salamantis, Gus 802, Shanghai Ed and so many others...I shoot the ones you all haven't already mowed down.

They're moving kind of slow by the time I get to them, thanks to everyone else. ;)

516 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:38:49pm

re: #508 Osama Bin Asshat

Then why don't you quite down. The misogyny is getting old. What happened that turned you into a woman hater?

517 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:38:58pm

re: #513 Floral Giraffe

Totally...even drive her!

518 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:40:19pm

re: #514 Osama Bin Asshat

Shaming is a valid tactic, when the other person is acting shamefully, which you are.

519 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:40:52pm

re: #516 Dark_Falcon

Women are great, feminists suck.

520 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:41:58pm

re: #518 Dark_Falcon

Shaming is a tactic used by feminsit when the argument is lost. It's boring and I rarely respond.

521 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:43:16pm

re: #519 Osama Bin Asshat

Women are great, feminists suck.

Primus sucks.

You really charge 400 dollars an hour? With those word of "wisdom?"

522 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:43:40pm

re: #520 Osama Bin Asshat

How has iceweasel lost the argument? From where I sit, she's winning.

523 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:44:09pm

re: #521 Gus 802

You can do better chum.

524 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:44:49pm

re: #521 Gus 802

Primus sucks.

You really charge 400 dollars an hour? With those word of "wisdom?"

He said he charges that...not that anyone hires him or pays him that. ;)

For example, I'm charging a thousand dollars for every comment I leave here.

525 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:46:01pm

re: #524 iceweasel

He said he charges that...not that anyone hires him or pays him that. ;)

For example, I'm charging a thousand dollars for every comment I leave here.

I charge 10,000 dollars an hour. Plus my room has to be 67 degrees with a large assortment of fruitcups. /

526 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:46:18pm

re: #523 Osama Bin Asshat

None of you, not one of you has proposed why a man cannot refuse to abort his financial responsibility if a mistake pregnancy occurs. Why it is against her rights to force her into motherhood, but perfectly legal to force him!

527 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:46:24pm

re: #523 Osama Bin Asshat

You can do better chum.

Let me guess. You have an IQ of 167? Right?

528 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:46:25pm

re: #524 iceweasel

He said he charges that...not that anyone hires him or pays him that. ;)

For example, I'm charging a thousand dollars for every comment I leave here.

Can I bill Obama's Porkilus funds? It would fund a good cause (you) and take money away from Obama.

529 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:47:30pm

re: #528 Dark_Falcon

Can I bill Obama's Porkilus funds? It would fund a good cause (you) and take money away from Obama.

Aren't you sweet. Why not? Everything else seems to be funded in there-- why not all of us?

530 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:48:09pm

Obama would never support what I am saying. The fembots are in his back pocket.

531 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:48:38pm

re: #526 Osama Bin Asshat

None of you, not one of you has proposed why a man cannot refuse to abort his financial responsibility if a mistake pregnancy occurs. Why it is against her rights to force her into motherhood, but perfectly legal to force him!

Nobody forced him into fatherhood. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. The choices allowed by law are different because men and women are biologically different.

532 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:49:41pm

re: #530 Osama Bin Asshat

Obama would never support what I am saying. The fembots are in his back pocket.

So anyone that disagrees with you is either a) an Obama supporter or b) a fembot.

Fascinating.

533 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:50:11pm

re: #526 Osama Bin Asshat

None of you, not one of you has proposed why a man cannot refuse to abort his financial responsibility if a mistake pregnancy occurs. Why it is against her rights to force her into motherhood, but perfectly legal to force him!

Maybe, keep it in your pants?

534 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:50:53pm

If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

Are you saying this to women? They get to abort their responsibility. Why not him? Or are women only allowed to enjoy the pleasures of sex?

535 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:51:15pm

re: #530 Osama Bin Asshat

Obama would never support what I am saying. The fembots are in his back pocket.

Fembots:

536 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:52:07pm

re: #533 Floral Giraffe


Close your legs. See...choice all around. Whoops...mistake...men held to higher standard...so they pay...women...not so much.

537 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:53:39pm

This has been an enlightening discussion. Thanks to all, including OBA. Though I hope, as iceweasel suggests, it's a trolling exercise for him and not a glimpse into his actual view of women and the world. To ward off bad dreams, I'll assume the former.

538 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:54:39pm

re: #536 Osama Bin Asshat

Close your legs. See...choice all around. Whoops...mistake...men held to higher standard...so they pay...women...not so much.

Quit trying to pry them open. I think that's a reason we here more about "dead beat Dads" than "dead beat Moms"...

539 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:54:41pm

re: #534 Osama Bin Asshat

I don't say such things to anyone. I have no real interest in sex, nor any romantic inclinations whatsoever. I personally romance as a social minefield, and when I wander into one of those I always end up getting blown away. Better to just steer clear. Those are not views I advocate for others, but are intended only for me.

540 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:54:45pm

re: #537 ShanghaiEd

No chum...it's that bad..but I am fighting for equality. Cheer me on.

541 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:54:59pm

re: #536 Osama Bin Asshat

Close your legs. See...choice all around. Whoops...mistake...men held to higher standard...so they pay...women...not so much.

Damn, you're a lowlife.

542 JacksonTn  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:55:13pm

re: #536 Osama Bin Asshat

Close your legs. See...choice all around. Whoops...mistake...men held to higher standard...so they pay...women...not so much.

Oasshat ... I am thinking this thread is the most attention you have been given by females in a very very long time ... you are bitter ... and a jerk ... GAZE ...

543 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:55:57pm

re: #538 Floral Giraffe

Quit trying to pry them open. I think that's a reason we here more about "dead beat Dads" than "dead beat Moms"...

PIMF. Hear, dagnabbit!

544 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:56:34pm

re: #538 Floral Giraffe


That's rape floral...are all men rapists now?...all women innocent, shaking thier butts having dozens of sex partners because men "force" them...

545 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:57:26pm

re: #542 JacksonTn

He's either merely trolling or someone with a very, very unfortunate lovelife. Perhaps both.

546 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:57:55pm

re: #541 Gus 802

Gus: Don't let chivalry cloud your morality...think. Then actually make an argument countering my points.

547 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:58:01pm

re: #544 Osama Bin Asshat

That's rape floral...are all men rapists now?...all women innocent, shaking thier butts having dozens of sex partners because men "force" them...

Get help.

548 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 9:59:12pm

Help me, help you.

549 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:00:44pm

re: #548 Osama Bin Asshat

Help me, help you.

No thanks.

Creep.

550 Osama Bin Asshat  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:01:22pm

weak

551 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:02:32pm

re: #550 Osama Bin Asshat

weak

re: #219 Osama Bin Asshat

In our slut culture no women will die. They are actually venerated.

Freak.

552 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:02:40pm

re: #531 Dark_Falcon

Nobody forced him into fatherhood. If you don't want kids, don't have sex. The choices allowed by law are different because men and women are biologically different.

Or at least use contraception when you have sex. And to be doubly sure, double up on it.

It won't feel quite as good, but it'll last longer. You'll still get your rocks off. And the woman will most likely appreciate the extra time.

553 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:03:41pm

re: #544 Osama Bin Asshat

That did it. i agree with Jackson tn about you. You've got a screw loose somewhere. Here's a vid for you to GAZE at:

554 realwest  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:05:17pm

re: #553 Dark_Falcon
Only one screw loose? Seems to me like a whole tool chest full.

555 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:06:08pm

re: #554 realwest

Only one screw loose? Seems to me like a whole tool chest full.

"Tool" being the operative word here.

556 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:07:17pm

re: #544 Osama Bin Asshat

That's rape floral...are all men rapists now?...all women innocent, shaking thier butts having dozens of sex partners because men "force" them...

GAZE.
Do you need to know what that means?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

557 realwest  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:08:10pm

re: #555 iceweasel
Yeah, but I think he really does have more than one screw loose.

558 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:08:15pm

re: #544 Osama Bin Asshat

That's rape floral...are all men rapists now?...all women innocent, shaking thier butts having dozens of sex partners because men "force" them...

Next you'll be calling women 'uncovered meat', like that Australian Imam; you're already trying to absolve the cruising cats of any responsibility, and blame the women for it all.

559 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:08:22pm

re: #446 Salamantis

The women who sought out Dr. Tiller's services on the advice of their physicians in most cases wanted the child, and are devastated that they are compelled to resort to an abortion. If they had wanted to abort it, they would have done so much earlier, when it would be much less expensive and much easier on them.

Huge assumptions on your part. Since you are so privy to Tiller's records and to the state of mind of the mothers, how many procedures did he perform for convenience as opposed to health/life of mother? You are the expert, aren't you?

560 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:08:40pm

re: #557 realwest

Agreed.

561 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:09:56pm

re: #559 happycamper

Huge assumptions on your part. Since you are so privy to Tiller's records and to the state of mind of the mothers, how many procedures did he perform for convenience as opposed to health/life of mother? You are the expert, aren't you?

Answer you're own question.

562 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:10:33pm

re: #559 happycamper

Huge assumptions on your part. Since you are so privy to Tiller's records and to the state of mind of the mothers, how many procedures did he perform for convenience as opposed to health/life of mother? You are the expert, aren't you?

Third trimester abortions cannot be performed for mere convenience, under both state and federal law. Even Roe vs. Wade says so.

Doh.

563 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:10:47pm

re: #491 Scion9

Scion9, you raise an important subject, re: the over-sexualization of today's culture. I'm too drained to respond adequately tonight, but I hope you bring it up again in the future.

564 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:10:54pm

re: #559 happycamper

He's a very good researcher. That said, HC, I'm honestly glad to hear from you. I'd much rather debate you than keep pounding on OBA's asshattery.

565 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:11:38pm

re: #550 Osama Bin Asshat

weak

Broken Hearts are for Assholes

Frank Zappa

It's you.

566 realwest  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:11:39pm

re: #552 Salamantis I know you were being sarcastic there (condoms are at best 87.5% effective) but he knows full well that no woman forced him or "seduced him" into having sex.
And if he is the father, then it's his moral and legal burden to support that child.

567 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:15:10pm

re: #563 ShanghaiEd

re: #491 Scion9

Yeah, I'd really like to discuss that further at some point also, but I'm also a bit wiped out. Hopefully Scion will raise it again!

568 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:16:38pm

re: #566 realwest

I know you were being sarcastic there (condoms are at best 87.5% effective) but he knows full well that no woman forced him or "seduced him" into having sex.
And if he is the father, then it's his moral and legal burden to support that child.

Which is why I suggested doubling up on them. And a shot of spermicidal foam between the two wouldn't hurt, either.

Just remember to grab it by its base before you pull out; after climax, the johnson withers, and you don't want your load holder slipping off inside.

569 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:16:43pm

With the troll apparently gone, it looks like this thread is winding down. I'm going to sign off for the night. I'll be back in the morning.

570 Gus  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:17:16pm

re: #569 Dark_Falcon

With the troll apparently gone, it looks like this thread is winding down. I'm going to sign off for the night. I'll be back in the morning.

Later DF. ;)

571 Millicent Islam  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:17:48pm

re: #569 Dark_Falcon

Bye DF, have a good one!

572 realwest  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:18:06pm

re: #568 Salamantis
Actually, I find a glass of Orange juice works best!

573 realwest  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:18:45pm

re: #569 Dark_Falcon
See ya Dark-Falcon! Sleep well.

574 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:20:34pm

re: #491 Scion9

And, it is creeping down, younger each year. Very good point.
Please DO bring it up again.

575 FamHistoryGuy  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:33:04pm

re: #219 Osama Bin Asshat

You seem to have picked an appropriate nic for yourself.

576 happycamper  Tue, Jun 9, 2009 10:35:11pm

re: #564 Dark_Falcon

I'm not interested in debate because no one can win a debate on this issue. I don't think any of us will persuade any one else. I'm just like to know how and why people think what they think. Clarity over agreement.
But thanks and good night..

577 haakondahl  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 12:49:06am

re: #552 Salamantis

Or at least use contraception when you have sex. And to be doubly sure, double up on it.

It won't feel quite as good, but it'll last longer. You'll still get your rocks off. And the woman will most likely appreciate the extra time.

Downding! Never double up. You greatly increase the chance of rupture for latex.

578 SixDegrees  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 1:06:34am

re: #2 _RememberTonyC

can you blame other doctors for not wanting to work there? if your life is threatened, would you?

For what it's worth - this morning on BBC radio another doctor who provides similar services elsewhere was interviews. He was incensed that terrorists are dictating women's access to health care, and vowed that he would remain open and would be willing to expand his practice to accomodate those displaced by the closing of Tiller's clinic. These doctors have been through decades of death threats, paid security forces, bullet proof glass and protection by Federal Marshalls; they are rallying to fight back against this horrendous act.

As I've said before, this murder will wind up backfiring on the anti-abortion movement, and will wind up setting them back years in the end.

579 Millicent Islam  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 1:39:51am

re: #578 SixDegrees

For what it's worth - this morning on BBC radio another doctor who provides similar services elsewhere was interviews. He was incensed that terrorists are dictating women's access to health care, and vowed that he would remain open and would be willing to expand his practice to accomodate those displaced by the closing of Tiller's clinic. These doctors have been through decades of death threats, paid security forces, bullet proof glass and protection by Federal Marshalls; they are rallying to fight back against this horrendous act.

As I've said before, this murder will wind up backfiring on the anti-abortion movement, and will wind up setting them back years in the end.

I really hope you're right. The fact that this murder is getting as much attention as it has is very promising; it's also very promising that it's being recognised for what it is: a terrorist act.

I do think it's important to point out that historically there has been an upswing in abortion related violence when a democrat is in control:

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes 5 months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

I haven't doublechecked these figures yet myself, and they come from HuffPo. Link:
[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

But it should also be noted that Tiller was first shot in 93.

580 Flavia  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 1:46:49am

Margaret Sanger was not a racist. If she were, she would hardly have been praised by W.E.B. DuBois. As always, anti-choicers lie however it suits them.

581 Flavia  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:57:40am

re: #197 _RememberTonyC

i know a lot of Jews who won't buy Mercedes cars because of Germany's antisemitism back in the day.

Those of us who refuse to buy German cars do it because whatever company we're boycotting hasn't owned up to, or made sufficient reparations for, their crimes during the war.

582 Millicent Islam  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 3:41:51am

re: #581 Flavia

Those of us who refuse to buy German cars do it because whatever company we're boycotting hasn't owned up to, or made sufficient reparations for, their crimes during the war.

Yes, and that's still true today about many companies, not merely the obvious ones like some german car companies, but also companies like IG Farben, and IGF's subsidiaries -- like Bayer.

Yes, IGF was broken up after the war, but I still won't buy Bayer.

It's got nothing to do with those companies being "german"-- and everything to do with those companies employing slave labour (like Daimler/benz) and/or manufacturing the means of the holocaust (like IGF making Zyklon B), and finally, their failure to acknowledge or apologise for their role in the holocaust.

It's reductive, simplistic, and insulting to suggest that people are boycotting these companies or products simply because they were german or antisemitic, as the other poster implies; they are being singled out for very specific reasons.

583 Flyers1974  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 6:03:45am

re: #582 iceweasel

One problem however, with boycotting such companies in this day and age of the global economy, is that there are so many unintended victims, i.e., a plant in a foreign country such as the US.

584 Daddy-O  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 6:51:57am

"Some people are gloating over this development."

True, but MOST are not.

Why not mention that?

585 notutopia  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:03:38am

re: #47 AFVetWife

The killing of Tiller was reprehensible. However, his actions were also very reprehensilble. I am glad that his clinic is now permanently closed. Regarding Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, just read about her. Another reason that it's wildly amazing that so many Blacks support Democrats!

My dear, you are very confused. Please read that the subject of Sanger has nothing to do with Dr. Tiller.
The clinic was a legal clinic. What the hell does your racist assumption have to do with Tiller?

586 Pygmalienation  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:17:23am

Interesting... reading through the comments on this thread, one is left with the distinct impression that OBA=OBL when it comes to views of women and female sexuality.
Empowered women seem to be a great source of fear for both mindsets.

/ re-assessing retainer fees

587 Tatterdemalian  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:25:07am

They told me that, if Barack Obama were elected President, the terrorists would start winning. And they were right.

588 A.W.  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:29:47am

I am generally against killing law abiding people in America pretty much across the board.

So I was saddened to know Tiller was kiling people in the womb.

And I was saddened to learn Tiller himself had been killed.

A person can say "I wanted him to stop or be stopped by operation of law, but not for him to stop that way" and be utterly consistent.

And I am not obligated to support late term abortion just because someone who carried it out was murdered.

And I will say something else that might annoy. I am annoyed with those now proclaiming that vigilantism is never justified. Now let me be clear. I am not saying it is justified here. But there are circumstances where lawless action is justified.

Britain’s rule over America was “legal” in some sense, but we said that it violated our inalienable rights and rose up in rebellion. History is rife with other examples where the law was so manifestly immoral that it justified actual violence. Indeed that is one of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment.

Martin Luther King’s doctrine of civil disobedience was a non-violent approach to the same problem: when the law of man conflicted with our inalienable rights (or as Dr. King put it “the law of God”).

So for those who believe that killing a late term fetus is morally indistinguishable from murder, what kind of action is justified: non-violent, or violent. I think Dr. King also did a good job drawing the line. When speaking of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who participated in an attempt to kill Hitler, Dr. King said, “if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if your enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” Now of course Dr. King followed the tactics of Ghandi even when faced with people like Bull Connor who apparently lacked conscience. So the conscience he was attempting to awaken probably wasn’t Connor’s so much as all the people who can be called in to restrain Connor—more or less, the American people. And I think, just as Dr. King thought in regard to segregation, that the American people have enough of a conscience to recognize that the essential immorality of late term abortions.

So its not that all vigilantism is always wrong, but that it is wrong when an appeal to morality can work. And that is why it is wrong to kill Tiller.

Now expect screaming, blatant distortions of my point, and claims that I am justifying Tiller’s murder (which again, I am not) in 3... 2... 1...

589 A.W.  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:44:20am

> Empowered women seem to be a great source of fear for both mindsets.

You know slavery was empowering, too, for white people.

Certainly your right to move your fist stops at the tip of my nose (barring self-defense and the like). What the pro-choice side never seems to understand is in the mind of a pro-lifer, the fetus is as much a person as you or me, and has the same right not to be murdered. Certainly when we are talking about the final stages of pregnancy, the difference between a fetus and a baby is downright arbitrary. For instance, my brother and sister were born about a month early. I was born about a month late. By what principle do we say that killing me 9 months after conception is okay, but murdering my brother and sister at the same point in their life cycle is not?

Dependency is certainly not the answer. We don't allow people to just randomly kill those who are dependant on machines. Nor can a siamese twin have a dependant brother cut free without that brother's consent.

One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

While i do not subscribe to the belief that a mere clump of cells has all of the rights of a human, there is a point in pregnancy where a person rationally says that a fetus is as deserving of human rights as anyone else.

And your flippant dismissal of people with those serious moral concerns demonstrates how close minded you truly are. Rather than address the actual argument, you have killed an innocent straw man.

590 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 7:52:12am

re: #589 A.W.

AW, please reread OBA's comments. His target wasn't women's empowerment in terms of abortion, it was women's empowerment in toto. He's got a very serious problem with modern women and it came out in a very ugly way. Many of your points are good, but please read a bit more closely before posted responses.

591 Pygmalienation  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:01:52am

re: #589 A.W.


And your flippant dismissal of people with those serious moral concerns demonstrates how close minded you truly are. Rather than address the actual argument, you have killed an innocent straw man.

I'm not sure if you were replying to my observation about the comments up thread, but I can assure you that a "flippant dismissal of those with serious moral concerns" was not my intent. I don't even thin the commenter had serious moral concerns vis a vis abortion, just an axe to grind regarding issues of real or imagined sexual attitudes held by women.

Personally, I hate the idea that abortions happen. I also realize that as a male of the species, if I don't want to allow for the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy my choice is rather limited to "keep it in my pants" ...

592 Pygmalienation  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:03:46am

re: #591 Pygmalienation

pimf: thin=think

593 capn_jon  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:26:05am

I'm a longtime reader of LGF and big fan of Charles ... BUT ... I'm a little disappointed in his recent direction he's taken on the horrible Tiller assassination.

Yes, Tiller's murder was horrific, and the guy who did it and those who justify it are despicable. Furthermore, by circumventing (or advocating the circumvention of) the US legal system, perpetrator and fans are non-democratic and, yes, un-American. They deserve the scorn Charles has for them.

However, carelessly slapping the label of "Terrorism" on this murder bothers me. A clear-headed definition of terrorism is something that distinguishes loony leftists from rational conservatives. Terrorism is the use of violence in order to intimidate or influence a group of people to take a particular course of action.

While the assassin's action might've achieved this kind of influence, his primary goal was simply to murder one person. He is a horrible person, but he's not a terrorist, and casually calling him (or his supporters) terrorists diminishes the impact of the word.

Let's leave the haphazard "terrorist" branding to the liberals. OK?

594 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:41:54am

re: #588 A.W.

I am generally against killing law abiding people in America pretty much across the board.

So I was saddened to know Tiller was kiling people in the womb.

If they're in the womb (zygotes, embryos, fetuses), they're not people. Persons are BORN.

And I was saddened to learn Tiller himself had been killed.

A person can say "I wanted him to stop or be stopped by operation of law, but not for him to stop that way" and be utterly consistent.

Dr. Tiller's practice was eminently legal, and was found to be so by a jury of his peers.

And I am not obligated to support late term abortion just because someone who carried it out was murdered.

And I will say something else that might annoy. I am annoyed with those now proclaiming that vigilantism is never justified. Now let me be clear. I am not saying it is justified here. But there are circumstances where lawless action is justified.

Britain’s rule over America was “legal” in some sense, but we said that it violated our inalienable rights and rose up in rebellion. History is rife with other examples where the law was so manifestly immoral that it justified actual violence. Indeed that is one of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment.

Martin Luther King’s doctrine of civil disobedience was a non-violent approach to the same problem: when the law of man conflicted with our inalienable rights (or as Dr. King put it “the law of God”).

So for those who believe that killing a late term fetus is morally indistinguishable from murder, what kind of action is justified: non-violent, or violent. I think Dr. King also did a good job drawing the line. When speaking of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who participated in an attempt to kill Hitler, Dr. King said, “if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if your enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer.” Now of course Dr. King followed the tactics of Ghandi even when faced with people like Bull Connor who apparently lacked conscience. So the conscience he was attempting to awaken probably wasn’t Connor’s so much as all the people who can be called in to restrain Connor—more or less, the American people. And I think, just as Dr. King thought in regard to segregation, that the American people have enough of a conscience to recognize that the essential immorality of late term abortions.

Placing the lives or physical health of women over the lives of the fetuses that they carry is a moral imperative in any just and sane universe.

So its not that all vigilantism is always wrong, but that it is wrong when an appeal to morality can work. And that is why it is wrong to kill Tiller.

Now expect screaming, blatant distortions of my point, and claims that I am justifying Tiller’s murder (which again, I am not) in 3... 2... 1...

You are not justifying Dr. Tiller's murder, but you ARE willfully mischaraterizing the basic morality, compassion, and human decency of his practice.

595 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:45:23am

re: #593 capn_jon

I'm a longtime reader of LGF and big fan of Charles ... BUT ... I'm a little disappointed in his recent direction he's taken on the horrible Tiller assassination.

Yes, Tiller's murder was horrific, and the guy who did it and those who justify it are despicable. Furthermore, by circumventing (or advocating the circumvention of) the US legal system, perpetrator and fans are non-democratic and, yes, un-American. They deserve the scorn Charles has for them.

However, carelessly slapping the label of "Terrorism" on this murder bothers me. A clear-headed definition of terrorism is something that distinguishes loony leftists from rational conservatives. Terrorism is the use of violence in order to intimidate or influence a group of people to take a particular course of action.

While the assassin's action might've achieved this kind of influence, his primary goal was simply to murder one person. He is a horrible person, but he's not a terrorist, and casually calling him (or his supporters) terrorists diminishes the impact of the word.

Let's leave the haphazard "terrorist" branding to the liberals. OK?

No, Roeder fully intended his murder to terrorize other abortion doctors away from the practice, by increasing their already-present fear of assassination. This was made abundantly clear when he expressed the wish that his murderous actions would inspire others to do the same.

That is terrorism, by any credible definition.

596 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:53:48am

re: #157 Floral Giraffe

If you had to go through the physical and emotional changes of a pregnancy for NINE MONTHS and be reminded every minute of every day, that it was caused by a rapist, I think you'd feel it was a victory for the rapist. I think it would complicate and delay the healing process.
Especially, if carrying the baby was your ONLY option.

Not only that, but the woman would permanently infuse her genetic material with that of the rapist and have a child, later a grown human being, to show for it. Even if she were to give up the child for adoption, his very existence would haunt her -- that such child, the permanent offspring of herself and the rapist, is roaming around out there.

On a raw instinctual level, if she were were not attracted to the rapist -- if he were an ugly repulsive freak (attractive men rarely need to resort to force to get laid), the very notion of bearing his child would be repulsive -- tantamount to being branded or exploited from an evolutionary perspective, however such an intuitive understanding would be manifested psychologically on the specific woman.

To the degree that behavioral tendencies are genetically based, and to the degree that the woman would be aware of the nature vs. nature scientific literature, the very thought that her child would be inheriting those parts of the rapist's genetic material that predispose violence or sexual deviancy (rape --> sadism) could be very disturbing.

Moreover, pregnancy triggers biological changes in a woman that prime her for a nurturing role. It's profoundly degrading and humiliating that these biological resources that bring the softer more vulnerable motherly side in an otherwise independent, perhaps career-seeking woman, get wasted on a rapist's offspring. The rapist's ability to insinuate any ostensible biological changes at all against the woman's will is a continuation and perpetration of the rape, perhaps even more humiliating than the act of rape itself. She would start lactating, her belly would grow, she would get stretch-marks, not to mention the excruciating (or so I hear) pain of child-birth itself. Compounded rape... Why do people only view a forced sexual act as rape, but not the forced continuation of its biological consequences? Why would the latter be less painful and degrading than the former? If anything, they're more so.

A last consideration is that the nature of the child's conception would severely limit the options of the mother as far as the child's rearing goes: Would she get child support from the rapist? Would she want to even if she could? She'd either have to be an unplanned single mother -- a very unpalatable option -- or give the child up for adoption. There are many women, me included, who have serious qualms about adoption. If I were faced with an unwanted pregnancy, I'd rather terminate (as early as possible) than carry to term and give my child up to strangers to rear. What if the child is abused by the adoptive parents, or they're otherwise piss poor at parenting? What if they tracked me back (and in the case of rape-induced pregnancies, I'd have to tell them their father was a rapist)? I would feel too responsible to let it happen. And I do have personal experience with people who were adopted, had unhappy family lives with their adopted parents, and are psychologically scarred over their biological parents abandoning them.

People who don't understand why it would be a terrible thing for a woman to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy resulting from rape, are just morally autistic, and should have no say whatsoever in the abortion debate. Wait, they don't. Phew...

/until they take up guns and go postal, that is

597 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 8:56:37am

re: #596 medaura18586


People who don't understand why it would be a terrible thing for a woman to be forced to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape, are just morally autistic, and should have no say whatsoever in the abortion debate. Wait, they don't. Phew...

/until they take up guns and go postal, that is

Fixed

598 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:02:23am

re: #589 A.W.

> Empowered women seem to be a great source of fear for both mindsets.

You know slavery was empowering, too, for white people.

Yeah, but black people are born persons, while fetuses are not. I sincerely hope that you are never obtuse enough to compare a black person to a fetus to their face. If you are indeed that dense, you will deserve everything that you get.

Certainly your right to move your fist stops at the tip of my nose (barring self-defense and the like). What the pro-choice side never seems to understand is in the mind of a pro-lifer, the fetus is as much a person as you or me, and has the same right not to be murdered. Certainly when we are talking about the final stages of pregnancy, the difference between a fetus and a baby is downright arbitrary. For instance, my brother and sister were born about a month early. I was born about a month late. By what principle do we say that killing me 9 months after conception is okay, but murdering my brother and sister at the same point in their life cycle is not?

If it was a choice between the fetuses that later became your brother or sister, and your mother's life or physical health, which is the choice that the women who were referred to Dr. Tiller's clinic were facing, would you then have denied your mother's right to choose her own life or physical health over the life of the fetus she carried? Apparently so.

Fetuses are not persons, and do not possess the same rights as do the persons who carry them. One difference between a fetus and an infant is that the infant is already born, so a choice between the life or physical health of the woman and the life of her infant never occurs. But such a choice DOES regrettably yet occasionally occur between the life of a fetus and the life or physical health of a woman carrying it.

Dependency is certainly not the answer. We don't allow people to just randomly kill those who are dependant on machines. Nor can a siamese twin have a dependant brother cut free without that brother's consent.

A woman is not a machine. And a machine has no life or physical health to be threatened, like the woman does. Plus, in cases of siamese twins capable of giving or withholding consent, they are both not only already born, but already matured to the point of language capacity. In fact, in cases where they cannot both survive, one siamese twin infant is routinely sacrificed to preserve the life of the other one.

One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

Because siamese twins capable of screaming and calling lawyers are born persons, whereas fetuses are not.

While i do not subscribe to the belief that a mere clump of cells has all of the rights of a human, there is a point in pregnancy where a person rationally says that a fetus is as deserving of human rights as anyone else.

After the point of fetal viability, the fetus is due more consideration than are embryos or zygotes, but still not as much as consideration as the woman who carries it and whose life or physical health are endangered by it.

And your flippant dismissal of people with those serious moral concerns demonstrates how close minded you truly are. Rather than address the actual argument, you have killed an innocent straw man.

Actually, all that you have demonstrated is serious moral confusion, by drawing a false and repellent equivalence between the life or physical health of a woman and the life of a fetus.

599 n2stox  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:12:55am

re: #594 Salamantis

I think you should research the topic a bit more.

He was not acquitted from guilt of performing abortions. He was acquitted in a case where he used a Dr. on his payroll for 19 second opinions for late term abortions. In a pre-trial affidavit, she claimed her full time employment as "consultant to Dr. Tiller."

Upon acquittal, the Kansas board of medicine (they call themselves the Board of Healing Arts, or something like that) accounced an immediate investigation into the same charges.

The case was important because a late term abortion in Kansas requires the opinion of 2 physicians. the case was brought a while back by a pro-life AG, but charges were filed by a pro-choice AG and a pro-choice prosecutor handled the case. They called only 1 witness (after something like 4 years of discovery). The jury deliberated for less than an hour.

furthermore, Dr. Tiller's #1 "medical" reason for performing late term abortions: mental health. Not exactly to "save the life of the mother" is it?

Upon further investigation, you'll likely find that the life of the mother was at risk in a very small % of the late term abortions performed at Tiller's clinic, yet he was able to fulfill the 2 opinions requirement to avoid any prosecution.

600 auldtrafford  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:13:56am

re: #595 Salamantis

No, Roeder fully intended his murder to terrorize other abortion doctors away from the practice, by increasing their already-present fear of assassination. This was made abundantly clear when he expressed the wish that his murderous actions would inspire others to do the same.

That is terrorism, by any credible definition.

I looked into this definitional thing yesterday, too, and I think Jon is correct. "Terrorism" is a campaign designed to instill fear into the general public for the purpose of achieving political change; primarily, this occurs in the ongoing context of an armed conflict (i.e., a war involving national-sorts of interests).

You acknowledge that Roeder's purpose was to instill fear in practitioners of the act Roeder wanted to affect. I'll even acknowledge (hypothetically, not in reality) that he might have had some hope of intimidating patients. But, frankly, I cannot see anything in his act designed to instill fear in the general populace in order to achieve a political end. In fact, I think he was well aware that many people whose position is anti-abortion would decry his action; thus actually lessening the likelihood of political change.

601 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:20:19am

re: #365 Salamantis

I believe that if a couple are not married, that if the man does not want a child, does not want to support a child, and does not want to be a father to a child, he should tell the woman this straight up from the get-go, and get her to sign an agreement that if she does get pregnant, whether through choice or happenstance, and decides to carry the pregnancy to term, that it is solely her responsibility.

But of course marriage is in itself a contract to jointly support and raise any children born within the union.

LOL! I'm going to run out to Wal-Mart and pick up a pack of Pre-Sex contracts to put in my wallet. Just in case...

602 Pygmalienation  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:20:20am

re: #589 A.W.

> Empowered women seem to be a great source of fear for both mindsets.

You know slavery was empowering, too, for white people.

...

And your flippant dismissal of people with those serious moral concerns demonstrates how close minded you truly are. Rather than address the actual argument, you have killed an innocent straw man.


And anyway, who exactly is trotting out strawmen? Innocent or otherwise?

/'nuff said

603 Land Shark  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:23:07am

As someone who's opposed to abortion I have very mixed feelings about Dr. Tiller's clinic closing. On one hand there's one less abortion clinic. On the other hand, the fact that it closed due to the murder of Dr. Tiller is very disturbing. The wackos in the Pro-Life movement will probably see it as proof that violence against abortion providers gets results and be encouraged to commit additional acts of violence in this vein. This is not good.

Like I said before, those of us who are Pro-Life need to reject in no uncertain terms murder and terrorism as a means to an end. As far as I'm concerned, murder and terrorism are evil, pure and simple. As a Christian, my mortal soul is important to me, I would never want to stand before My Maker with a murder on my conscience.

604 Land Shark  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:32:20am

re: #593 capn_jon

Sorry, I must strongly disagree (and I'm not a liberal). It is terrorism, the intent to instill fear in abortion providers is very clear. The sick people who celebrate this murder hope to intimidate other doctors as well.

People who claim this isn't terrorism are sure doing one hell of a tap dance around reality.

605 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:41:31am

re: #600 auldtrafford

I looked into this definitional thing yesterday, too, and I think Jon is correct. "Terrorism" is a campaign designed to instill fear into the general public for the purpose of achieving political change; primarily, this occurs in the ongoing context of an armed conflict (i.e., a war involving national-sorts of interests).

You acknowledge that Roeder's purpose was to instill fear in practitioners of the act Roeder wanted to affect. I'll even acknowledge (hypothetically, not in reality) that he might have had some hope of intimidating patients. But, frankly, I cannot see anything in his act designed to instill fear in the general populace in order to achieve a political end. In fact, I think he was well aware that many people whose position is anti-abortion would decry his action; thus actually lessening the likelihood of political change.

By your definition, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was not committing terrorism, because he only wanted to terrorize a subset of the population out of employing animals for medical research, and all his bombs targeted people connected with that practice.

Which is only one of several why I think your definition is fatally flawed.

606 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:43:32am

re: #601 NukeAtomrod

LOL! I'm going to run out to Wal-Mart and pick up a pack of Pre-Sex contracts to put in my wallet. Just in case...

Why pay? You can write up your own.

607 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:44:41am

re: #605 Salamantis

By your definition, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was not committing terrorism, because he only wanted to terrorize a subset of the population out of employing animals for medical research, and all his bombs targeted people connected with that practice.

Which is only one of several reasonswhy I think your definition is fatally flawed.

PIMF

608 Sabnen  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:49:27am

And now the Abortion Foes want to BUY the closed clinic!

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

609 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 9:58:25am

re: #599 n2stox

I think you should research the topic a bit more.

He was not acquitted from guilt of performing abortions. He was acquitted in a case where he used a Dr. on his payroll for 19 second opinions for late term abortions. In a pre-trial affidavit, she claimed her full time employment as "consultant to Dr. Tiller."

Dr. Tiller's abortions were legal, and found to be so by a court of law and a jury of his peers. There was nothing for him to feel guilty OF. Except saving womens' lives and preserving their physical health. And people are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of women who went to Dr. Tiller's clinics were referred there by their own physicians, who saw the need for the procedure, but were either unable or unwilling to perform it themselves. That would make THREE concurring opinions. Or are you claiming that Dr. Tiller paid kickbacks to all those other physicians?

Upon acquittal, the Kansas board of medicine (they call themselves the Board of Healing Arts, or something like that) accounced an immediate investigation into the same charges.

Yep. And I'd be interested in knowing the ideologial make-up of that board. I already know the ideological bent of the ex-attorney general.

The case was important because a late term abortion in Kansas requires the opinion of 2 physicians. the case was brought a while back by a pro-life AG, but charges were filed by a pro-choice AG and a pro-choice prosecutor handled the case. They called only 1 witness (after something like 4 years of discovery). The jury deliberated for less than an hour.

They couldn't find anything, after going through Dr. Tiller's records with a fine-toothed comb, except an unsupported and gratuitous claim that the concurring physician was lying for money. This utterly evidence-bereft and baseless canard was summarily dismissed by a jury of his peers.

furthermore, Dr. Tiller's #1 "medical" reason for performing late term abortions: mental health. Not exactly to "save the life of the mother" is it?

Post links to evidence for this contention, please. Put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. defecate or remove your gluteus maximus fro0m the pot.

I've seen the 2008 Kansas state records on late term abortions, and the claim that you make is manifestly untrue.

Upon further investigation, you'll likely find that the life of the mother was at risk in a very small % of the late term abortions performed at Tiller's clinic, yet he was able to fulfill the 2 opinions requirement to avoid any prosecution.

Also untrue. Does 'serious and permanent danger to the physical health of the woman' ring any bells? You know; section 15E?

610 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:01:05am

re: #608 Sabnen

And now the Abortion Foes want to BUY the closed clinic!

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

My guess is that the homicidal bastards wanna turn it into a shrine. A shrine for an antiabortion assassin, in order to inspire others to do the same.

611 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:02:55am

re: #606 Salamantis

Why pay? You can write up your own.

Did you ever see the movie Cherry 2000? At the beginning of the film, there was a scene in a bar where lawyers negotiating with each other over a couple's first date contract. Very funny stuff.

612 auldtrafford  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:05:01am

re: #605 Salamantis

By your definition, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) was not committing terrorism, because he only wanted to terrorize a subset of the population out of employing animals for medical research, and all his bombs targeted people connected with that practice.

Which is only one of several why I think your definition is fatally flawed.

The Unabomber could certainly be considered a terrorist for a pretty major reason: he used bombs; Roeder used a firearm. I hope it is not necessary to go into detail about how one has a tendency to instill fear in the general public while the other does not. Yes, I know firearms can be frightening to the general public (especially spray fire from an automatic weapon), but the specificity of the attack is of an entirely different character.

Sorry, the details of the Unabomber case have somehow vaporized from my memory banks, and I'm not otherwise qualified to opine on whether or not he was a terrorist (never did read his NY Times rave). Doubt, incidentally, that the NY Times would be interested in publishing the Roeder papers.

613 Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:07:07am

re: #250 Christene

Please post one documented case of a coat hanger abortion resulting in death.

Obvious troll is obvious.

614 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:17:07am

re: #612 auldtrafford

The Unabomber could certainly be considered a terrorist for a pretty major reason: he used bombs; Roeder used a firearm. I hope it is not necessary to go into detail about how one has a tendency to instill fear in the general public while the other does not. Yes, I know firearms can be frightening to the general public (especially spray fire from an automatic weapon), but the specificity of the attack is of an entirely different character.

Sorry, the details of the Unabomber case have somehow vaporized from my memory banks, and I'm not otherwise qualified to opine on whether or not he was a terrorist (never did read his NY Times rave). Doubt, incidentally, that the NY Times would be interested in publishing the Roeder papers.

Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! So now terrorists bomb, but they do not shoot? So the Al Qaeda and Taliban jihadis that our troops kill in firefights in Afghanistan and Iraq are not terrorists now?

You are frantically grasping at nonexistent straws in order to avoid calling that homicidal bastard the antiabortion terrorist that he undeniably (except to the willfully self-deluded) is.

I suppose that means that you are willing to admit that the pond scum that have firebombed more than a hundred abortion clinics are terrorists then? No? I didn't think so.

Like Robert Rudolph, who, in addition to bombing two abortion clinics, also bombed a gay bar and the Atlanta Olympics? I suppose only the last one counts as terrorism in your bizarre opinion.

Your claim that antiabortionists aren't terrorists reminds me of the claim that nonwhites can't be racist.

615 Millicent Islam  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:37:41am

re: #600 auldtrafford


You acknowledge that Roeder's purpose was to instill fear in practitioners of the act Roeder wanted to affect. I'll even acknowledge (hypothetically, not in reality) that he might have had some hope of intimidating patients. But, frankly, I cannot see anything in his act designed to instill fear in the general populace in order to achieve a political end.

Sorry, but one of the aims of the murder of practitioners certainly IS to instill fear into the general populace-- specifically, the general populace consisting of women seeking abortions. That is the entire point of murdering doctors and bombing or vandalizing clinics.

Don't be mislead by the fact that Tiller wasn't murdered at his clinic. That's only because he wore a bulletproof vest, drove an armoured car, and had no windows in his clinic-- precisely because of the murderous terroristic threats he lived with.

Roeder, the 'good christian' and 'defender of babies', had to gun Tiller down in his church to get near him. Roeder's already expressed the hope (and made the threat) that others are planning similar acts. Don't try to tell me that's not terrorism.

616 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:43:44am

re: #235 ShanghaiEd

But isn't "personal responsibility" one of the cornerstone values of Conservatism? Motorcycle riders "come to regret" having their bare heads hit the pavement, but what business is it of the government's to make us wear helmets against our will?


Yes, but only when it is your life or property on the line. We require insurance because if you hit someone else's car, they shouldn't have to pay. The whole question is how much is a fetus worth, and that isn't a subjective question that could rationally rely on a mother's emotion.
This is aside from cases where a mother's life is likely threatened, of course.

617 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:48:54am

re: #616 nikis-knight

Yes, but only when it is your life or property on the line. We require insurance because if you hit someone else's car, they shouldn't have to pay. The whole question is how much is a fetus worth, and that isn't a subjective question that could rationally rely on a mother's emotion.
This is aside from cases where a mother's life is likely threatened, of course.

But is the life of a woman's fetus worth more than her physical health? Is it worth leaving her permanently paralyzed, brain damaged, comatose, blind, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine?

I don't think so. But it is HER opinion - both emotional and intellectual - that matters here.

618 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:57:02am

re: #302 Gus 802

Wait a minute. Now you're saying that intercourse isn't consenting to parenthood? I'm confused. Which is it?


Legally, it is for the man but it is not for the woman. It is no more just than nature, but it is the reverse.
I don't want to reverse the law so as to encourage abandoned women to have more abortions; however it is clearly an unfair legal arrangement where the man cannot keep the child alive and raise it if he desires, but must pay for it if she does even if he does not want it, whereas the woman is entitled to the choice and the funds, assuming no coercion in the intercourse and no complication in the pregnancy.

619 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 10:57:08am

re: #600 auldtrafford

I looked into this definitional thing yesterday, too, and I think Jon is correct. "Terrorism" is a campaign designed to instill fear into the general public for the purpose of achieving political change; primarily, this occurs in the ongoing context of an armed conflict (i.e., a war involving national-sorts of interests).

You acknowledge that Roeder's purpose was to instill fear in practitioners of the act Roeder wanted to affect. I'll even acknowledge (hypothetically, not in reality) that he might have had some hope of intimidating patients. But, frankly, I cannot see anything in his act designed to instill fear in the general populace in order to achieve a political end. In fact, I think he was well aware that many people whose position is anti-abortion would decry his action; thus actually lessening the likelihood of political change.

Don't be ridiculous. Roeder stated, “I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal.” His intent was to instill fear into anyone who might even think about going near an abortion clinic, nearby businesses, etc. This is a threat against the general public. It's not international Al-Qaeda style terrorism, but it is clearly terrorism.

620 Millicent Islam  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:04:14am

re: #617 Salamantis

But is the life of a woman's fetus worth more than her physical health? Is it worth leaving her permanently paralyzed, brain damaged, comatose, blind, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine?

For some people, the answer is YES. For some people women's lives don't have value in themselves; women's lives are valued only insofar as the women are serving as fetal containers.

I hope people watched the video Charles recently posted about the Army of God. Anyone else find it interesting that the men who talk about 'the babies' and killing doctors and blowing up abortion clinics also talk privately about how women are tempters and God has asked them to avoid or give up women in their personal lives?

621 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:07:27am

re: #617 Salamantis

But is the life of a woman's fetus worth more than her physical health? Is it worth leaving her permanently paralyzed, brain damaged, comatose, blind, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine?

I don't think so. But it is HER opinion - both emotional and intellectual - that matters here.

Physical health is an extremely vague concept, even legally. Those things you said, permanent disabilities (actually that's also a vague concept legally, but I mean them along the lines of what you state) depending on the liklihood of occurance, I think society should and almost always will grant the mother and doctor the license and sanction legally.

There are many, many abortions where no permanent complications will likely arise at birth--and pro-choice activists, or many at least, argue that the woman's choice is paramount even here. In those circumstances, I don't see how one can argue that her feelings effect the value of a human being--or at the least, a living homo sapien. Merely effecting a woman's finances or freedom is a poor reason to grant her life and death powers, in cases where she made the choice to have intercourse--or rather sanction legally the choice of death.

I don't know for a fact which of Tiller's patients were which, so I am speaking to principles and not practices here. I condemn his killing and any celebration of it.

622 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:15:16am

re: #614 Salamantis

Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! So now terrorists bomb, but they do not shoot? So the Al Qaeda and Taliban jihadis that our troops kill in firefights in Afghanistan and Iraq are not terrorists now?

I don't think all of them are, or at least that isn't what makes them so--though the terrorists are the ones we most want dead.

I think the distinction, if not legal, then in common parlance, is that terrorists target civilians with indiscriminate violence or to achieve a political end; unlawful combatants target armed forces but without uniforms, etc. (thereby putting civilians at risk); criminals kill specific individuals for personal or financial reasons.

I'm comfortable calling Roeder a terrorist, though.

623 MTF  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:33:37am

Reasonable people against abortion should most want to describe this murder as terrorism, just as they should have been most anxious to protect Tiller's life and property, and they should now be especially anxious to avoid turning the discussion into a referendum on abortion. Turning George Tiller into a symbol of freedom gives the abortion rights movement the modern martyr it has lacked, and that is going to have ugly consequences for the anti-abortion political movement. To me, the more important issue is that the central lesson of democracy is that no political subject is off the discussion table. Choosing violence as a means of settling political disputes is the true beginning of the road to tyranny. Calling this heinous crime "a legitimate vigilante action" is just another way of saying, "Someone please go ahead and take away our freedoms, we can't handle the responsibility!"

624 Millicent Islam  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:34:36am

re: #622 nikis-knight

I don't think all of them are, or at least that isn't what makes them so--though the terrorists are the ones we most want dead.

I think the distinction, if not legal, then in common parlance, is that terrorists target civilians with indiscriminate violence or to achieve a political end; unlawful combatants target armed forces but without uniforms, etc. (thereby putting civilians at risk); criminals kill specific individuals for personal or financial reasons.

I'm comfortable calling Roeder a terrorist, though.

Roeder is both a terrorist and a criminal: he committed a murder with the goal of terrorising the population of abortion practitioners and the women who are their clients, and he most certainly had a political end in mind: outlawing or eliminating access to abortion.

This really can't be stated enough, regardless of how one feels about the morality of abortion: Abortion is legal and Tiller was murdered for providing it.

625 nikis-knight  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 11:53:34am

re: #624 iceweasel

Roeder is both a terrorist and a criminal: he committed a murder with the goal of terrorising the population of abortion practitioners and the women who are their clients, and he most certainly had a political end in mind: outlawing or eliminating access to abortion.

This really can't be stated enough, regardless of how one feels about the morality of abortion: Abortion is legal and Tiller was murdered for providing it.

I didn't imply that they were mutually exclusive, just defined differently. Actually, criminal was the wrong word, but we don't have a term for the subcategory of murder that excludes terrorists, though terrorist is a term for a subcategory of murder that excludes individual murder for personal reasons.

626 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 1:09:51pm

re: #621 nikis-knight

Physical health is an extremely vague concept, even legally. Those things you said, permanent disabilities (actually that's also a vague concept legally, but I mean them along the lines of what you state) depending on the liklihood of occurance, I think society should and almost always will grant the mother and doctor the license and sanction legally.

There are many, many abortions where no permanent complications will likely arise at birth--and pro-choice activists, or many at least, argue that the woman's choice is paramount even here. In those circumstances, I don't see how one can argue that her feelings effect the value of a human being--or at the least, a living homo sapien. Merely effecting a woman's finances or freedom is a poor reason to grant her life and death powers, in cases where she made the choice to have intercourse--or rather sanction legally the choice of death.

I don't know for a fact which of Tiller's patients were which, so I am speaking to principles and not practices here. I condemn his killing and any celebration of it.

Convenience abortions occur in the first trimester, and I support the right of the wioman to choose them. Medical necessity abortions happen later, and I support the right of the woman to protect her and preserve her own live or physical health by choosing them, too.

Anyone who tries to tell me that a zygote or embryo is morally or biologically equivalent to the human being carrying either doesn't just have a screw loose; they are missing ALL their screws.

627 Tully  Wed, Jun 10, 2009 2:02:57pm

re: #621 nikis-knight

There are many, many abortions where no permanent complications will likely arise at birth

Guess what? Unless you have a crystal ball, that can't be determined in advance. Permanent complications or death can occur in the apparently healthiest of pregnancies. In others they are heightened probabilities but not predictable certainties. In others they become near-certainties. What we do know is that at all stages of gestation, a clinical abortion carries about 1/10th the risk of death that a term pregnacny does, and an even lower risk of non-fatal injuries and complications.

Which is why it important to note that what the anti-abortion crowd is so often demanding is that they be allowed to substitute THEIR judgement of what odds of permanent injury and/or death that ANY pregnant woman should face for the informed personal decision of the individual women themselves, in consultation with their doctors.

628 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 6:59:17am

First, if the guy I was responding to was responding to a specific person’s mindset, I apologize and only hope to mitigate that by saying that was less than clear.

Sally

> If they're in the womb (zygotes, embryos, fetuses), they're not people. Persons are BORN.

According to you. So if you are born a month early, you are a person a month earlier?

Sorry, what exactly is the magic of passing through the birth canal that it should change the moral equation so fundamentally?

Or should we instead shed this false distinction and look instead at something true? I prefer to go by the sentience standard, that is the point at which a human’s brain typically comes “online.”

> Dr. Tiller's practice was eminently legal, and was found to be so by a jury of his peers.

“By operation of law” can include CHANGING the law, you moron.

> Placing the lives or physical health of women over the lives of the fetuses that they carry is a moral imperative in any just and sane universe.

I am sorry, but when exactly has that ever happened? Don’t just say hypothetically, but where has there been a situation that only manifested itself in the third trimester that endangered the life or health of the mother?

> I sincerely hope that you are never obtuse enough to compare a black person to a fetus to their face.

I would never be ashamed to say to anyone that everyone who has passed the point when a human typically becomes sentient has an equal right not to be murdered on a whim. Or to say that both slavery and abortion empowers one group of people at the expense of the power of another group. Nor would I be ashamed to quote Frederick Douglass’ autobiography where a Mr. Gore murdered a slave in cold blood and compare it to the murder of a fetus in cold blood. The false distinction of color allowed Mr. Gore to murder with impunity and the false distinction of birth allows fetuses to be murdered with impunity.

Your blatant attempt to twist my comment into something racist, betrays the fact you can’t defend your position on the merits. “OMG, he said black people are fetuses!” Do you really think any of us are stupid enough to think you really believe that silly comment?

> Plus, in cases of siamese twins capable of giving or withholding consent, they are both not only already born, but already matured to the point of language capacity.

So if you can’t talk yet, we can kill you randomly? See how quickly justifications for abortion become justifications for infanticide? Not that I am saying you advocate infanticide, just that you are making an argument that would support it. and obviously any argument that supports infanticide is invalid.

> There was nothing for him to feel guilty OF. Except saving womens' lives and preserving their physical health.

Do you really think that is all he did?

> but [the referring doctors] were either unable or unwilling to perform it themselves.

So... they would feel guilty about it, but Tiller shouldn’t?

629 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 8:34:10am

re: #628 A.W.

First, if the guy I was responding to was responding to a specific person’s mindset, I apologize and only hope to mitigate that by saying that was less than clear.

Sally

> If they're in the womb (zygotes, embryos, fetuses), they're not people. Persons are BORN.

According to you. So if you are born a month early, you are a person a month earlier?

Sorry, what exactly is the magic of passing through the birth canal that it should change the moral equation so fundamentally?

Or should we instead shed this false distinction and look instead at something true? I prefer to go by the sentience standard, that is the point at which a human’s brain typically comes “online.”

Thart's why we celebrate birthdays instead of 'fetal-brain-coming-online' days (as if, during the gradual process of fetal development, such a thing is anywhere near as discernable as is birth). A viable fetus - one that can survive independent of the woman who carries it - is deserving of more consideration than is a zygote or an embryo, but the life and physical health of the woman carrying it must still be granted moral preference in any just and sane universe.

> Dr. Tiller's practice was eminently legal, and was found to be so by a jury of his peers.

“By operation of law” can include CHANGING the law, you moron.

But the law IS what it IS, you imbecile. And that includes laws against walking up to a doctor in his church and gunning him down in front of his wife.

> Placing the lives or physical health of women over the lives of the fetuses that they carry is a moral imperative in any just and sane universe.

I am sorry, but when exactly has that ever happened? Don’t just say hypothetically, but where has there been a situation that only manifested itself in the third trimester that endangered the life or health of the mother?

They are rare, but they occur (in around a thousand cases a year out of six million US pregnancies). Pregnancy-induced diabetes, discovery of cancer or heart dysfunction, threat of renal failure, etc. But of course such emopirical facts are cavalierly dismissed by you as inconvenient to your dogmatic convictions.

> I sincerely hope that you are never obtuse enough to compare a black person to a fetus to their face.

I would never be ashamed to say to anyone that everyone who has passed the point when a human typically becomes sentient has an equal right not to be murdered on a whim. Or to say that both slavery and abortion empowers one group of people at the expense of the power of another group. Nor would I be ashamed to quote Frederick Douglass’ autobiography where a Mr. Gore murdered a slave in cold blood and compare it to the murder of a fetus in cold blood. The false distinction of color allowed Mr. Gore to murder with impunity and the false distinction of birth allows fetuses to be murdered with impunity.

Your blatant attempt to twist my comment into something racist, betrays the fact you can’t defend your position on the merits. “OMG, he said black people are fetuses!” Do you really think any of us are stupid enough to think you really believe that silly comment?

You, like many others in your movement, are illegitimately endeavoring to piggyback your antiabortionism onto the antebellum anti-slavery movement in order to vampirize its credibility, much as the euroneonazis endeavor to do with the antijihadist movement. But you do not succeed in convincing people that fetuses are morally equivalent to mature human beings by such a flawed expedient; all your cynical and manipulative attempt actually succeeds in doing is causing people to quite reasonably view you as racially insensitive, and willing to use and abuse racial issues as a means by which to further your own unrelated agenda.

to be continued...

630 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 8:54:51am

re: #628 A.W.

> Plus, in cases of siamese twins capable of giving or withholding consent, they are both not only already born, but already matured to the point of language capacity.

So if you can’t talk yet, we can kill you randomly? See how quickly justifications for abortion become justifications for infanticide? Not that I am saying you advocate infanticide, just that you are making an argument that would support it. and obviously any argument that supports infanticide is invalid.

If it is a matter of killing one siamese twin in order to save the life of the other one, or sitting there with your thumb jammed up your anus while both of them die, yes, killing one of them is justified. And it ain't random, because the one that is chosen to try to save is the one that has the best chance of survival. Btw: not being able to talk yet vs. being able to talk is among the LEAST fundamental of the distinctions between single fetuses and born siamese twins. (Hint: being born vs. not being born is the fundamental distinction.)

> There was nothing for him to feel guilty OF. Except saving womens' lives and preserving their physical health.

Do you really think that is all he did?

That's all that his medical records, his concurring physician, and a jury of his peers think he did, as far as late term abortions are concerned. If you know (as opposing to wanting to believe, like Fox Mulder) any different, you should present your conclusive empirical evidence to the world at large.

> but [the referring doctors] were either unable or unwilling to perform it themselves.

So... they would feel guilty about it, but Tiller shouldn’t?

Who says that guilt was even a primary consideration? Ignorance, inability, inexperience, lack of technology, and fear seem like much more feasible ones.They either lacked his specialized equipment, or they lacked his experience and technical expertise in the particular procedures and techniques required, or they didn't wanna get their asses shot off by a crazed antiabortion terrorist bastard, or some combination of the above. Special medical conditions are referred to medical specialists in those conditions. And referring physicians from across this nation damn sure saw a need for their patients to seek Dr. Tiller's services.

631 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 9:45:29am

Sally

> Thart's why we celebrate birthdays instead of 'fetal-brain-coming-online' days

Lol. What a silly and shallow argument on a serious moral question.

> as if, during the gradual process of fetal development, such a thing is anywhere near as discernable as is birth

Translation: “that’s too hard and difficult!” Notice I didn’t say when the brain goes “online” in a particular person, but when it does in the typical person. It also lines up nicely with historical practice back at the founding, where abortion was legal up until the first movement of the fetus.

> A viable fetus - one that can survive independent of the woman who carries it

Ah, so when Chris Reeves was alive, but kept alive by machines, it would have been okay to just murder him?

After all, he can’t survive independently.

> the life and physical health of the woman carrying it must still be granted moral preference in any just and sane universe.

Well, first off the Supreme Court has said the mere mental health of the mother is enough to justify abortion. So, “gosh it is too depressing to bring another baby into this world” is apparently sufficient. As for physical health, again, how serious a threat? “Darn it, I am getting terrible headaches... Abort!”

I notice you can’t establish any case where late term abortion is necessary.

And wow, here’s your first attempt to accuse me of supporting Tiller’s murder.

I wrote:

> A person can say "I wanted him to stop or be stopped by operation of law, but not for him to stop that way" and be utterly consistent.

You replied:

> Dr. Tiller's practice was eminently legal, and was found to be so by a jury of his peers.

So I replied:

> “By operation of law” can include CHANGING the law, you moron.

And you reply:

> But the law IS what it IS, you imbecile. And that includes laws against walking up to a doctor in his church and gunning him down in front of his wife.

So your attempt to suggest I was advocating the murder of Tiller is in fact a lie.

Cut and paste is a bitch, isn’t it?

> Pregnancy-induced diabetes, discovery of cancer

And how on earth does that make abortion necessary?

> heart dysfunction, threat of renal failure

Untreatable except by abortion, undetectable ahead of time? Prove it.

> But of course such emopirical facts are cavalierly dismissed by you

Yeah, I am not big on the EMOpiricism. That’s why I voted for Kris over Adam. Lol

And as for empirical facts, you haven’t established any.

> all your cynical and manipulative attempt

Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be the case that I actually believe that all human life has value, especially innocent human life. No, I have to be cynical and manipulative—its really the only explanation. But that begs the question. If my stated beliefs are not my “real” motive, then what do you think is behind it, really? Are you about to claim that I am the puppet of “big daycare” or perhaps the Gerber or Huggies corporations, that want to see more children be born so they make more money? What is my hidden agenda besides the sanctity of what I consider to be human life?

It would be offensive if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

> If it is a matter of killing one siamese twin in order to save the life of the other one

Nice dodge, but you did proffer the silly claim that the difference is language capacity. Care to defend that lame comment on its merits?

And notice I never said it is wrong to kill one person when both are going to die otherwise. I said that it wasn’t necessary in a certain context.

But let’s apply your logic to that context. So if one has cancer, kill him? If there is a risk of diabetes, which people can live a full life with, KILL HIM? And so on. Seems a bit of an overreaction, doesn’t it?

632 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 9:45:56am

Sally (cont)

> Btw: not being able to talk yet vs. being able to talk is among the LEAST fundamental of the distinctions between single fetuses and born siamese twins.

You’re absolutely right. You made an utterly crappy argument.

> That's all that his medical records,

Really you have seen them? Given patient privacy laws, I find that hard to believe.

> and a jury of his peers think he did, as far as late term abortions are concerned

Not guilty does not mean innocent. See OJ.

> Who says that guilt was even a primary consideration? Ignorance, inability, inexperience, lack of technology, and fear seem like much more feasible ones

So your own statement was illogical?

633 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 10:37:06am

re: #631 A.W.

Sally

Yes, A&W root beer foam head?

> Thart's why we celebrate birthdays instead of 'fetal-brain-coming-online' days

Lol. What a silly and shallow argument on a serious moral question.

No, birth is an incontovertibly recognizeable bright line distinction. The onset of functional brain wave activity isn't.

gt; as if, during the gradual process of fetal development, such a thing is anywhere near as discernable as is birth

Translation: “that’s too hard and difficult!” Notice I didn’t say when the brain goes “online” in a particular person, but when it does in the typical person. It also lines up nicely with historical practice back at the founding, where abortion was legal up until the first movement of the fetus.

What 'online' means is also quite unclear. Intermittent wave activity occurs far before the regular autonomous activity of the medulla oblongata appears, which is needed to regulate respiration and heartbeat. Not to mention before the heart is sufficiently developed to regularly beat and the lungs are sufficiently developed to regularly respirate in response to such signals, before the circulatory system is developed enough to carry blood from the heart through the lungs to the cells and back again, before the pulmonary alveoli are sufficiently developed to breathe air, oxygenate the blood and remove carbon dioxide, before the colonic villi are sufficiently developed to absorb nutirients from food, before the liver is sufficiently developed to broduce digestive bile, and before the kidneys are sufficiently developed to filter blood.

> A viable fetus - one that can survive independent of the woman who carries it

Ah, so when Chris Reeves was alive, but kept alive by machines, it would have been okay to just murder him?

After all, he can’t survive independently.

The point is that pre-viability fetuses cannot even survive with the assistance of all the neonatal technology available to us; they cannot survive outside the fetal environment of the particular women who carry them. Viable fetuses, otoh, can survive with neonatal ICU care and later with care from a responsible adult; they are not dependent for their survival upon the body of a particular individual. Kapeesh?

> the life and physical health of the woman carrying it must still be granted moral preference in any just and sane universe.

Well, first off the Supreme Court has said the mere mental health of the mother is enough to justify abortion. So, “gosh it is too depressing to bring another baby into this world” is apparently sufficient. As for physical health, again, how serious a threat? “Darn it, I am getting terrible headaches... Abort!”

Reasons to permit late term abortions in the State of Kansas, where Dr. Tiller was conducting his practice, include substantial danger the life of the woman or substantial, permanent, and severe threats to her physical health. Such hazards include leaving her blind, paralyzed, brain damaged, in a persistent coma, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine for the rest of her truncated life. Legitimate reasons in the state of Kansas do NOT include mental health considerations.

And please furnish me with a link where the US Supreme Court has explicitly ruled to allow third trimester abortions on the basis of mental health considerations. I'm betting that you can't do it.

I notice you can’t establish any case where late term abortion is necessary.

I already listed pregnancy-induced diabetes, discovery of cancer or heart dysfunction, and threat of renal failure above. Other cases include where the fetus is so horribly damaged or deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

to be continued...

634 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:00:11am

re: #631 A.W.

And wow, here’s your first attempt to accuse me of supporting Tiller’s murder.
I wrote:
> A person can say "I wanted him to stop or be stopped by operation of law, but not for him to stop that way" and be utterly consistent.
You replied:
> Dr. Tiller's practice was eminently legal, and was found to be so by a jury of his peers.
So I replied:
> “By operation of law” can include CHANGING the law, you moron.
And you reply:
> But the law IS what it IS, you imbecile. And that includes laws against walking up to a doctor in his church and gunning him down in front of his wife.
So your attempt to suggest I was advocating the murder of Tiller is in fact a lie.
Cut and paste is a bitch, isn’t it?

My point is that since the late term abortions that Dr. Tiller was performing were indeed legal, and no change to that law is even faintly on the horizon, they only way for Dr. Tiller TO "be stopped" is by some crazed antiabortion terrorist murdering him. And a lot of bloodthirsty bastards applauded it when it happened, even though murder is, of course, illegal.

> Pregnancy-induced diabetes, discovery of cancer

And how on earth does that make abortion necessary?

Because the diabetes can cause renal failure, which can condemn a woman to be shackled to a kidney dialysis machine for the shortened balance of her days, or it can cause blindness. And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus. Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

> heart dysfunction, threat of renal failure

Untreatable except by abortion, undetectable ahead of time? Prove it.

The pain of either childbirth or c section, or the administration of anaesthesia, can precipitate a heart attack. Sometimes, also, advanced emphysema patients can neither tolerate the exertion of childbirth or the respiration-slowing effects of anesthetics.

> But of course such empirical facts are cavalierly dismissed by you

Yeah, I am not big on the emopiricism. That’s why I voted for Kris over Adam. Lol

And as for empirical facts, you haven’t established any.

All you've got is making fun of typos. And I have provided you with a plethora of empirical facts; it's like waving a bone in front of a blind dog. Your antiabortion memetic filters refuse to permit you to recognize them. But your obdurate denials do not affect the empirical realities one iota or whit; it remains the case that a thousand women a year would die or suffer serious and permanent physical damage in the absence of these procedures. But that seems to be okey-dokey with such an odious and execrable individual as you; you'll just blithely, cavalierly, and willfully deny that the absence of such procedures was the reason that they died or were permanently maimed.

to be continued...

635 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:17:04am

re: #631 A.W.

> all your cynical and manipulative attempt

Yeah, it couldn’t possibly be the case that I actually believe that all human life has value, especially innocent human life. No, I have to be cynical and manipulative—its really the only explanation. But that begs the question. If my stated beliefs are not my “real” motive, then what do you think is behind it, really? Are you about to claim that I am the puppet of “big daycare” or perhaps the Gerber or Huggies corporations, that want to see more children be born so they make more money? What is my hidden agenda besides the sanctity of what I consider to be human life?

It would be offensive if it wasn’t so ridiculous.

Your love of the sanctity of what you seem to consider to be human life does not appear to extend to the lives or physical health of the women who are faced with such disastrously maiming or lethal pregnancies. I guess that, for some stange and unfathomable-to-me their lives and physical health just don't rank as highly in your considerations as do the fetuses they carry. You seem to value their fetal receptacle incubator function far more than you value their lives, health, personhoods and humanity.

> If it is a matter of killing one siamese twin in order to save the life of the other one

Nice dodge, but you did proffer the silly claim that the difference is language capacity. Care to defend that lame comment on its merits?

Wrong; YOU first asserted that silly claim in your post # 589, where you made the lame comment that:

One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

I was merely countering it.

Checking upthread is a bitch, ain't it?

And notice I never said it is wrong to kill one person when both are going to die otherwise. I said that it wasn’t necessary in a certain context.

But let’s apply your logic to that context. So if one has cancer, kill him? If there is a risk of diabetes, which people can live a full life with, KILL HIM? And so on. Seems a bit of an overreaction, doesn’t it?

No, if it is a choice of either running a significant risk of killing a born and mature woman, or even of seriously and pemanently damaging her health, or of terminating the pregnancy she carries, even late into her term, then terminate the fetus to save the woman's life. You keep resorting to bringing up unrelational red herring straw man nonsequitors because you cannot dispute the decency, morality, or basic humanity of making that choice in favor of the woman's life or physical health.

Your analogies aren't good; they aren't even bad. They are not analogous whatsoever.

636 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:34:03am

re: #632 A.W.

Sally (cont)

Yes, A&W root beer foam head?

> Btw: not being able to talk yet vs. being able to talk is among the LEAST fundamental of the distinctions between single fetuses and born siamese twins.

You’re absolutely right. You made an utterly crappy argument.

Actually, as I pointed out previously, it was YOUR crappy argument, made by you in post #589:

One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

> That's all that his medical records,

Really you have seen them? Given patient privacy laws, I find that hard to believe.

The state of Kansas publishes a count of all late term abortions performed in the state year by year and the reasons given for their being performed. Since only Dr. Tiller performed them there, it is safe to assume that the 332 abortions performed there in 2008 were the sum total of Dr. Tiller's late term abortions there that year.

> and a jury of his peers think he did, as far as late term abortions are concerned

Not guilty does not mean innocent. See OJ.

It does in this case; the jury was not packed with people who had received late term abortions, nor were riots threatened in the streets if Dr. Tiller were found guilty, nor was the Dream Team present, nor was Judge Ito. The jury deliberated less than an hour before they threw out the charges, because the charges were bogus, and only leveled in pursuance of an antabortion jihad led by a crusading antiabortion attorney general, whose ideologically driven persecution of Dr. Tiller so offended the citizens of the state of Kansas that they refused to re-elect him to his post. He now has a position at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

> Who says that guilt was even a primary consideration? Ignorance, inability, inexperience, lack of technology, and fear seem like much more feasible ones

So your own statement was illogical?

No, your statement in post #588:

but [the referring doctors] were either unable or unwilling to perform it themselves.

So... they would feel guilty about it, but Tiller shouldn’t?

that guilt was the reason that referring physicians did not perform the procedures themselves instead of referring their patients to Dr. Tiller was shallow, self-servingly biased, and willfully failed to take any possible factor but the one you preferred into any consideration whatsoever.

637 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:41:14am

Sally plain and tall

> No, birth is an incontovertibly recognizeable bright line distinction.

And if you determine when sentience typically occurs, and then say on this date in the pregnancy, abortion is hereby illegal or restricted to the most extreme circumstances, guess what? That is a bright line rule, too.

I mean seriously, “its too hard to avoid committing murder, so why bother to even try?” What a puny argument. I mean is there any point in the development of the fetus where you would concede that the evidence of sentience is overwhelming? How about when the kid is pretty much doing the mambo in the womb? Does that count? Even pretending that the line is real hard to figure out, are you telling me seriously that there is no point in the pregnancy that is clearly over the line?

I mean, shit, studies have shown that children who hear classical music in the womb are typically better at math. So why don’t we do a simple set of experiments to figure out at what point in the pregnancy that playing such music makes the difference and pick then?

And notice you ran away from your silly “celebrate birthdays” argument. Typical passive aggression from you.

> The point is that pre-viability fetuses cannot even survive with the assistance of all the neonatal technology available to us

Yes, but can survive perfectly well if we just don’t kill it. didn’t the Hippocratic oath say something about doing no harm?

> Reasons to permit late term abortions in the State of Kansas, where Dr. Tiller was conducting his practice, include substantial danger the life of the woman or substantial, permanent, and severe threats to her physical health.

And there are serious allegations that he hasn’t done that.

> Such hazards include leaving her blind, paralyzed, brain damaged, in a persistent coma, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine for the rest of her truncated life.

Which you never established are ever actually happening.

> I already listed

Yes, but the word of an internet crank who has been known to be dishonest or at least incapable of basic reading comprehension is not proof. I mean hell, that guy who shot up the holocaust museum is a crank on the internet that claims that the holocaust never happened, but he wished it did, and that 9-11 was a bush conspiracy or some other nonsense

> Other cases include where the fetus is so horribly damaged or deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

Right. Burn the village to save the village! That poor baby is going to die. So let’s kill it! The logic on display is staggering in its sheer power.

> My point is that since the late term abortions that Dr. Tiller was performing were indeed legal, and no change to that law is even faintly on the horizon, they only way for Dr. Tiller TO "be stopped" is by some crazed antiabortion terrorist murdering him.

Right, implying that I am arguing the opposite. So where, pray tell, did I say it was okay to murder him?

> Because the diabetes can cause renal failure

Oh give me a break. I know tons of people with diabetes. They shoot insulin in on a regular basis and they are basically fine.

> And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

Right. So to prevent killing the fetus, they kill the fetus. Burn the village, etc.

> Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

Darn that fetus! I told him to stop smoking!

Seriously has that EVER happened?

> The pain of either childbirth or c section, or the administration of anaesthesia, can precipitate a heart attack.

But on the other hand, sticking an immersion blender between her legs is safe!

638 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:42:00am

Sally, plain and tall, continued:

> Sometimes, also, advanced emphysema patients can neither tolerate the exertion of childbirth or the respiration-slowing effects of anesthetics.

And there is no warning of that, ahead of time!

> All you've got is making fun of typos.

No, that is just a happy bonus. Call it the icing on the cake.

> And I have provided you with a plethora of empirical facts

You have made many assertions and proven none. You do understand the difference, right?

> it remains the case that a thousand women a year would die or suffer serious and permanent physical damage in the absence of these procedures.

Given that you think that the wise course of action when a fetus might die is to murder it, I will take that with all the seriousness it deserves.

> such an odious and execrable individual as you

Yeah, how horrible of me to value human life, especially innocent human life.

I mean shit, if my niece was in traffic and the only way to stop her from being hit by a car was to allow myself to be hit in her place... I would do it in a heartbeat. But by comparison you in essence are arguing for mothers to push their own children into traffic to avoid the child dying of other causes, to avoid highly treatable conditions like diabetes, and so on, and I am the bad guy for saying our morality is a little screwed up here.

> Your love of the sanctity of what you seem to consider to be human life does not appear to extend to the lives or physical health of the women who are faced with such disastrously maiming or lethal pregnancies.

No, I have disputed that that is the choice.

By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

> YOU first asserted that silly claim in your post # 589, where you made the lame comment that:

> [quoting me] One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

Um first, screaming is not “language faculty.”

Second, you miss my point. My argument is primarily a lack of sympathy borne from a lack of evident suffering—i.e. screaming. They are dehumanized in the left’s mind; their suffering is out of sight, thus out of mind.

And further to note that a Siamese twin can actually do something to defend himself.

Seriously, do you even try to understand where the other side comes from?

> I was merely countering it.

Your counter is to agree that this is the distinction the left draws?

Logic is a bitch, isn’t it?

639 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:46:07am

Sally, plain and tall continued

> Actually, as I pointed out previously

Yeah, so why don’t you stick to saying it once in your package of responses?

> The state of Kansas publishes a count of all late term abortions performed in the state year by year and the reasons given for their being performed.

And of course that record is clear enough to audit and be sure that this was the actual reasons. Good to know.

> It does in this case

No, it doesn’t.

> No, your statement in post #588:

But I am just responding to what you said.

> that guilt was the reason that referring physicians did not perform the procedures themselves instead of referring their patients to Dr. Tiller was shallow, self-servingly biased

Gotcha. Everyone who is sickened by the whole procedure is a bad person. Okay.

640 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 11:51:02am

btw, to be clear, when i said

"And of course that record is clear enough to audit and be sure that this was the actual reasons. Good to know."

i am being sarcastic. i admit that is less than obvious.

641 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 12:13:14pm

re: #637 A.W.

Sally plain and tall

Plainly not an adamantine antiabortion wacko like you, who cannot accept the reality that sometimes these procedures are regrettably necssary because it inconveniently cognitively dissonates with your cherished convictions.

> No, birth is an incontrovertibly recognizeable bright line distinction.

And if you determine when sentience typically occurs, and then say on this date in the pregnancy, abortion is hereby illegal or restricted to the most extreme circumstances, guess what? That is a bright line rule, too.

I mean seriously, “its too hard to avoid committing murder, so why bother to even try?” What a puny argument. I mean is there any point in the development of the fetus where you would concede that the evidence of sentience is overwhelming? How about when the kid is pretty much doing the mambo in the womb? Does that count? Even pretending that the line is real hard to figure out, are you telling me seriously that there is no point in the pregnancy that is clearly over the line?

I mean, shit, studies have shown that children who hear classical music in the womb are typically better at math. So why don’t we do a simple set of experiments to figure out at what point in the pregnancy that playing such music makes the difference and pick then?

And notice you ran away from your silly “celebrate birthdays” argument. Typical passive aggression from you.

That is already being done with reference to fetal viability. You are fetishizing fucking brainwaves like some antiabortionists festishize unique DNA. The onset of brainwaves in an eight week embryo do not signify personhood. In fact, human conscious self-awareness does not begin until substantially AFTER birth occurs. I will copy and paste a lengthy PubMed article from Gary E. Jones of the Philosophy department of the Univeristy of Sad Diego, that goes into that point in some depth, before I return to dismantling the rest of your ramshackle screed.

Fetal Brain Waves and Personhood
[Link: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...]

In an interesting essay, Professor Thomasine Kushner has recently
attempted to show that the fetus has a life worthy of protection when fetal brain waves can be detected, ie at about eight weeks of gestation (1). Kushner's argument is a refinement of that found
in a submission to the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr J M
Goldenring (2). In his contribution Dr Goldenring suggests that medical
science can indeed stipulate the point where human life begins. Given that 'brain death' has been accepted as the point where human life ends, logic would suggest that since 'brain life' indicates the emergence of a functioning brain, brain life should be considered the point when human life begins.

Kushner supports Goldenring's thesis on the basis that the initiation of brain activity is, a) among the options for establishing the point when human life begins and b) because of the connection of brain activity with the possibility of consciousness and the connection of the latter concept with what we take to be valuable about the notion of life (3). Kushner emphasises that what is significant about the onset of fetal brain waves is that the fetus in addition to being merely biologically alive, now 'has a life' and can be the subject of experiences (3). As Kushner states:

'. . . The important point is that until the infant has developed a brain capable of consciousness it is impossible for such personal development to occur. Conversely, once a human fetus has developed a brain capable of conciousness its biography - its life in the sense of bios - has begun. Thenceforth it has the capacity to be a person and its moral importance rests on that fact (3).'

Given the moral significance of fetal brain waves, Kushner concludes that after their onset the fetus is owed certain moral and legal protections (3).

Cont'd...

642 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 12:21:51pm

Fetal Brain Waves and Personhood, Cont'd...

If Kushner and Goldenring's interpretation of the significance of fetal brain waves is correct, much progress in the controversy surrounding the abortion issue will have been made. Instead of endless debates regarding the moral significance of the potential (4) of the fetus to grow into a person with a full set of rights, we could establish the personhood of the fetus on the basis of characteristics it possesses in actuality. That is, we could refer to a specific, ascertainable fact that indicates that the fetus is an actual person and has the same claim to protection as any adult. Unfortunately, the argument is far from being conclusive. The problem is that it is not clear that adult and fetal brain waves signify the same thing. Adult brain waves are morally significant because and only because their presence is associated with what we value in life - the capacity for self-knowledge, to communicate, etc. As Kushner states, these qualities include:

'. . . being the subject of a certain life with its accompanying history, nexus of personal and social relationships, complex patterns of psychological characteristics, plus the whole fabric of events as they happen to and affect the individual. Subjects of lives, in this sense, are capable of some degree of problem-solving, effecting relationships that give satisfaction, benefitting from past experiences to influence present situations as well as being capable of experiencing and expressing a range of emotions . . .(3)'.

The possession of these human capacities is what valuable life consists of, and the criterion for when someone has lost these capacities has changed over time. Science has narrowed the search for the organ(s) whose function is absolutely necessary for human, as opposed to merely biological, life. It is now evident that the fully developed brain is 'truly unique and irreplaceable' with respect to these capacities. The crucial issue is, however, whether or not the occurrence of fetal brain waves signifies, as it does in the adult, the possession of the valued faculties or merely the potential to develop these faculties. For fetal brainwaves to signify the same thing as they do in the adult, the fetus at eight weeks of gestation would have to have the same capacities as the adult.

Kushner's discussion is ambiguous on this important point, stating both that at the onset of brain waves the fetus is the subject of a life and that it has a developing capacity for being such a subject (4). In a revealing passage Kushner addresses the fact that though the nervous system is the first to start developing, it is the last system to complete development:

'Only gradually in fetal and then infant development does he or she acquire the characteristics of personhood. The process of becoming a person is a lengthy one and even at birth the infant has only some of the necessary psychological attributes such as desires, wants, frustrations and feelings. It will take time for the more complex sets of capacities referred to earlier to develop in the course of interaction between the infant and his environment (5)'.

The problem for Kushner and Goldenring is therefore that far from being 'logically suggested' by the brain death criterion, the argument that human life begins with fetal brain waves would only succeed if the fetal brain were fully developed at the time of the onset of brain waves (6). What actually seems to be the case, however, is that the onset of fetal brain waves is an indication that the fetus is developing normally and has the potential to grow into an adult with the attendant capacities.

Cont'd...

643 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 12:27:11pm

Fetal Brain Waves and Personhood, Cont'd...

It seems therefore that we are back at the old abortion controversy referred to earlier - ie does the fact that the fetus has the potential to develop into an adult confer on it any rights? After Goldenring and Kushner's analysis we are clearly aware of the facts that: 1) brain waves are in certain contexts morally and legally significant and 2) the fetus has brain waves at roughly eight weeks. These authors wrongly conclude, however, that the presence of brain waves signifies the same thing in the case of the fetus as it does in the adult. Their argument is in reality another manifestation of the potentiality/actuality controversy, and no matter how much one may agree with its conclusion, the argument adds nothing to the debate. If the traditional debate over the moral significance of the fetal potential to grow into a moral agent were to be resolved, there would be no need for this argument. If on the other hand that debate is not resolved, their argument will remain inconclusive.

References and footnotes
(1) Kushner T. Having a life versus being alive. Journal of Medical Ethics
1984; 10: 5-8.

(2) Goldenring J M. New England Journal of Medicine 1982; 307: 564.

(3) See reference (1): 6.

(4) Noonan J, ed. The morality of abortion. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1970.

(5) See reference (1): 7.

(6) Warren M A. On the moral and legal status of abortion. The monist 1973; 57: 1. It may be thought that the phenomena of sleeping adults or adults in temporary coma may constitute a counter-example to the distinction proffered in this essay. That is, such individuals have rights and yet only have the potential to manifest valued capacities such as self-knowledge, the ability to follow rules, etc. The distinction can still be maintained, however, between an entity that has certain dispositions but cannot manifest them presently and an entity that only potentially has certain dispositions.

GARY E JONES
Philosophy Department
University of San Diego

644 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 12:44:28pm

re: #637 A.W.

> The point is that pre-viability fetuses cannot even survive with the assistance of all the neonatal technology available to us

Yes, but can survive perfectly well if we just don’t kill it. didn’t the Hippocratic oath say something about doing no harm?

What about killing or maiming or crippling the women carrying them, which is the entire reason late-tem abortions are performed in the first place? You miss no opportunity to forget all about the women. You know, the women whose lives are physical health are severely and substantally threatened by the continuation of their pregnancies; those women.

> Reasons to permit late term abortions in the State of Kansas, where Dr. Tiller was conducting his practice, include substantial danger the life of the woman or substantial, permanent, and severe threats to her physical health.

And there are serious allegations that he hasn’t done that.

Not as far as a jury of his peers is concerned.

> Such hazards include leaving her blind, paralyzed, brain damaged, in a persistent coma, or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine for the rest of her truncated life.

Which you never established are ever actually happening.

And it is because of Dr. Tiller's willingness to help the women concerned that they DIDN'T happen. But such things have happened in the past, in the absence of such procedures. Before their advent, women died or were permanently injured by problem pregnancies every day.

> I already listed

Yes, but the word of an internet crank who has been known to be dishonest or at least incapable of basic reading comprehension is not proof. I mean hell, that guy who shot up the holocaust museum is a crank on the internet that claims that the holocaust never happened, but he wished it did, and that 9-11 was a bush conspiracy or some other nonsense.

Engaging in a little psychological projection there, are, we, foamhead? Denial is not a river in Egypt, nor will turning away from genuine medical problems cause them to magically disappear. Instead, it is the woman who ceases to exist - which seems to be fine and dandy with you, as long as you can manage to sustain your willful ignorance of it. All you've got left is a false and Godwinianly gratuitous ad hominem comparison of me to a murderous antisemite, so that's what you deploy.

Cont'd...

645 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:01:21pm

re: #637 A.W.

Other cases include where the fetus is so horribly damaged or deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

Right. Burn the village to save the village! That poor baby is going to die. So let’s kill it! The logic on display is staggering in its sheer power.

Here's an example of what your belittlingly dismissive response is egregiously misdescribing:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

From Balloon Juice, a fine blog written (apparently) by a fellow West Virginian, a story from the husband of a woman who received an abortion from Dr. Tiller:

In 1994 my wife and I found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was difficult and unusually uncomfortable but her doctor repeatedly told her things were fine. Sometime early in the 8th month my wife, an RN who at the time was working in an infertility clinic asked the Dr. she was working for what he thought of her discomfort. He examined her and said that he couldn't be certain but thought that she might be having twins. We were thrilled and couldn't wait to get a new sonogram that hopefully would confirm his thoughts. Two days later our joy was turned to unspeakable sadness when the new sonogram showed conjoined twins. Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants. We were advised that our options were to deliver into the world a child who's life would be filled with horrible pain and suffering or fly out to Wichita Kansas and to terminate the pregnancy under the direction of Dr. George Tiller.

We made an informed decision to go to Kansas. One can only imagine the pain borne by a woman who happily carries a child for 8 months only to find out near the end of term that the children were not to be and that she had to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy and go against everything she had been taught to believe was right. This was what my wife had to do.

Like I said earlier today, these things are really complicated. Journalistic shorthand really does no justice to how deeply complex these things can be. I suppose one can say that yes, this couple snuffed out a life, but what sort of life, and at what emotional toll to themselves?

> My point is that since the late term abortions that Dr. Tiller was performing were indeed legal, and no change to that law is even faintly on the horizon, they only way for Dr. Tiller TO "be stopped" is by some crazed antiabortion terrorist murdering him.

Right, implying that I am arguing the opposite. So where, pray tell, did I say it was okay to murder him?

Are you sorry he's dead? And not just because his wanton murder did grave damage to the image of the antiabortion movement; are you sorry that he's not still alive to help these women in desperate need? Or do you still continue to obdurately refuse to acknowledge that such a need even exists, like the cleric who wouldn't gaze through Galileo's telescope in order to avoid seeing the moon mountains that belied his beliefs, or like the creationists who insist that the fossils are fakes?

Because the diabetes can cause renal failure

Oh give me a break. I know tons of people with diabetes. They shoot insulin in on a regular basis and they are basically fine.

But the stress of carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering it or undergoing a c section while suffering from severe diabetes can result in comprehensive renal failure; then it isn't a matter of insulin shots, but of perpetual kidney dialysis - if she even lives. As if you fucking care if she lives, or lives in good health, once her incubator function has been fulfilled. You stubbornly deny such dire ramifications are even possible.

646 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:13:17pm

re: #637 A.W.

> And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

Right. So to prevent killing the fetus, they kill the fetus. Burn the village, etc.

No, to prevent killing the WOMAN, terminate the fetus. But the woman doesn't seem to exist for you; you look right through her as if she were glass and only see the fetus. She utterly disappears from your consideration.

> Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

Darn that fetus! I told him to stop smoking!

Seriously has that EVER happened?

Rarely, but occasionally, yes. And for you to so callously joke about it just proves what a sick fucking puppy you are.

> The pain of either childbirth or c section, or the administration of anaesthesia, can precipitate a heart attack.

But on the other hand, sticking an immersion blender between her legs is safe!

Fuck you very much, and the twisted vaginal Cuisinart comparison you rode in on. It is surpassingly obvious from such remarks that you are not only willfully ignorant, but must be sadistically mentally ill, as well. The cervix is dilated and the fetus is surgically removed without substantially risking the woman's life or health.

647 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:33:51pm

A boy named Sally

Okay, it looks like you stopped for now...

> Plainly not an adamantine antiabortion wacko like you

Right. You only believe that the right answer to a fetus whose life is in danger is to kill it.

And I am the wacko.

> You are fetishizing fucking brainwaves like some antiabortionists festishize unique DNA. The onset of brainwaves in an eight week embryo do not signify personhood.

Okay, let’s try a hypothetical. E.T. lands, meets a boy name Elliot, becomes friends, phones home and is about to leave. At the last second, Elliot’s mom pulls out a gun and shoots E.T.

Now most us would say that it is murder. Maybe not legally, but most would say that killing an alien in that scenario is as wrong as killing a human being. Sure E.T. ain’t human, but what does that have to do with it?

So what is it then that leads to the gut feeling that killing a creature like E.T. in cold blood is wrong?

Well, because he is sentient.

Sentience is what makes the difference between a clump of cells and a person worth saving.

> I will copy and paste a lengthy PubMed article

Well, lord knows, lord knows we need more length in this argument.

Anyway, here is shorter jones: they ain’t people because um... look! A squirrel!

I mean seriously, he defines personhood as things like a “nexus of personal and social relationships” so I guess if no one likes you, you are not a person. I have heard of nerds feeling like they weren’t a person, but I have never seen someone argue seriously that it justifies murder.

Suppose a person is born, put in a cell all of their lives, strapped to a bed and fed intravenously, and on their 18th birthday are killed in a horrible “Saw” type fashion. That isn’t murder? After all, they don’t have friends, they didn’t solve problems, benefit from past experience and so on?

What a silly argument.

How about this instead for a reason instead not to kill a fetus that has brain activity? BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE FEELINGS!

> What about killing or maiming or crippling the women carrying them

Death v. disability. I will have to go with disability. I mean know dozens of handicapped people who don’t kill themselves, so apparently to them death is worse than disability.

And besides it might be a false choice. You have not yet proven that this really is the only two choices.

> You miss no opportunity to forget all about the women.

Ah, new distortion. If you don’t let women murder their children for frivolous reasons you are a bad person.

> Not as far as a jury of his peers is concerned.

Psst. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as not guilty. And not guilty is not the same as innocent. Indeed it is often said that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than imprison one innocent man. Which means that if we have truly enforced that ratio, 10 out of every 11 people acquitted in a criminal case are actually guilty.

> [me] Which you never established are ever actually happening.

> [you] And it is because

Shorter Sally: look! A squirrel!

> nor will turning away from genuine medical problems cause them to magically disappear.

Translation: you can’t prove it. good to know. Or are you just too stupid to understand the difference between an assertion and proof? Because every time I challenge you to provide more than assertions, you provide... more assertions.

648 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:34:34pm

A boy named Sally (cont)

> All you've got left is a false and Godwinianly gratuitous ad hominem comparison of me to a murderous antisemite, so that's what you deploy.

Aw, poor whiddle Sally. Did I hurt your whiddle feelings?

No, sally, I didn’t say you were like the guy. I was just making the point that any person can say anything on the net and saying it doesn’t make it true. Its called using an example to illustrate a principle. I was trying to drill into your tiny little mind the difference between assertion and proof.

And for you to get all huffy is rich after you twice accused me of supporting Tiller’s murder. If you want to invoke the rule on ad homs, how does that stack up?

> Here's an example

Of an anonymous comment to counteract my argument! Well played.

> Are you sorry he's dead?

Can you read?

> Or do you still continue to obdurately refuse to acknowledge that such a need even exists, like the cleric who wouldn't gaze through Galileo's telescope in order to avoid seeing the moon mountains that belied his beliefs, or like the creationists who insist that the fossils are fakes?

Right, so if I deny your assertions without proof, then I am glad Tiller is dead. Good logic there.

And of course you haven’t provided fossils or the telescope. You are like a guy who goes up to the cleric and says, “the moon is made out of cheese, too.” and the cleric says, “oh, come on. What is your proof?” And you say, “my proof is I am saying it is made out of cheese.” That’s not science but faith.

> But the stress of carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering it or undergoing a c section while suffering from severe diabetes can result in comprehensive renal failure

Who knew? Diabetics can’t have babies. And I am sure there is no way to treat that, right?

> No, to prevent killing the WOMAN, terminate the fetus.

No, that is not what you said. You wrote:

> And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

“Doom the fetus,” not “doom the woman.”

So now you can’t even keep your story straight.

Cut and paste is a bitch, huh?

> Rarely, but occasionally, yes.

Proof, not assertions.

> the fetus is surgically removed without substantially risking the woman's life or health.

Got it. Abortion is safe. Miscarriage is painful and traumatic. But abortion is safe and fun! Sheesh, who is willfully ignorant?

649 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:41:04pm

re: #638 A.W.

> Sometimes, also, advanced emphysema patients can neither tolerate the exertion of childbirth or the respiration-slowing effects of anesthetics.

And there is no warning of that, ahead of time!

Sometimes women do not seek abortions earlier in their pegnancies because they hope to be able to tough it out and give birth to a devoutly desired child, but it becomes obvious late in the pregnancy that this is impossible while still remaining around and in sufficient physical health to care for it.

> All you've got is making fun of typos.

No, that is just a happy bonus. Call it the icing on the cake.

I have had ample opportunity to do so with you, but I don't stoop to resorting to such tactics - yet another way that you and I differ.

> And I have provided you with a plethora of empirical facts

You have made many assertions and proven none. You do understand the difference, right?

[Link: www.nirhealth.org...]

> it remains the case that a thousand women a year would die or suffer serious and permanent physical damage in the absence of these procedures.

Given that you think that the wise course of action when a fetus might die is to murder it, I will take that with all the seriousness it deserves.

So you would prefer that women be legally forced to give birth to horrifically deformed fetuses with no chancees whatsoever for survival, and suffer the excruciating psychological and emotional agony of watching them die pain-wracked monstrous deaths?

A ghastly ghoul you are.

> such an odious and execrable individual as you

Yeah, how horrible of me to value human life, especially innocent human life.

I gues that you must think that all those shameless hussies must be guilty of SOMEthing, and thus less deserving of life or health; after all, they're pregnant in the FIRST place, so they musta done the Big Nasty, and that stains their characters right way; right? Even within the bounds of Holy Matrimony. It ain't like they're SAINTS, or something, like those 'innocent' FETUSES are in your mind; right?

But fetuses do not possess the necessary personhood, or conscious self-awareness, to be guilty OR innocent, for they can neither conceive of or execute either good or evil choices by means of which to be adjudged to be either guilty or innocent. They lack the cognitive capacity to do so, or any referent cognitive content. They have no experience of the world.

I mean shit, if my niece was in traffic and the only way to stop her from being hit by a car was to allow myself to be hit in her place... I would do it in a heartbeat. But by comparison you in essence are arguing for mothers to push their own children into traffic to avoid the child dying of other causes, to avoid highly treatable conditions like diabetes, and so on, and I am the bad guy for saying our morality is a little screwed up here.

In the very rare cases where third trimester abortion is regrettably necessary, such alternatives do not exist, despite your relentlessly self-delusory contentions that they do. These women WANTED to have these children, or else they would have obtained abortions earlier, when they were less harrowing, complex, and expensive. But they find that they cannot have the child they so desperately want while continuing to live, or to live without substantial and permanent disability, and so they resort to what is to them an emotionally and psychologically devastating yet unfortunately unavoidable path.

650 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 1:56:24pm

re: #638 A.W.

> Your love of the sanctity of what you seem to consider to be human life does not appear to extend to the lives or physical health of the women who are faced with such disastrously maiming or lethal pregnancies.

No, I have disputed that that is the choice.

Disputing empirical facts does not render them into nonfacts. If that were the case, then the Troofers and the Nirthers and the Anti-Vaxxers and the YECers would be right.

By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

If both siamese twins cannot long survive, but one of them can survive separation and the other one cannot, they are routinely separated. And a woman has every fucking moral right to value her own life or physical health over the life of the fetus that she carries, and to act upon that determination when the continued carrying of the fetus places her life or physical health in serious jeopardy, whatever uncaring-for-women-when-fetuses-are-involved assholes like you think about it.

> YOU first asserted that silly claim in your post # 589, where you made the lame comment that:

> [quoting me] One can't help but think that the real reason for the different treatment is that the siamese twin in my example can scream, can hire a lawyer, etc., but a fetus cannot.

Um first, screaming is not “language faculty.”

Second, you miss my point. My argument is primarily a lack of sympathy borne from a lack of evident suffering—i.e. screaming. They are dehumanized in the left’s mind; their suffering is out of sight, thus out of mind.

And further to note that a Siamese twin can actually do something to defend himself.

Seriously, do you even try to understand where the other side comes from?

Oh, Puh-LEEEZE. The nonexistent nits you futilely try and fail to pick in order to endeavor to paper over the fact that you were practicing turnspeak,

[Link: www.eretzyisroel.org...]

and had in fact done the very thing you were accusing me of doing, render you pitiful and pathetic

[Link: www.eretzyisroel.org...] I was merely countering it.

Your counter is to agree that this is the distinction the left draws?

Logic is a bitch, isn’t it?

My counter did not mention left, right, above, below, in frnt of, behind, or center. This is just another moronic and futile attempt by you to deflect attention from your monumental fuckup by using political slander and slime in a futile attempt to muddy waters. And your use of such ad hominum tactics constitute a 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy.

651 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:08:50pm

Mustang Sally

Okay it looks like you tuckered yourself out again.

> Sometimes women do not seek abortions earlier in their pegnancies because they hope to be able to tough it out

Fine, then now part of their calculus should be that if they wait too long they will no longer be allowed to abort. Because bluntly it is better to abort a clump of cells than a sentient fetus.

> [Link: [Link: www.nirhealth.org...]...]

Oh my. So if a lawyer says it, it is true?

Well at least you are finally trying to prove your claims. That is progress. Baby steps, I suppose.

> no chancees whatsoever for survival

I am going to guess that the chances of survival in that scenario is better than in the immersion blender scenario. Just a guess. /sarcasm

> suffer the excruciating psychological and emotional agony

Ah, I thought all of this was necessary for the life and physical health of the mother?

Besides, by what logic is it harder to walk away from the baby and let doctors deal with it, v. just killing it?

> I gues that you must think that all those shameless hussies must be guilty of SOMEthing

When did I say anything of the sort?

Another ad hom not supported by what I actually said.

> These women WANTED to have these children, or else they would have obtained abortions earlier, when they were less harrowing, complex, and expensive.

Really? You know all the women Tiller treated? Know everything about them?

Oh, wait, I get it. you are God. Or maybe Jesus. That is why you feel you can say that mere assertions is proof. I mean you created the universe—who am I to doubt you? And of course you know all of their situations! You’re omniscient, after all! I am so sorry your omnipotence for ever doubting you. /sarcasm

> psychologically devastating yet unfortunately unavoidable path.

Unavoidable in the sense that they could have avoided it and chose instead to risk the worst outcome.

> Disputing empirical facts does not render them into nonfacts.

And asserting with lots of curse words that assertions are true don’t make them true. You do know that, right?

> Disputing empirical facts does not render them into nonfacts. If that were the case, then the Troofers and the Nirthers and the Anti-Vaxxers and the YECers would be right.

Right. And which are you more like? Hmm. You are making assertions without proof and you are a net crank. Nah, you are more like those groups.

> [me] By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

> [you] If both siamese twins cannot long survive, but one of them can survive separation and the other one cannot, they are routinely separated.

Yes, but what you are dodging is the reality that you cannot kill one just to free the other from the encumbrance of his sibling. It is an inherently disabling condition, and yet it is unthinkable to kill one to end it. But to kill a fetus to avoid a possibly temporary disability? All kosher with you.

> The nonexistent nits you futilely try and fail to pick in order to endeavor to paper over the fact that you were practicing turnspeak

No I think the proper term is making a rational distinction. But here you go rationalizing the killing of a sentient being and calling me callous. Gosh, that sounds much more like “turnspeak” than anything I did.

I know it annoys you that I managed to show how shallow your thinking is, but, well, eat it.

> And your use of such ad hominum tactics constitute a 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy.

And of course you have never ever been personally insulting, right? Or foul mouthed, I might add. /sarcasm.

652 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:09:18pm

re: #639 A.W.

> Actually, as I pointed out previously

Yeah, so why don’t you stick to saying it once in your package of responses?

Because after I have countered your contentions, you obdurately continue to assert them, as if they're all you've got (and they most probably are). So It becomes necessary to repeat my responses.

> The state of Kansas publishes a count of all late term abortions performed in the state year by year and the reasons given for their being performed.

And of course that record is clear enough to audit and be sure that this was the actual reasons. Good to know.

Yep. Unless you're accusing not only Dr. Tiller and his concurring physician, but also the many different referring physicians from around the nation, of engaging in some sort of dark and eee-vil conspiracy. Which I would not put beyond you, since your default position is to think the worst of others of whose actions you do not approve.

> It does in this case

No, it doesn’t.

Yeah; you'd rather trust the Jerry Falwell guy who couldn't get re-elected as attorney general and fled Kansas to take a position at Liberty University than twelve unanimously voting jurors.

> No, your statement in post #588:

But I am just responding to what you said.

> that guilt was the reason that referring physicians did not perform the procedures themselves instead of referring their patients to Dr. Tiller was shallow, self-servingly biased

Gotcha. Everyone who is sickened by the whole procedure is a bad person. Okay.

No; everyone who gratuitously default assumes that guilt is THE one and only reason the referring physicians did not perform the procedures themselves, instead of including considerations such as lack of technology, lack of expertise, and fear of assassination by an antiabortion zealot, is shallow and self-servingly biased. For instance, you.

653 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:10:56pm

re: #640 A.W.

btw, to be clear, when i said

"And of course that record is clear enough to audit and be sure that this was the actual reasons. Good to know."

i am being sarcastic. i admit that is less than obvious.

WEhat is more obvious is that you are less than intelligent. Or objective. Or informed.

654 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:11:35pm

Mustang Sally,

btw, can you pointlessly repeat yourself less often in the future?

655 A.W.  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:17:03pm

Sally the Southern Belle

> Because after I have countered your contentions, you obdurately continue to assert them,

Yeah, I am the one who has the problem repeating myself. /sarcasm.

> Yep.

Nope. Assertions don’t change reality.

> Yeah; you'd rather trust the Jerry Falwell guy

Where did I say that?

> No

Yes. You called everyone who doesn’t do the abortions assholes, more or less.

> WEhat is more obvious is that you are less than intelligent. Or objective. Or informed.

“WEhat” is great is they way you keep it classy and avoid gratuitous ad homs. /sarcasm.

656 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:39:04pm

re: #647 A.W.

> Plainly not an adamantine antiabortion wacko like you

Right. You only believe that the right answer to a fetus whose life is in danger is to kill it.

And I am the wacko.

No, I think that if a fetus is so horribly deformed that it is destined to die soon after childbirth anyway, that the woman should not be forced to go through the excruciating agony of giving birth to a doomed fetus only to have it soon die. Nor, frankly, should the fetus be put through that. But being the obvious wacko that you are, you of course disagree, and would rather bring the pointless pain.

> You are fetishizing fucking brainwaves like some antiabortionists festishize unique DNA. The onset of brainwaves in an eight week embryo do not signify personhood.

Okay, let’s try a hypothetical. E.T. lands, meets a boy name Elliot, becomes friends, phones home and is about to leave. At the last second, Elliot’s mom pulls out a gun and shoots E.T.

Now most us would say that it is murder. Maybe not legally, but most would say that killing an alien in that scenario is as wrong as killing a human being. Sure E.T. ain’t human, but what does that have to do with it?

So what is it then that leads to the gut feeling that killing a creature like E.T. in cold blood is wrong?

Well, because he is sentient.

Sentience is what makes the difference between a clump of cells and a person worth saving.

You are taking for granted that the onset of fetal brainwaves entails sentience, when it doesn't. Movie ET is both born and self-consciously aware, but that status develops within human infants only post-birth. If you're arguing that even nonhuman species that can respond to stimuli have a right to life that supercedes a woman's right to life and health, that tells me where you rank womens' lives and their health, and also tells me that you must be a vegetarian, because terrestrial animals are sentient.

> I will copy and paste a lengthy PubMed article

Well, lord knows, lord knows we need more length in this argument.

Anyway, here is shorter jones: they ain’t people because um... look! A squirrel!

I mean seriously, he defines personhood as things like a “nexus of personal and social relationships” so I guess if no one likes you, you are not a person. I have heard of nerds feeling like they weren’t a person, but I have never seen someone argue seriously that it justifies murder.

Suppose a person is born, put in a cell all of their lives, strapped to a bed and fed intravenously, and on their 18th birthday are killed in a horrible “Saw” type fashion. That isn’t murder? After all, they don’t have friends, they didn’t solve problems, benefit from past experience and so on?

What a silly argument.

How about this instead for a reason instead not to kill a fetus that has brain activity? BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE FEELINGS!

So do dogs. Apparently you value a dog's life over a woman's health. Unless, that is, the dog is a bitch; then she's got her gender going against her, too; right?

Besides which, in your example, the infant would have had to be rendered unconscious at the moment of birth by some sick sadists with decades of free time, kept perpetually unconscious, and tube fed. No experience of self, body, world, or other people. No 'of' for consciousness to be conscious of. No 'there' there.

If I had to transfuse the blood out of such a being in order to save the life of a beloved wife and mother upon whom a family depended, I'd do so unhesitatingly. But you'd choose to let her die, if the bed vegetable had a dick. And maybe even if it didn't.

I'd also do what I could to get the sick sadists who did such a thing to a born infant tried, sentenced, and convicted of kidnapping and sensory deprivation torture - and perhaps murder as well, because they prevented a born infant from ever becoming a person and having a life.

657 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 2:57:48pm

re: #647 A.W.

> What about killing or maiming or crippling the women carrying them

Death v. disability. I will have to go with disability. I mean know dozens of handicapped people who don’t kill themselves, so apparently to them death is worse than disability.

Let me make this explicit for everyone; A&W would legally mandate that a woman be forced to suffer brain damage, paralysis, blindness, or permanent kidney dialysis requirements before he'd let her abort her fetus. Women, for your own sakes and safety, DO NOT MARRY THIS MAN!

And besides it might be a false choice. You have not yet proven that this really is the only two choices.

You keep falsely believing that the simple force of your asserted incredulity proves anything more than that you are once again committing the ad ignorantium fallacy, or fallacy from ignorance, except that your ignorance in the face of proffered evidence is willful to the point of obvious absurdity. You remind me of the guy on Monty Python denying the parrot was dead.

> You miss no opportunity to forget all about the women.

Ah, new distortion. If you don’t let women murder their children for frivolous reasons you are a bad person.

You must really hate women if you think that their lives and healths are frivolous reasons. And btw: fetuses are not children, and terminating pregnancies is not murder, according to US law.

> Not as far as a jury of his peers is concerned.

Psst. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as not guilty. And not guilty is not the same as innocent. Indeed it is often said that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than imprison one innocent man. Which means that if we have truly enforced that ratio, 10 out of every 11 people acquitted in a criminal case are actually guilty.

The standard is innocent until proven guilty, so not being proven guilty, and in fact being exonerated, or proven to be not guilty, is, by law, innocence.

> [me] Which you never established are ever actually happening.

> [you] And it is because

Shorter Sally: look! A squirrel!

Nope; for those women, medical salvation.

> nor will turning away from genuine medical problems cause them to magically disappear.

Translation: you can’t prove it. good to know. Or are you just too stupid to understand the difference between an assertion and proof? Because every time I challenge you to provide more than assertions, you provide... more assertions.

I have also posted articles and links to personal accounts of such cases, asshole. Including in legal briefs. You've got your mouth jacked so wide open from shouting misogynistic bullshit that you've got your lips stretched over your eyes, and you can't see to read jack shit.

658 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 3:21:33pm

re: #648 A.W.

> All you've got left is a false and Godwinianly gratuitous ad hominem comparison of me to a murderous antisemite, so that's what you deploy.

Aw, poor whiddle Sally. Did I hurt your whiddle feelings?

No, foamhead, you just once again conslusively demonstrated your utter asshattery.

No, sally, I didn’t say you were like the guy. I was just making the point that any person can say anything on the net and saying it doesn’t make it true. Its called using an example to illustrate a principle. I was trying to drill into your tiny little mind the difference between assertion and proof.

You mean proof like alla those links to, like, you know, newspaper stories and legal briefs with, like, you know, personal accounts in them? That kinda proof? The kind that only an incorrigibly fuckwitted nimrod like yourself would belittle, ignore, or dismiss?

And for you to get all huffy is rich after you twice accused me of supporting Tiller’s murder. If you want to invoke the rule on ad homs, how does that stack up?

I don't see any tears being shed, but I do detect the hint of a grin.

> Here's an example

Of an anonymous comment to counteract my argument! Well played.

See; I figured that a woman's testimony would mean even less to you than it would to a Muslim.

> Are you sorry he's dead?

Can you read?

Can you write it? You haven't yet.

> Or do you still continue to obdurately refuse to acknowledge that such a need even exists, like the cleric who wouldn't gaze through Galileo's telescope in order to avoid seeing the moon mountains that belied his beliefs, or like the creationists who insist that the fossils are fakes?

Right, so if I deny your assertions without proof, then I am glad Tiller is dead. Good logic there.

Proof has been proffered. Newspaper articles. First hand accounts in legal briefs. Charles himself has posted some personal accounts on LGF; you wanna tell HIM that they're fulla bullshit, or that he is?

And of course you haven’t provided fossils or the telescope. You are like a guy who goes up to the cleric and says, “the moon is made out of cheese, too.” and the cleric says, “oh, come on. What is your proof?” And you say, “my proof is I am saying it is made out of cheese.” That’s not science but faith.

The personal accounts in the legal brief the link to which I posted are as solid evidence as can be provided to the likes of you, without putting you through med school, suiting your ass up, and having a doctor explain and point to precisely why such a procedure is necessary while he is performing it.

> But the stress of carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering it or undergoing a c section while suffering from severe diabetes can result in comprehensive renal failure

Who knew? Diabetics can’t have babies. And I am sure there is no way to treat that, right?

Notice I said severe diabetes. And in some few cases, renal failure would be unavoidable if the fetus were carried to term.

> No, to prevent killing the WOMAN, terminate the fetus.

No, that is not what you said. You wrote:

> And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

“Doom the fetus,” not “doom the woman.”

So now you can’t even keep your story straight.

Cut and paste is a bitch, huh?

Yes it is. Because the VERY next sentence, which you conveniently omitted, states:

Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

My 'story' was straight as an arrow; you just fucking lied about it. And I just fucking busted you fucking lying about it, for everyone to see, you fucking liar.

659 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 3:29:51pm

re: #648 A.W.

> Rarely, but occasionally, yes.

Proof, not assertions.

Links to proof already provided. Only a brainwashed and viscerally committed-to-the-point-or-reality-denial dumbass would deny their veracity. So I expect you to do so vehemently and vociferously.

> the fetus is surgically removed without substantially risking the woman's life or health.

Got it. Abortion is safe. Miscarriage is painful and traumatic. But abortion is safe and fun! Sheesh, who is willfully ignorant?

No, it's not fun, and, although orders of statistical magnitude safer than either c section or childbirth, it isn't absolutely safe, either. But it's a damn sight better alternative for the woman than dying, or being blind or brain damaged or paralyzed or shackled to a kidney dialysis machine for the rest of her short and blighted life.

660 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 3:56:16pm

re: #651 A.W.

> Sometimes women do not seek abortions earlier in their pregnancies because they hope to be able to tough it out

Fine, then now part of their calculus should be that if they wait too long they will no longer be allowed to abort. Because bluntly it is better to abort a clump of cells than a sentient fetus.

So now you would doom women to death for trying, and failing, to be able to have a baby. You are quite a moral monster.

> [Link: [Link:

661 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 4:17:05pm

re: #651 A.W.

>Oh my. So if a lawyer says it, it is true?

Well at least you are finally trying to prove your claims. That is progress. Baby steps, I suppose.

The personal accounts are from women who themselves were faces with the circumstances and made the choices and underwent the procedures; the lawyers are just including their testimonies in a legal brief.

> no chances whatsoever for survival

I am going to guess that the chances of survival in that scenario is better than in the immersion blender scenario. Just a guess. /sarcasm

Once again demonstrating how sick and twisted you really are. Fuck you and your demented Cuisinart references.

> suffer the excruciating psychological and emotional agony

Ah, I thought all of this was necessary for the life and physical health of the mother?

Only in the cases where the fetuses were viable. In the cases where they are not viable, it is done to spare the woman the needless and pointless anguish of giving birth to a mostrously deformed and doomed fetus.

Besides, by what logic is it harder to walk away from the baby and let doctors deal with it, v. just killing it?

Ask your niece whether she would prefer to undergo a late term abortion or to give birth to a monstrously deformed fetus doomed to soon die. Then tell her that if you had the power, you would FORCE her to undergo such a horrific childbirth. Just don't be surprised if she chooses never to speak to you again.

> I gues that you must think that all those shameless hussies must be guilty of SOMEthing

When did I say anything of the sort?

Another ad hom not supported by what I actually said.

It's a combination of what you DID say and what you DIDN'T say. You repeatedly referred to the fetuses as innocent, while never applying that adjective to the women. So if you choose to call the fetuses innocent, but not the women, you obviously must consider them to be guilty of something.

> These women WANTED to have these children, or else they would have obtained abortions earlier, when they were less harrowing, complex, and expensive.

Really? You know all the women Tiller treated? Know everything about them?

Oh, wait, I get it. you are God. Or maybe Jesus. That is why you feel you can say that mere assertions is proof. I mean you created the universe—who am I to doubt you? And of course you know all of their situations! You’re omniscient, after all! I am so sorry your omnipotence for ever doubting you. /sarcasm

So you prefer to embrace the sick and twisted fantasy that there are thousands of sadistic women out there who never wanted children, but who carried their pregnancies late into term for the perverse pleasure of aborting them later? The fact that you favor such a nightmare misogynism tells me more than I ever wanted to know about the damp hole under the flat rock in which the vomitous excuse for your soul or conscience resides.

662 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 4:36:36pm

re: #651 A.W.

> psychologically devastating yet unfortunately unavoidable path.

Unavoidable in the sense that they could have avoided it and chose instead to risk the worst outcome.

Unavoidable in the sense that they could have chosen instead to risk death or permanent serious injury. And you morally condemn them for not choosing to do so.

> Disputing empirical facts does not render them into nonfacts.

And asserting with lots of curse words that assertions are true don’t make them true. You do know that, right?

Providing links to newspaper accounts and legal briefs containing the personal testimony of the women concerned DOES constitute providing empirical evidence of the truth of my assertions.

> Disputing empirical facts does not render them into nonfacts. If that were the case, then the Troofers and the Nirthers and the Anti-Vaxxers and the YECers would be right.

Right. And which are you more like? Hmm. You are making assertions without proof and you are a net crank. Nah, you are more like those groups.

Nope; I have provided their own official affidavited testimony as proof that these women faced death or serious and permanent physical injury or the birth of doomed and deformed fetuses; you have not provided a single link to any woman who claimed to have had a late term abortion because she was depressed.

> [me] By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

> [you] If both siamese twins cannot long survive, but one of them can survive separation and the other one cannot, they are routinely separated.

Yes, but what you are dodging is the reality that you cannot kill one just to free the other from the encumbrance of his sibling. It is an inherently disabling condition, and yet it is unthinkable to kill one to end it. But to kill a fetus to avoid a possibly temporary disability? All kosher with you.

The statute includes the word 'permanent'; and we're not just talking a disability like a limp or a neck crick from whip-lash; we're talking blindness or paralysis or brain damage or a future shackled to a kidney dialysis machine.

> The nonexistent nits you futilely try and fail to pick in order to endeavor to paper over the fact that you were practicing turnspeak

No I think the proper term is making a rational distinction. But here you go rationalizing the killing of a sentient being and calling me callous. Gosh, that sounds much more like “turnspeak” than anything I did.

I know it annoys you that I managed to show how shallow your thinking is, but, well, eat it.

You were doing precisely the thing you were falsely accusing me of doing, which was claiming that the difference between a fetus and an infant boiled down to communication. And I busted you on it, and pasted your upthread remarks to that effect as conclusive proof.

> And your use of such ad hominum tactics constitute a 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy.

And of course you have never ever been personally insulting, right? Or foul mouthed, I might add. /sarcasm.

Sometimes it is not considered to be politically corect to call a moral monster what he is, as I have done to you, but the truth, by definition, can never be an insult. You have said that you would force women with medical problems to die in childbirth if they chose to forego early abortion in order to try to carry a pregnancy to term and something went horribly wrong with it, or with them. That's about as fucking monstrous as it gets.

663 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 11, 2009 4:53:36pm

re: #655 A.W.

> Because after I have countered your contentions, you obdurately continue to assert them,

Yeah, I am the one who has the problem repeating myself. /sarcasm.

Obviously. You have denied that any woman ever faces the agonizing choice of either her life or health, or the life of her fetus, and even in the face of links to newspaper articles and legal briefs containing personal testimony to the contrary, you have continued to deny the existence of that situation until the cows have come home and laid down and died. You might as well disbelieve in the existence of stars.

> Yep.

Nope. Assertions don’t change reality.

No, but empirical evidence illuminates it.

> Yeah; you'd rather trust the Jerry Falwell guy

Where did I say that?

Where you said that you didn't think that Dr. Tiller was innocent of the charges just because a jury said so, and mentioned OJ Simpson as an example. Which means you'd rather trust the former state attorney general who brought the charges in the first place. Former, because the people of the good state of Kansas refused to re-elect him, so he fled to Liberty University, the college founded by the late Jerry Falwell, and took a position there - which is why I referred to him as the Jerry Falwell guy.

> No

Yes. You called everyone who doesn’t do the abortions assholes, more or less.

Nope; I said that they were either fearful for their lives, or lacked the specialized medical technology, or lacked the experience and/or expertise. But the fact that you lie both about what you say and about what I say should not surprise anyone any more.

> What is more obvious is that you are less than intelligent. Or objective. Or informed.

What is great is they way you keep it classy and avoid gratuitous ad homs. /sarcasm.

In your case, they are honest and accurate descriptions, amply and abundantly supported by your own posts.

664 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:51:00am

Sally, Queen of the Desert

> No, I think that

Don’t distort. You also said that if chemotherapy would be likely to kill the fetus, you would just kill it.

We don’t do that with humans. You don’t say, “ah, darn, gramps has terminal cancer. I can’t stand to see him slowly die. So let’s shoot him.” Now actually I do support a person’s right to terminate their life if they have a terminal illness, but that always requires the consent of the person to die, and if we are talking about a minor then the consent of the parents should be required, too. Obviously that has no application with a baby, so you go to the default: fight it out to the very end.

> You are taking for granted that the onset of fetal brainwaves entails sentience,

No, you brought up brainwaves. I always said sentience.

> but that status develops within human infants only post-birth.

Really? And you know this how?

Or are you just defining self-aware in ways that couldn’t possibly include a pre-born human like that idiot philosopher? It’s the first rule of dishonest advocacy: define words in ways that no one uses them in an utterly self-serving manner, and then pretend you are applying a neutral definition and that you are inducing that the other person is wrong.

> even nonhuman species that can respond to stimuli have a right to life that supercedes a woman's right to life and health

First off, even plants respond to stimuli. Sheesh, how clueless can you be?

Second, I have disputed whether we are even talking about her right to life and health.

> So do dogs.

Well, I don’t believe dogs are sentient at any point in their lives. Small difference, you know. /sarcasm

> If I had to transfuse the blood out of such a being in order to save the life of a beloved wife and mother upon whom a family depended, I'd do so unhesitatingly.

That’s not the question with abortion. Transfusion is safe. Killing, not so much. So if we really want to complete your metaphor, would you kill that person to save your wife?

> Let me make this explicit for everyone; A&W would legally mandate that a woman be forced to suffer brain damage, paralysis, blindness, or permanent kidney dialysis requirements before he'd let her abort her fetus. Women, for your own sakes and safety, DO NOT MARRY THIS MAN!

I am married and she agrees with me. In fact she is more hardcore than I am, saying that abortion should be illegal, period. I guess she is an evil person who hates women too. /sarcasm

Second, you haven’t established that this is the choice. And given that you think that only sentient beings respond to stimuli, I will take your bare assertions with all the seriousness it deserves.

> You keep falsely believing that the simple force of your asserted incredulity proves anything

Lol, now THAT is turnspeak. You assert various facts. I say “prove it.” you keep making assertions without proof. And now criticize me for refusing to take your assertions with slack-jawed credulity. And then you say that response to stimuli is sentience, which kind of undermines your scientific claims. I mean clearly YOU are not an expert, so the best you can hope to do is cite experts.

> remind me of the guy on Monty Python denying the parrot was dead.

Except like in your telescope example, you are pretending you have provided proof when all you have actually provided me with is assertions. Indeed, you have provided better evidence as to the content of a monty python skit than you have to back up any of your assertions of necessity.

> [me] Ah, new distortion. If you don’t let women murder their children for frivolous reasons you are a bad person.

> [you] You must really hate women

See what I mean?

665 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:54:19am

Sally, Queen of the Desert (cont)

> The standard is innocent until proven guilty, so not being proven guilty, and in fact being exonerated, or proven to be not guilty, is, by law, innocence.

Then how was it that OJ was found to have killed his wife in a civil case, but “innocent” in a criminal case.

Psst, because not guilty doesn’t mean innocent.

For instance, after the Oklahoma City bombing, they passed a law limiting habeas corpus cases to when the defendant is “actually innocent.” So it is no longer enough to say that there was some technical violation in the trial that might have resulted in a different outcome, but you have to prove that person innocent, recognizing that some people who wouldn’t have been found guilty still might not be innocent.

> I have also posted articles and links to personal accounts of such cases, asshole.

You posted a link to a legal brief, and an alleged personal account written by an anonymous commenter. I mean, sheesh, I could go into another blog, post an account that claimed that I have seen Obama’s real birth certificate, and it says that he was born on Mars. Would you believe that Obama was a martian based on that?

That lack of rigor in your intellect is stunning.

> You mean proof like alla those links to, like, you know, newspaper stories

What newspaper story? You linked to a blog, which linked to a blog, which quoted a comment.

> I don't see any tears being shed, but I do detect the hint of a grin.

Oh really? How so? With your spider sense?

Um, no, actually this is your hateful mind speaking, really. Indeed your hatefulness has been on display from the start, calling me an asshole for valuing human life. No attempt to understand, see things from the other side, etc. nope, just “you evil jerk!”

> See; I figured that a woman's testimony

Testimony? Was this under oath?

> [me] Can you read?

> [you] Can you write it? You haven't yet.

Jeez you are a dunce. I have said it saddened me that he was dead from the beginning. So I guess the answer is, you CAN’T read.

> Charles himself has posted some personal accounts on LGF

Well, I admit I don’t follow LGF like I used to. Care to link?

> Because the VERY next sentence, which you conveniently omitted, states

You are pretending you didn’t say that the solution to the problem of a woman with cancer whose treatment threatens the fetus, is to kill the fetus. That is a lie. I have proven you a liar. The fact you also talked about the fanciful situation where the fetus has cancer doesn’t detract from the fact that you also said killing the fetus because it might die is a logical thing to do.

Personally I find it gratuitous.

666 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:55:03am

Sally, Queen of the Desert (cont)

> you just fucking lied about it.

By cutting and pasting your own words. Sheesh, who is the liar?

Here’s how it worked. I asked how finding cancer in a woman can justify abortion. You said, among other things:

> because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

I replied: “Right. So to prevent killing the fetus, they kill the fetus. Burn the village, etc.” Referring to my previous mocking invocation of the phrase “burn the village to save it.”

So you replied: “No, to prevent killing the WOMAN, terminate the fetus. But the woman doesn't seem to exist for you; you look right through her as if she were glass and only see the fetus. She utterly disappears from your consideration.”

Not a single word in that paragraph admitted that you said that a fetus should be killed because it might die of chemo or radiation therapy. And anybody here can look up the thread and recognize that this is the case.

And then when I call you on it, when I say:

> No, that is not what you said. You wrote:

> [quoting you] And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

> “Doom the fetus,” not “doom the woman.”

> So now you can’t even keep your story straight.

> Cut and paste is a bitch, huh?

And you dare to call me a liar? Are you saying you never said that it was justified to kill a fetus because its life is in danger?

After all this time of accusing me of having a hidden agenda, etc., it is pretty clear that you are the false one here. So what is this really about for you?

> although orders of statistical magnitude safer than either c section or childbirth

Really? Prove that. And read my lips, that doesn’t mean “assert it.” I mean prove it.

By the way, weren’t you also the one who claimed his balls didn’t drop until he was a teenager?

> So now you would doom women to death for trying, and failing, to be able to have a baby.

I have been consistent throughout. You say to her early on “if you try to take this baby to term, it might endanger your life. And if it gets too late, you can’t abort. So you need to be really sure you want to carry it through.”

But everything is about her feelings for you.

> The personal accounts are from women who

A legal brief is not proof of anything.

> Once again demonstrating how sick and twisted you really are. Fuck you and your demented Cuisinart references.

You want to gratuitously kill a fetus but I am sick for arguing against it in terms that lays out how demented the whole thing is. Ooookay.

> Only in the cases where the fetuses were viable. In the cases where they are not viable, it is done to spare the woman the needless and pointless anguish of giving birth to a mostrously deformed and doomed fetus.

Well, in fact, if we credit this anonymous comment on a blog quoted by another blog, then doesn’t this mean Tiller WAS breaking the law. At the late term, in Kansas, abortion is only legal to protect the mother’s health—not her feelings—as you yourself have said.

> monstrously deformed fetus

You seem to have a problem with people who look different from you. How T-4 of you.

> doomed to soon die.

You keep acting like it would be a certainty, rather than just a high probability of it occurring.

667 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:56:13am

Sally, Queen of the Desert (cont)

> It's a combination of what you DID say and what you DIDN'T say. You repeatedly referred to the fetuses as innocent, while never applying that adjective to the women.

Wow, I never saw someone try to apply the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterus on a blog before. Anyway, I never said they are hussies. But whether you are talking about a newborn infant, or an infant not quite born, it is logically impossible for them to sin in my mind. They are literally as pure as newly fallen snow. You can’t say that about any other humans. But saying all humans sin is a long way from condemning those women for getting pregnant. Of course you are too stupid to know the difference and too hateful to recognize that maybe, just maybe, I wasn’t condemning women for all sex even in the context of marriage.

Because in truth, you just plain hate me. Why this is the case is beyond me.

> So you prefer to embrace the sick and twisted fantasy that there are thousands of sadistic women out there who never wanted children, but who carried their pregnancies late into term for the perverse pleasure of aborting them later?

I think there are many women who buy into the propaganda put out by morons like you that a fetus is not deserving of any rights whatsoever, and thus abort in situations where they wouldn’t if they appreciated that what they were killing deserved human rights.

You can’t on one hand say that an unborn baby is just a clump of cells and then on the other hand pretend no one will treat it as such. It would be like the President of Iran saying he was shocked there was anti-Semitism in his country.

> Unavoidable in the sense

Don’t try to dodge. You admitted they had an easy way of avoiding the entire dilemma.

> Providing links to newspaper accounts

What did I tell you about repeating yourself? I think this is now the fourth time you have asserted, since my last response yesterday, that this is a newspaper account (which it isn’t).

> own official affidavited testimony

Affidavits are not even cross-examined.

> [me] By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

> [you] If both siamese twins cannot long survive, but one of them can survive separation and the other one cannot, they are routinely separated.

> [me] Yes, but what you are dodging is the reality that you cannot kill one just to free the other from the encumbrance of his sibling. It is an inherently disabling condition, and yet it is unthinkable to kill one to end it. But to kill a fetus to avoid a possibly temporary disability? All kosher with you.

> [you] The statute includes the word 'permanent';

Are you under the impression that being a Siamese twin is a temporary condition?

> and we're not just talking a disability like a limp or a neck crick from whip-lash

And you are saying that being attached to another human being is like those things?

> You were doing precisely the thing you were falsely accusing me of doing,

Shorter Sally: “I know you are but what am I.” Well, then, I am rubber and... well you know the rest.

By the way, notice I didn’t go nuts and say “OMG, you just called me a nazi” when you accused me of turnspeak. Notice how grown-ups argue. Please take notes and emulate.

668 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:57:11am

Sally, Queen of the Desert (cont)

> which was claiming that the difference between a fetus and an infant boiled down to communication.

Well, communication in the sense that screaming communicates something, which is a little different than language skills which is what you said.

I said the real reason why we abort fetuses but ban murder of born people is screaming and in many cases the ability to call a lawyer. I didn’t say I supported that distinction; I was criticizing it as shallow, requiring an outward showing of suffering before one can sympathize. But I guess you are too hateful and/or dumb to recognize that.

And you went and said it was a relevant difference. So you admitted to what I asserted. And I pointed out how lame it was, which was my point in the first place.

> Sometimes it is not considered to be politically corect to call a moral monster what he is, as I have done to you,

I am a moral monster now. Because I don’t like killing people. Gosh, that is amazing turnspeak.

> [me] Yeah, I am the one who has the problem repeating myself. /sarcasm.

> [you] Obviously. You have denied that [blah, blah, blah, repeating arguments you made before.]

Thank you for proving my point.

> Where you said that you didn't think that Dr. Tiller was innocent of the charges just because a jury said so, and mentioned OJ Simpson as an example.

Saying “not guilty” is not the same as innocent is also not the same as saying he is guilty, either. Nuances are lost on you, aren’t they?

> Nope;

Yes. And I really don’t know who you think you are fooling anymore.

> In your case, they are honest and accurate descriptions, amply and abundantly supported by your own posts.

Wow, I always find cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing, when I watch another person engaged in it.

669 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:48:10am

And i glossed over this little nugget:

> to save the life of a beloved wife and mother upon whom a family depended

so, if the beloved wife and mother was instead dependant upon others, the hell with her?

Again, how t-4 of you.

670 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:08:24am

You're a glutton for punishment, A.W. Salamantis simply cannot believe that you can simultaneously value women and their unborn children. To him, someone who is "Pro-Life" is a theocratic, misogynistic, woman-beating, fire-bombing, doctor-murdering, car-sabotaging, cat-lynching, fetus fetishist* by default.

That one could honestly find abortion morally problematic, because it involves killing a developing human baby -- yet never bludgeon women entering Planned Parenthood dual-wielding a protest sign and a bible -- simply doesn't make sense in his mindset.

You will probably be further ahead to just stop trying...

You've been downdinged like crazy in this thread. I'm going to go back and upding any of these posts where you don't personally insult him to balance things out. I'm going to make an exception for the Sally comments. I don't think is helpful to call him variations of "Sally," but I suspect you are trying to be light-hearted.

*All assertions from "The George Tiller I Remember" thread.

671 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:42:54am

Nuke

I know about Sally. if memory serves his faith in God was broken by a hernia or hemmaroid or something. He belongs to that camp of "atheists" who actually hates God and anyone who loves Him.

And it may be the case that this is what all of this is really about for him. Christians are heavily represented among abortion foes, he hates God and Christians, so he is pro-choice. I don't know.

672 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:50:57am

re: #664 A.W.

> No, I think that

Don’t distort. You also said that if chemotherapy would be likely to kill the fetus, you would just kill it.

We don’t do that with humans. You don’t say, “ah, darn, gramps has terminal cancer. I can’t stand to see him slowly die. So let’s shoot him.” Now actually I do support a person’s right to terminate their life if they have a terminal illness, but that always requires the consent of the person to die, and if we are talking about a minor then the consent of the parents should be required, too. Obviously that has no application with a baby, so you go to the default: fight it out to the very end.

And a fetus the development of which would be so regally and royally fucked up by the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to save the life of the woman carrying it that it would not long survive childbirth ain't Gramps, an adult, a teen or an infant, or any other type of person; it's a fetus. Once the certainty and severity of its deformations and the inevitability of its demise due to them have been conclusively ascertained, the fight is OVER. There's no nonsadistic need to morph the woman carrying the monstrously deformed fetuas into collateral damage.

> You are taking for granted that the onset of fetal brainwaves entails sentience,

No, you brought up brainwaves. I always said sentience.

Brainwaves are necessary for sentience, but not sufficient.

[Link: books.google.com...]

[Link: civilliberty.about.com...]

> but that status [self-conscious awareness] develops within human infants only post-birth.

Really? And you know this how?

The Mirror Test of Conscious Self-Awareness. Infants are presented with themselves in mirrors, with paint daubed on their foreheads. If they see it in the reflection and touch the paint reflected in the mirror, they're not yet consciously self-aware, for they are addressing their reflection not as if it were of themselves, but of another infant. But if they see the paint in the reflection and touch the paint on their own foreheads, they are consciously self-aware, for they recognize the reflections as reflections of themselves. A few human infants begin to pass this test at 15 months of age; practically all of them pass it by the age of 21 months. Btw; great apes, dolphins and elephants also pass this test.

Or are you just defining self-aware in ways that couldn’t possibly include a pre-born human like that idiot philosopher? It’s the first rule of dishonest advocacy: define words in ways that no one uses them in an utterly self-serving manner, and then pretend you are applying a neutral definition and that you are inducing that the other person is wrong.

You mean like your calling fetuses and embryos babies and children? It appears that the ebon pot is calling the stainless steel kettle black here, and also calling a philosophy propfessor an idiot simply because he disagrees with you. And consciously self-aware means exactly what it sounds like; being aware of oneself AS a self.

> you claim that even nonhuman species that can respond to stimuli have a right to life that supercedes a woman's right to life and health

First off, even plants respond to stimuli. Sheesh, how clueless can you be?

Exactly my point regarding you.

Second, I have disputed whether we are even talking about her right to life and health.

And been presented by me (and Charles has posted some, too) with links to personal testimony cited in newspaper articles and legal briefs that empiricall, historically, and conclusively invalidates your disputation.

673 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 10:30:09am

re: #664 A.W.

> So do dogs.

Well, I don’t believe dogs are sentient at any point in their lives. Small difference, you know. /sarcasm

Your sarc must mean that you accept dogs as sentient; so you must, by your own logic, be willing to privilege a dog's life over a woman's health. And don't pull the human/nonhuman diistinction with me; you're the one who tried to use ET as an example.

> If I had to transfuse the blood out of such a being in order to save the life of a beloved wife and mother upon whom a family depended, I'd do so unhesitatingly.

That’s not the question with abortion. Transfusion is safe. Killing, not so much. So if we really want to complete your metaphor, would you kill that person to save your wife?

Yep. Because it's personhood would be nonexistent, having been sabotaged into oblivion by the sensory and consciousness deprivation of the sadists you postulated. Against a fully conscious and contributing individual, such a vegetable would tip the scales less than would a person who HAD once been conscious, but was now in an irreversible vegetative state. And make no mistake about it, your hypothetical veggie's state would be irreversible; once the critical period in cortical development hass passed without any sensory stimuli input, the senses can never develop, and perception - the basis upon which conception is built - can never occur.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

> Let me make this explicit for everyone; A&W would legally mandate that a woman be forced to suffer brain damage, paralysis, blindness, or permanent kidney dialysis requirements before he'd let her abort her fetus. Women, for your own sakes and safety, DO NOT MARRY THIS MAN!

I am married and she agrees with me. In fact she is more hardcore than I am, saying that abortion should be illegal, period. I guess she is an evil person who hates women too. /sarcasm

There are socioculturally and religiously brainwashed women who go so far as to perpetrate female genital mutilation upon unwilling girls, so it is not very far fetched. There could be jealousy and resentment there, since you mention your niece, but no sons or daughters. Is she a barren woman? Maybe if she can't bear children of her own, she would feel as if she were fulfilling her fecundity drive by forcing other unwilling women to bear them FOR her. Joan Andrews, the woman who vandalized 120 abortion across the nation clinics in 2 years, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison in Florida because of it, is a barren woman.

Second, you haven’t established that this is the choice. And given that you think that only sentient beings respond to stimuli, I will take your bare assertions with all the seriousness it deserves.

Yep; you continue to dismiss, ignore, belittle and deny the newspaper article and judicial brief evidence with which I provide you.

> You keep falsely believing that the simple force of your asserted incredulity proves anything

Lol, now THAT is turnspeak. You assert various facts. I say “prove it.” you keep making assertions without proof. And now criticize me for refusing to take your assertions with slack-jawed credulity. And then you say that response to stimuli is sentience, which kind of undermines your scientific claims. I mean clearly YOU are not an expert, so the best you can hope to do is cite experts.

[Link: www.google.com...]

Here are yet more links to personal testimony about disastrous late term fetal abnormalities:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

[Link: www.reuters.com...]

But keep on playing ostrich on the issue; it's all you've got.

674 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 10:44:45am

re: #664 A.W.

> remind me of the guy on Monty Python denying the parrot was dead.

Except like in your telescope example, you are pretending you have provided proof when all you have actually provided me with is assertions. Indeed, you have provided better evidence as to the content of a monty python skit than you have to back up any of your assertions of necessity.

Wrong. I have provided you with multiple newspaper articles and a legal brief containing dozens of separate personal testimonies. And Charles has, too. Go ahead; tell HIM that he's posting bullshit; I dare you.

> [me] Ah, new distortion. If you don’t let women murder their children for frivolous reasons you are a bad person.

> [you] You must really hate women

See what I mean?

Well, you must favor womens' lives and physical health less than you favor the lives of the fetuses that they carry, even when, according to their referring physicians, those fetuses are so catastophically damaged or deformed that their lives would be brief, and not long survive childbirth. Such reasons are far from frivolous.

675 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:02:18am

re: #665 A.W.

> The standard is innocent until proven guilty, so not being proven guilty, and in fact being exonerated, or proven to be not guilty, is, by law, innocence.

Then how was it that OJ was found to have killed his wife in a civil case, but “innocent” in a criminal case.

Psst, because not guilty doesn’t mean innocent.

For instance, after the Oklahoma City bombing, they passed a law limiting habeas corpus cases to when the defendant is “actually innocent.” So it is no longer enough to say that there was some technical violation in the trial that might have resulted in a different outcome, but you have to prove that person innocent, recognizing that some people who wouldn’t have been found guilty still might not be innocent.

Because, as you well know, the OJ jury wasa stacked with worshipful black jurors who ignored conclusive genetic evidence and engaged in jury nullification. Plus, there was the theat of black riots and the identification of white jurors by black jurors that intimidated them into voting the way that they did; nothing of the sort existed in Dr. Tiller's trial. There was zero chance of murderous pro-choice riots were Dr. Tiller to be found guilty; all of the murders - nine of them - have come from the antiabortion side.

> I have also posted articles and links to personal accounts of such cases, asshole.

You posted a link to a legal brief, and an alleged personal account written by an anonymous commenter. I mean, sheesh, I could go into another blog, post an account that claimed that I have seen Obama’s real birth certificate, and it says that he was born on Mars. Would you believe that Obama was a martian based on that?

That lack of rigor in your intellect is stunning.

That legal brief included the affidavit testimony of no less than 60 separate personal accounts. Your willful dismissal of them all is what is stunning.

> You mean proof like alla those links to, like, you know, newspaper stories

What newspaper story? You linked to a blog, which linked to a blog, which quoted a comment.

And the Reuters story and the Washington Post story I linked today cannot be criticized. Btw; Charles posted the same accout to which you so disparagingly refer.

> I don't see any tears being shed, but I do detect the hint of a grin.

Oh really? How so? With your spider sense?

Um, no, actually this is your hateful mind speaking, really. Indeed your hatefulness has been on display from the start, calling me an asshole for valuing human life. No attempt to understand, see things from the other side, etc. nope, just “you evil jerk!”

But it IS evil to demand that a woman sacrifice her life or physical health in order to give birth to fetuses, including some that are doomed to soon die.

> See; I figured that a woman's testimony

Testimony? Was this under oath?

Affidavit testimony included in legal briefs is. It is thus subject to legal penalties for perjury.

> [me] Can you read?

> [you] Can you write it? You haven't yet.

Jeez you are a dunce. I have said it saddened me that he was dead from the beginning. So I guess the answer is, you CAN’T read.

Glad to hear it.

> Charles himself has posted some personal accounts on LGF

Well, I admit I don’t follow LGF like I used to. Care to link?

Search for yourself. You know where to look; on post-assassination abortion threads.

676 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:09:04am

re: #665 A.W.

> Because the VERY next sentence, which you conveniently omitted, states

You are pretending you didn’t say that the solution to the problem of a woman with cancer whose treatment threatens the fetus, is to kill the fetus. That is a lie. I have proven you a liar. The fact you also talked about the fanciful situation where the fetus has cancer doesn’t detract from the fact that you also said killing the fetus because it might die is a logical thing to do.

Personally I find it gratuitous.

YOU are pretending that I DIDN'T immediately say afterwards that in the rare yet existent cases where the fetus contains cancer in danger of metasticization that such a procedure is indicated. And yes, if the woman's medically necessary cancer treatment would doom the fetus anyway, why insist that a fetus destined to not long survive childbirth must continue to develop, and force the direly ill woman to continue to carry it? Unless you sadistically relish such a heartbreaking prospect.

677 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:39:37am

They got a mule they call Sal...

> ain't Gramps, an adult, a teen or an infant, or any other type of person; it's a fetus

And that allows you to simultaneously argue that it should be treated like human garbage, but act surprised and shocked if we suggest that others do what you advocate. But you have made the bald assertion of non-personhood before. Got anything new?

> the monstrously deformed

Seriously, why are you so obsessed with how it will look?

> Brainwaves are necessary for sentience, but not sufficient.

And as I pointed out to you before, you are killing an innocent straw man.

> The Mirror Test of Conscious Self-Awareness

Ah, another case of trying to disprove an argument by creative definitions. Fail.

> Btw; great apes, dolphins and elephants also pass this test.

True. And I am opposed to murdering them too.

> It’s the first rule of dishonest advocacy: define words in ways that no one uses them in an utterly self-serving manner, and then pretend you are applying a neutral definition and that you are inducing that the other person is wrong.

> You mean like your calling fetuses and embryos babies and children?

Really? People don’t call fetuses babies ordinarily? So what do they say when a woman miscarries? “Sorry you lost your fetus?” nope. “Sorry you lost your BABY.” And it is perfectly normal to say to a pregnant woman “how is your baby,” “do you know the sex of your baby,” “when is your baby due?” So in fact calling it a baby is normal English.

Further, I am criticizing the use of bizarre definitions to decide the issue. I recognize that we are debating about when a fetus is developed enough to be a baby. I don’t pretend that my definition of baby is yours, or that it is neutral.

So in fact your attempt to claim I was hypocritical, is an epic FAIL.

> [me] First off, even plants respond to stimuli. Sheesh, how clueless can you be?

> [you] Exactly my point regarding you.

Don’t try to run away from this. You are the one who suggested that response to stimuli indicates sentience, not me. Clueless idiot.

> And been presented by me (and Charles has posted some, too) with links to personal testimony cited in newspaper articles and legal briefs that empiricall, historically, and conclusively invalidates your disputation.

Um, wrong. For instance, the affidavits are generally hearsay and inadmissible in court. I have already deflated your “newspaper article” and unlike you I am not going to repeat myself. So just consider every invocation of a “newspaper article” already answered, until you say anything to answer my point in any way.

All you have presented is assertions and flimsy evidence.

> Your sarc must mean

Jesus H. Christ you are an idiot.

> Yep. Because it's personhood would be nonexistent,

Wow, how quickly we get the rabid abortionist to advocate murder, to advocate that some fully born persons are less worthy of life than another.

> Against a fully conscious and contributing individual

Again with the “contributing” issue. You are sounding creepily like the people who used to called the handicapped “useless eaters.”

> vegetative state

Are you hallucinating? I didn’t say he was a vegitable. Just deprived of all contact with all humans all his life.

678 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:40:00am

They got a mule they call Sal... (cont)

> Yep; you continue to dismiss, ignore, belittle and deny the newspaper article and judicial brief evidence with which I provide you.

Well, seeing that it wasn’t an article...

And really, when are lawyers known to lie? *stares at you wondering if you are really that stupid.*

> Here are yet more links to personal testimony about disastrous late term fetal abnormalities:

All cases where you kill a fetus to prevent death by other causes. You’re going in circles. Got anything else?

> I have provided you with multiple newspaper articles and a legal brief containing dozens of separate personal testimonies.

Now those WAPO and reuters articles are finally evidence of something, but unfortunately they don’t actually help your case. I guess that is progress. I think.

I guess you will insist for about five more rounds they prove it is absolutely necessary to kill fetuses to keep them from dying. And this after denying you said anything so stupid.

As for the rest, asked and answered.

> according to their referring physicians

Which might be crap. But we have been over this before. Got anything new?

> Well, you must favor womens' lives and physical health less than you favor the lives of the fetuses that they carry, even when, according to their referring physicians, those fetuses are so catastophically damaged or deformed that their lives would be brief, and not long survive childbirth.

Sorry, but how exactly does the medical problems of the fetus make it dangerous in any of those cases to carry it to term, or even to have an early induced labor or c-section?

No, instead you are valuing the feelings of the woman over giving those fetus’ life.

> Because, as you well know, the OJ jury wasa stacked with worshipful black jurors

You know, you might attack the “black jurors” as racist or intimidated, but I give them more credit than that. Mind you, I disagreed vehemently with the ruling. I felt they didn’t place enough importance on OJ’s violence against Nicole. But the fact is there was a racist cop on the scene and I can see how a rational person can say there is a reasonable doubt. In other words, I can disagree with them without disrespecting them. Do take notes.

And what you are ignoring is that the law doesn’t treat a criminal acquittal as conclusive to the issue. You can still sue in civil court on essentially the same theory that failed in criminal court. What you utterly fail to understand is that in the criminal cases, the standard is much, much higher, so that the defendant always has that advantage over the state. By comparison, in a civil case the plaintiff and the defendant stand on nearly equal ground and it really just comes down to who has more evidence: the plaintiff or the defendant.

> That legal brief included the affidavit testimony of no less than 60 separate personal accounts

None of which are admissible in a court of law.

> And the Reuters story and the Washington Post story I linked today cannot be criticized.

Bwahahaha. The aggressive arrogant stupidity on display is amazing. That is the lamest thing since Dan Rather said the memos came from an “unimpeachable source.”

679 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:40:27am

They got a mule they call Sal... (cont)

> Btw; Charles posted the same accout to which you so disparagingly refer.

Then Charles posted an account whose ultimate reliability is about as solid as Wikipedia.

> But it IS evil to demand that a woman sacrifice her life

You haven’t yet established that this is the choice. But we have been over this before. Got anything new?

> Glad to hear it.

And waiting for you to admit that I said it in the very beginning of this threat and to apologize for your mendaciousness... but not holding my breath.

> Search for yourself.

Translation, you got nothing. good to know.

> YOU are pretending that I DIDN'T immediately say afterwards

You can use allcaps all you want, but it doesn’t turn your lie into the truth.

I pointed out that your belief that the probable death of a fetus justified killing it was nonsensical. You pretended you didn’t say that. I call you on it. and now you are pretending you didn’t lie in the first place.

And this is out of order, but it’s a great way to end.

> But it IS evil to demand that a woman sacrifice her life or physical health in order to give birth to fetuses,

I already addressed the fact you haven’t even demonstrated that her life or physical health is not unexpectedly at risk. As for the rest:

Right. How dare I treat all humans equally? I am a monster.

You remind me of the mentality of Claude Bowers, where to him those who fought for black equality after the civil war are painted not merely as people who disagreed with him, but evil, evil men. Indeed, for a bonus, when this view was fictionalized in the movie “Birth of a Nation” they featured a handicapped man, Arthur Stoneman, based on the real life figure Thaddeus Stevens, who was portrayed with the old stereotype that his handicap was an outward sign of inward deformity. And what do you know? You keep harping on the fear of deformed children, calling them monstrous.

There is something monstrous here: the attitude that could look at a baby born with an imperfect body and call it a monster.

What is so deformed in your soul that you could feel hatred for a baby struggling for its life, and call it monstrous?

680 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:45:01am

re: #666 A.W.

> you just fucking lied about it.

By cutting and pasting your own words. Sheesh, who is the liar?

Here’s how it worked. I asked how finding cancer in a woman can justify abortion. You said, among other things:

> because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

I replied: “Right. So to prevent killing the fetus, they kill the fetus. Burn the village, etc.” Referring to my previous mocking invocation of the phrase “burn the village to save it.”

So you replied: “No, to prevent killing the WOMAN, terminate the fetus. But the woman doesn't seem to exist for you; you look right through her as if she were glass and only see the fetus. She utterly disappears from your consideration.”

Not a single word in that paragraph admitted that you said that a fetus should be killed because it might die of chemo or radiation therapy. And anybody here can look up the thread and recognize that this is the case.

And then when I call you on it, when I say:

> No, that is not what you said. You wrote:

> [quoting you] And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus.

> “Doom the fetus,” not “doom the woman.”

> So now you can’t even keep your story straight.

> Cut and paste is a bitch, huh?

And you dare to call me a liar? Are you saying you never said that it was justified to kill a fetus because its life is in danger?

After all this time of accusing me of having a hidden agenda, etc., it is pretty clear that you are the false one here. So what is this really about for you?

You cynically, selectively, and manipulatively quotemined me, just as dishonestly as creationists quotemine Darwin. I said BOTH that it is morally imperative to privilege the life or health of the woman over the life of the fetus she carries, AND that it is morally reprehensible to force her to bear a mostrously deformed and doomed fetus to term.

From my post # 634:

And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus. Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

You selectively quoted the first sentence while omitting the second one. That is how one lies by means of selective quotations; it's called quotemining. And you are guilty of it.

> although orders of statistical magnitude safer than either c section or childbirth

Really? Prove that. And read my lips, that doesn’t mean “assert it.” I mean prove it.

[Link: www.religioustolerance.org...]

excerpt:

"...deaths [from complications] related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely." There were fewer than one death due to complications per 100,000 legal abortions. From 1993 to 1997, the case-fatality rate was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. This is much lower than the rate of maternal deaths for completed pregnancies. Having a legal abortion is safer, on average, than completing the pregnancy. 1 Abortions that are performed early in pregnancy lead to far fewer complications than abortions done later.

By the way, weren’t you also the one who claimed his balls didn’t drop until he was a teenager?

Everybody misspeaks (and I immediately acknowledged same).
That nonrelational factual error does not in any way impugn my well-supported position here, although you devoutly desire it to do so. Can you find another kitchen sink somewhere to toss in? Let me hand you two. I also once mistakenly referred to chloroplasts as blastocysts, and once accidentally referred to the nucleic acid constituents adenine, guanine (these two are purines) thymine and cytosine (these two are pyrimidines)as amino acids.

Happy now?

681 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:45:56am

Anyway, you have lied.

You have a demonstrable cluelessness on basic biology.

You have argued that even some fully-born human life is less valuable because it doesn't contribute.

You have called deformations monsterous.

You have slandered the OJ Jury in a way that seems, well, racist.

And called anyone who says that a human anytime before birth deserves equal respect "evil" including me.

And apparently you are stuck repeating yourself.

So i will call this a win and take my ball and go home. you can keep arguing with the same person you have sex with: yourself.

682 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 11:50:58am

Ah, so responding to your arguments one at a time = lying.

You gave two reasons and i answered them one at a time. and then you pretend you never gave the first reason.

you lied.

And you claimed that a response to stimuli indicated sentience. and you claimed your balls didn't drop until puberty. Sorry, you are a clueless on biology.

But what really is the point of arguing with a person who lies when the truth can just be cut and pasted?

683 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 12:09:25pm

re: #666 A.W.

> So now you would doom women to death for trying, and failing, to be able to have a baby.

I have been consistent throughout. You say to her early on “if you try to take this baby to term, it might endanger your life. And if it gets too late, you can’t abort. So you need to be really sure you want to carry it through.”

But everything is about her feelings for you.

But you lie; if it endangers her life late in the pregnancy, she CAN abort. It's the law of the land. But you would apparently insist that the woman die or be seriously and permanently physically maimed should such a situation present itself, in order to give birth to the fetus, whether that fetus would survive or whether it was also doomed to die. You would rather that they both die than that the woman alone survive. And there is the possibility that ANY pregnancy can present one with such dire choices; remember that many catastrophic fetal abnormalities are not detected until late in pregnancy, and many disastrous medical conditions do not strike the woman until late in pregnancy, too.

> The personal accounts are from women who

A legal brief is not proof of anything.

If you were a judge, apparently no one would ever get convicted of anything whatsoever in your court, because absolutely nothing suffices as evidence for you.

> Once again demonstrating how sick and twisted you really are. Fuck you and your demented Cuisinart references.

You want to gratuitously kill a fetus but I am sick for arguing against it in terms that lays out how demented the whole thing is. Ooookay.

Not only is it not 'gratuitously killing a fetus' in order to protect and preserve the life orm physical health of the woman bearing it, but the image of Cuisinarts being shoved up womens' vaginas is a sick and demented cartoon caricature of actual abortion procedures. It would be as if I described receiving the Eucharist wine and wafer as canniibalistic vampires iconoclastically chowing down on the body and blood of the corpse of their dead God. It's a fals, offensive,malicious and mean-spirited parody.

> Only in the cases where the fetuses were viable. In the cases where they are not viable, it is done to spare the woman the needless and pointless anguish of giving birth to a mostrously deformed and doomed fetus.

Well, in fact, if we credit this anonymous comment on a blog quoted by another blog, then doesn’t this mean Tiller WAS breaking the law. At the late term, in Kansas, abortion is only legal to protect the mother’s health—not her feelings—as you yourself have said.

No, because a fetus that will not long survive childbirth is quite rightly considered to be nonviable.

> monstrously deformed fetus

You seem to have a problem with people who look different from you. How T-4 of you.

I have a problem with forcing a woman to give birth to a quivering mass with strange appendages protruding at odd angles, that immediately shudders and dies. Apparently, you don't. And that says a lot about you. And it ain't complimentary.

> doomed to soon die.

You keep acting like it would be a certainty, rather than just a high probability of it occurring.

I tend to believe the doctors when they say that hydrocephalics or anencephalics or brittle bone syndrome or trisomy fetuses have a life expectancy that can usually be counted in minutes or hours, and that never exceeds days. Please produce evidence of such fetuses maturing into adulthood.

684 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 12:41:56pm

re: #667 A.W.

> It's a combination of what you DID say and what you DIDN'T say. You repeatedly referred to the fetuses as innocent, while never applying that adjective to the women.

Wow, I never saw someone try to apply the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterus on a blog before. Anyway, I never said they are hussies. But whether you are talking about a newborn infant, or an infant not quite born, it is logically impossible for them to sin in my mind. They are literally as pure as newly fallen snow. You can’t say that about any other humans. But saying all humans sin is a long way from condemning those women for getting pregnant. Of course you are too stupid to know the difference and too hateful to recognize that maybe, just maybe, I wasn’t condemning women for all sex even in the context of marriage.

Because in truth, you just plain hate me. Why this is the case is beyond me.

Since fetuses lack neither the awareness nor the knowledge nor the experience nor the will nor the opportunity to even conceive of, much less choose, either good or evil, it is equally incorrect to call them either innocent OR guilty. Both innocence and guilt are quantums beyond their capacity.

I don't hate you; I just detest your position, and deplore the snide sophistries and slanderous lies you cynically employ in order to proffer it.

> So you prefer to embrace the sick and twisted fantasy that there are thousands of sadistic women out there who never wanted children, but who carried their pregnancies late into term for the perverse pleasure of aborting them later?

I think there are many women who buy into the propaganda put out by morons like you that a fetus is not deserving of any rights whatsoever, and thus abort in situations where they wouldn’t if they appreciated that what they were killing deserved human rights.

Fetuses deserve consideration, but not rights equivalent to those of the born human persons who carry them. What is moronic is maintaining that they do.

But I guess you have to proffer an alternative to the 'evil woman' scenario you were implying, so now you reduce women to ignorant and immature children unable to make their own principled and informed decisions for themselves in such dire circumstances.

You can’t on one hand say that an unborn baby is just a clump of cells and then on the other hand pretend no one will treat it as such. It would be like the President of Iran saying he was shocked there was anti-Semitism in his country.

It ain't a baby; babies are BORN. Once again, you employ inaccurate and emotionally evocative language in lieu of logic and reason. But viable fetus deserve great consideration, and receive it under the laws of our land. That consideration is only outweighed by consideration for the lives and the health of the women carrying them.

> Unavoidable in the sense

Don’t try to dodge. You admitted they had an easy way of avoiding the entire dilemma.

Here is my complete quote, from post # 662, which, like other 'quotes' of me you have proffered, says nothing like what you say that it says:

"Unavoidable in the sense that they could have chosen instead to risk death or permanent serious injury. And you morally condemn them for not choosing to do so."

Since when did death or permanent serious injury become 'easy'?

> Providing links to newspaper accounts

What did I tell you about repeating yourself? I think this is now the fourth time you have asserted, since my last response yesterday, that this is a newspaper account (which it isn’t).

Well, the Washington Post sure as hell is a newspaper, and Reuters sure as hell is a news agency.

> own official affidavited testimony

Affidavits are not even cross-examined.

But false statements given under affidavit are subject to perjury prosecution.

685 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:00:07pm

re: #667 A.W.

> [me] By the way, is the disabling of a person is sufficient justification, why not to kill a Siamese twin?

> [you] If both siamese twins cannot long survive, but one of them can survive separation and the other one cannot, they are routinely separated.

> [me] Yes, but what you are dodging is the reality that you cannot kill one just to free the other from the encumbrance of his sibling. It is an inherently disabling condition, and yet it is unthinkable to kill one to end it. But to kill a fetus to avoid a possibly temporary disability? All kosher with you.

> [you] The statute includes the word 'permanent';

Are you under the impression that being a Siamese twin is a temporary condition?

> and we're not just talking a disability like a limp or a neck crick from whip-lash

And you are saying that being attached to another human being is like those things?

What you seem to be saying is that the relative rights of a mother and those of her fetus are, or should be, equivalent to the rights between one siamese twin and the other. But this is attempt to morally equate a born person with an unborn nonperson as if they were both born is both false and morally noxious. Apparently, you would just consider problem pregnancies to be an 'inherently disabling condition', and tell women that they had to grin and bear it as they went permanently blind, suffered brain damage, suffered permanent paralysis, or were condemned to a life of kidney dialysis, for the sake of the fetuses that they carry, whether or not those fetuses could long survive childbirth. Sane and just human beings quite rightly find such a stand to be repugnant.

> You were doing precisely the thing you were falsely accusing me of doing,

Shorter Sally: “I know you are but what am I.” Well, then, I am rubber and... well you know the rest.

By the way, notice I didn’t go nuts and say “OMG, you just called me a nazi” when you accused me of turnspeak. Notice how grown-ups argue. Please take notes and emulate.

Nazis aren't the only folks who use turnspeak. All kinds of totalitarian-wannabees use it; Biblical Dominionist creationists, radical antiabortionists, bigoted homophobes, imperialist Islamofacists, class warfare communists, and on and on and on...

And you have already proudly proclaimed that you would remove these choices from the women and doctors concerned, and force them to heed your own personal moral dictates if you could. If that ain't fucking totalitarian, nothing is.

686 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:25:02pm

re: #668 A.W.

> which was claiming that the difference between a fetus and an infant boiled down to communication.

Well, communication in the sense that screaming communicates something, which is a little different than language skills which is what you said.

I said the real reason why we abort fetuses but ban murder of born people is screaming and in many cases the ability to call a lawyer. I didn’t say I supported that distinction; I was criticizing it as shallow, requiring an outward showing of suffering before one can sympathize. But I guess you are too hateful and/or dumb to recognize that.

And you went and said it was a relevant difference. So you admitted to what I asserted. And I pointed out how lame it was, which was my point in the first place.

I have pointed out that fetuses lack the capacity to do many things, of which communication was one; it lacked the capacity to conceive, know, will, choose, or act (actually, fetuses lack the ability to do ANYthing as a result of conscious volition). Communication is much more complex than these. I just consider you to be too shallow or dumb to realize that the difference of the presence vs. the absence of the capacity to communicate depends upon much more basic and essential differences.

> Sometimes it is not considered to be politically corect to call a moral monster what he is, as I have done to you,

I am a moral monster now. Because I don’t like killing people. Gosh, that is amazing turnspeak.

No, you are a moral monster because you'd prefer to force unwilling women to die or be permanently and seriously physically injured in order to carry their fetuses to term, whether or not those fetuses can long survive childbirth.

> [me] Yeah, I am the one who has the problem repeating myself. /sarcasm.

> [you] Obviously. You have denied that [blah, blah, blah, repeating arguments you made before.]

Thank you for proving my point.

Your point being that you continue to repetitively deny that there are cases where carrying fetuses to term direly endanger the lives of physical health of the women who bear them, meanwhile insisting that women should be forced to do just that? Isn't that a little bit like denying the first Holocaust while desiring a second one?

> Where you said that you didn't think that Dr. Tiller was innocent of the charges just because a jury said so, and mentioned OJ Simpson as an example.

Saying “not guilty” is not the same as innocent is also not the same as saying he is guilty, either. Nuances are lost on you, aren’t they?

'Presumed innocent until proven guilty' means that until someone IS proven guilty, they are to be presumed to be innocent. And a 'not guilty' verdict does not strip that presumption of innocence away.

> Nope;

Yes. And I really don’t know who you think you are fooling anymore.

I'm not fooling anybody; I'm providing evidence to support my contentions. You, otoh, have yet to post a single link to support your vicious contentions. Only the antiabortion choir applauds your preaching. No one else thinks much of it at all.

> In your case, they are honest and accurate descriptions, amply and abundantly supported by your own posts.

Wow, I always find cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing, when I watch another person engaged in it.

I'm simply pointing out that your alligator mouth has overloaded your hummingbird ass; you have staked out a number of egregiously misogynist and ethically offensive positions, and not evidentially supported a single one of them. I am the only one posting supporting links in this exchange, and I have posted many of them.

687 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:26:31pm

Sally Mae

Blah, blah, blah. The liar goes on lying. Turn out the lights when you are done.

You're a pretty vile human being.

To repeat myself, because you have literally done nothing to counter it:

Anyway, you have lied.

You have a demonstrable cluelessness on basic biology.

You have argued that even some fully-born human life is less valuable because it doesn't contribute.

You have called deformations monsterous.

You have slandered the OJ Jury in a way that seems, well, racist.

And called anyone who says that a human anytime before birth deserves equal respect "evil" including me.

And apparently you are stuck repeating yourself.

So i will call this a win and take my ball and go home. you can keep arguing with the same person you have sex with: yourself.

688 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:28:22pm

re: #669 A.W.

And i glossed over this little nugget:

> to save the life of a beloved wife and mother upon whom a family depended

so, if the beloved wife and mother was instead dependant upon others, the hell with her?

Again, how t-4 of you.

So the fact that they might be dependent upon her love and affection completely escapes you, ayy? It figures; anyone who would equate a wife and mother with a fetus is a soulless troglodyte.

689 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:29:55pm

Btw, you must be pretty stupid for you to take three whole hours to respond to one set of posts. i formulated my first burst this morning in all of half an hour.

But then again, there is alot less creativity involved. i mean, after all, i am not the one lying his ass off.

690 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:33:56pm

> So the fact that they might be dependent upon her love and affection completely escapes you, ayy?

No, what escapes you, however, is that whether we are pillars of society or "useless eaters" our lives are equally valuable. Whether it is a beloved mother, or a loner that no one likes, it is not right to kill one to save the other just because of your assessment of how useful one or the other is.

You would think that with your sparkling personality, you would be opposed to any rule that would say that friendless losers can be killed, if only out of self-interest.

But its funny how quick the rabid pro-abortionist can be lured into saying things that sound so t-4.

691 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:49:04pm

re: #670 NukeAtomrod

You're a glutton for punishment, A.W. Salamantis simply cannot believe that you can simultaneously value women and their unborn children. To him, someone who is "Pro-Life" is a theocratic, misogynistic, woman-beating, fire-bombing, doctor-murdering, car-sabotaging, cat-lynching, fetus fetishist* by default.

If they're not born, they're not children. Once more inaccurate evocative language is being illegitimately and propagandistically employed in order to emotionally sway. And AWshucks seems to value fetuses more than he does women; he's quite willing to force women to endure fatal or permanently crippling childbirths for their sakes, whether or not they can long survive them. And someone can work for the number of US abortions to be reduced via sex education and contraceptive access like they do in Europe without also trying to beat the holy fucking shit out of women entering abortion clinics, like I have seen a lot of these theocratically totalitarian assholes do, or firebomb the clinics, or murder doctors. But for the latter folks, it isn't really about reducing abortions; it's about maximizing childbirths, so they can adopt and indoctrinate the extra infants into their faiths, and contraceptive access and sex education don't help that goal along.

That one could honestly find abortion morally problematic, because it involves killing a developing human baby -- yet never bludgeon women entering Planned Parenthood dual-wielding a protest sign and a bible -- simply doesn't make sense in his mindset.

I find the effort to ban all abortions to be morally problematic, because it dooms women to maiming and death.

You will probably be further ahead to just stop trying...

You've been downdinged like crazy in this thread. I'm going to go back and upding any of these posts where you don't personally insult him to balance things out. I'm going to make an exception for the Sally comments. I don't think is helpful to call him variations of "Sally," but I suspect you are trying to be light-hearted.

*All assertions from "The George Tiller I Remember" thread.

No, her's just being himself - a garden-variety anus.

692 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 1:57:03pm

re: #671 A.W.

Nuke

I know about Sally. if memory serves his faith in God was broken by a hernia or hemmaroid or something. He belongs to that camp of "atheists" who actually hates God and anyone who loves Him.

That shows that you are as ignorant about me as you are about the circumstances women face. I an a pagan, and have been for decades. You're obviously one of those Genesis Literalist creationists who thinks that everyone who accepts the empirical evidence for evolution must be an atheist.

And it may be the case that this is what all of this is really about for him. Christians are heavily represented among abortion foes, he hates God and Christians, so he is pro-choice. I don't know.

Actually, mainstream Christians are also heavily represented among reproductive choice supporters; even a lot of Catholics disagree with their church's dogma on the issue. Most of the radical antiabortionists are drawn from the ranks of fundamentalist and evangelical Protestantism; folks like Southern Baptists, Southern Methodists, Church of the Nazarene-ists, and Assembly of God-ers.

693 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 2:03:02pm

Sally,

You know that you are only verifying that you are a hateful, lying, t-4-lovin' little bitch, right?

Btw, the hilarious thing is you are too ignorant to know how awfully i have insulted you, or how much you keep verifying the insult with your constant invocations of "monsterous deformities" and whether a person is a useful contribution to society.

694 A.W.  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 2:26:46pm

Btw, before you praise the european model too much, you might want to read mark steyn's book "america alone."

695 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 2:36:22pm

re: #677 A.W.

> ain't Gramps, an adult, a teen or an infant, or any other type of person; it's a fetus

And that allows you to simultaneously argue that it should be treated like human garbage, but act surprised and shocked if we suggest that others do what you advocate. But you have made the bald assertion of non-personhood before. Got anything new?

But a fetus ISN'T a person, or equivalent to one. Not legally, biologically, or morally.

There is a vast spectrum between treating a fetus like 'human garbage' (no consideration whatsoever) and a human being (equal consideration with the woman who carries it), such as treating it as due significant consideration but not equal consideration with the consideration due to the life or health of the woman. But apparently black or white all or nothing digital think is all that your pathetic peabrain is capable of.

> the monstrously deformed

Seriously, why are you so obsessed with how it will look?

I don't want to have a woman have to suffer the horror of watching a monstrously deformed and dying thing emerge from her body. Why are you so hell-bent upon inflicting that agony upon her?

> Brainwaves are necessary for sentience, but not sufficient.

And as I pointed out to you before, you are killing an innocent straw man.

Try this one on for size; sentience is necessary but not sufficient for personhood.

> The Mirror Test of Conscious Self-Awareness

Ah, another case of trying to disprove an argument by creative definitions. Fail.

You need to read Social Cognition and the Acquisition of Self, by Lewis and Brooks-Gunn, or check out the rather sparse Wikipedia article:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

> Btw; great apes, dolphins and elephants also pass this test.

True. And I am opposed to murdering them too.

But are you willing to sacrifice a woman for one?

> It’s the first rule of dishonest advocacy: define words in ways that no one uses them in an utterly self-serving manner, and then pretend you are applying a neutral definition and that you are inducing that the other person is wrong.

> You mean like your calling fetuses and embryos babies and children?

Really? People don’t call fetuses babies ordinarily? So what do they say when a woman miscarries? “Sorry you lost your fetus?” nope. “Sorry you lost your BABY.” And it is perfectly normal to say to a pregnant woman “how is your baby,” “do you know the sex of your baby,” “when is your baby due?” So in fact calling it a baby is normal English.

It is anticipatory usage that is empirically incorrect, indulged in to soothe and salve the feelings of women who desire to carry their pregnancies to term. Just like telling a woman that her miscarriage is now an angel in Heaven.

Further, I am criticizing the use of bizarre definitions to decide the issue. I recognize that we are debating about when a fetus is developed enough to be a baby. I don’t pretend that my definition of baby is yours, or that it is neutral.

So in fact your attempt to claim I was hypocritical, is an epic FAIL.

But your misdefinition of a fetus as a baby is indeed hypocritical, to the degree that it is both empirically incorrect and self-serving.

[me] First off, even plants respond to stimuli. Sheesh, how clueless can you be?

> [you] Exactly my point regarding you.

Don’t try to run away from this. You are the one who suggested that response to stimuli indicates sentience, not me. Clueless idiot.

You have a point; sentience entails subjectivity. However, this fact entails that you have falsely attributed sentience to fetuses, since they do not possesss subjectivity.

696 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 2:44:25pm

re: #693 A.W.

Sally,

You know that you are only verifying that you are a hateful, lying, t-4-lovin' little bitch, right?

Btw, the hilarious thing is you are too ignorant to know how awfully i have insulted you, or how much you keep verifying the insult with your constant invocations of "monsterous deformities" and whether a person is a useful contribution to society.

re: #694 A.W.

Btw, before you praise the european model too much, you might want to read mark steyn's book "america alone."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I cannot be insulted by gratuitous lies. The abortion of doomed deformed fetuses in order to spare women the anguish of giving birth to such horrors only to watch them soon die or the abortion of viable fetuses in order to preserve the life or physical health of women who carry them are by no rational criterion equivalent to the externimation of born 'undesirables.'

Apparently, since you cite Steyn's demographic analysis, you prefer lebensborns instead:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

697 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 2:58:46pm

re: #677 A.W.

> And been presented by me (and Charles has posted some, too) with links to personal testimony cited in newspaper articles and legal briefs that empiricall, historically, and conclusively invalidates your disputation.

Um, wrong. For instance, the affidavits are generally hearsay and inadmissible in court. I have already deflated your “newspaper article” and unlike you I am not going to repeat myself. So just consider every invocation of a “newspaper article” already answered, until you say anything to answer my point in any way.

All you have presented is assertions and flimsy evidence.

Umm...SEVERAL newspaper articles. And amicus briefs ARE considered in court deliberations. And those affidavits, by their very nature, are not hearsay, because they do not come from someone the women told, but originate from the testimony of the women themselves, under penalty of perjury.

> Your sarc must mean

Jesus H. Christ you are an idiot.

Practicing the Mirror Test?

> Yep. Because it's personhood would be nonexistent,

Wow, how quickly we get the rabid abortionist to advocate murder, to advocate that some fully born persons are less worthy of life than another.

YOU are the one who hypothesized the dehumanization of a fetus and its maintenance in a pre-personhood state from the moment of birth; I'm simply describing the results of such a process.

> Against a fully conscious and contributing individual

Again with the “contributing” issue. You are sounding creepily like the people who used to called the handicapped “useless eaters.”

As if the handicapped had never from birth been permitted to attain consciousness. But they ARE conscious, which is why your attempt at al analogical slander miserably fails.

> vegetative state

Are you hallucinating? I didn’t say he was a vegitable. Just deprived of all contact with all humans all his life.

If he was permitted sensory input from the world, he would not be a vegetable. But if he was kept unconscious from the moment of birth, he would be (and I repeat the term 'he' that you use to indicate gender, not personhood).

698 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 3:22:39pm

re: #678 A.W.

> Yep; you continue to dismiss, ignore, belittle and deny the newspaper article and judicial brief evidence with which I provide you.

Well, seeing that it wasn’t an article...

And neither were the Washington Post and Reuters articles; right?

And really, when are lawyers known to lie? *stares at you wondering if you are really that stupid.*

And when are 60 separate women giving affidavits all known to lie? *stares back, knowing you are really that stupid, or that dogmatically blind.*

> Here are yet more links to personal testimony about disastrous late term fetal abnormalities:

All cases where you kill a fetus to prevent death by other causes. You’re going in circles. Got anything else?

Exactly my point. These women terminated late term pregnancies to prevent either their death or their severe and permanent injury, or the birth of a deformed and doomed fetus.

> I have provided you with multiple newspaper articles and a legal brief containing dozens of separate personal testimonies.

Now those WAPO and reuters articles are finally evidence of something, but unfortunately they don’t actually help your case. I guess that is progress. I think.

Actually, they devastate YOUR position; you have been loudly proclaiming that such circumstances didn't exist.

I guess you will insist for about five more rounds they prove it is absolutely necessary to kill fetuses to keep them from dying. And this after denying you said anything so stupid.

As for the rest, asked and answered.

No, if the woman simply cannot face the birth of a doomed and deformed fetus, she shouldn't have to.

> according to their referring physicians

Which might be crap. But we have been over this before. Got anything new?

Yopur self-seving definition of crap is any empirical evidence that undermines your contentions.

> Well, you must favor womens' lives and physical health less than you favor the lives of the fetuses that they carry, even when, according to their referring physicians, those fetuses are so catastophically damaged or deformed that their lives would be brief, and not long survive childbirth.

Sorry, but how exactly does the medical problems of the fetus make it dangerous in any of those cases to carry it to term, or even to have an early induced labor or c-section?

Sometimes the deformations of the fetus themselves involve risks to the life or the health of the mother. And the procedures you list involve more risk to the woman's life or health than do medically appropriate abortion procedures.

No, instead you are valuing the feelings of the woman over giving those fetus’ life.

You'd rather emotionally scar the woman for the sake of providing the fetus with a brief and horrific life. That is moral monster territory.

699 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 3:41:38pm

re: #678 A.W.

> Because, as you well know, the OJ jury was stacked with worshipful black jurors

You know, you might attack the “black jurors” as racist or intimidated, but I give them more credit than that. Mind you, I disagreed vehemently with the ruling. I felt they didn’t place enough importance on OJ’s violence against Nicole. But the fact is there was a racist cop on the scene and I can see how a rational person can say there is a reasonable doubt. In other words, I can disagree with them without disrespecting them. Do take notes.

The DNA evidence was conclusive, and there is no way that Mark Furman could have had enough of it - both from OJ and from the victims - to plant it in all the places that it was found - or even the opportunity to do so. Plus, I saw one of the OJ jurors - a black woman - interviewed on Nightline, and she pugnaciously stated that she LOVED OJ, and that there was NO WAY that she would have convicted him of ANYthing, and that to do so would have meant hell to pay from her community.

And what you are ignoring is that the law doesn’t treat a criminal acquittal as conclusive to the issue. You can still sue in civil court on essentially the same theory that failed in criminal court. What you utterly fail to understand is that in the criminal cases, the standard is much, much higher, so that the defendant always has that advantage over the state. By comparison, in a civil case the plaintiff and the defendant stand on nearly equal ground and it really just comes down to who has more evidence: the plaintiff or the defendant.

In any other case, that high standard would have been considered by the jurors to have been met. The DNA evidence was conclusive.

> That legal brief included the affidavit testimony of no less than 60 separate personal accounts

None of which are admissible in a court of law.

Once again, that's where amicus briefs GO. I'm quite certain that many of those women would have been willing to testify in a court of law, as long as they were granted anonymity so that the antiabortion fanatics wouldn't learn who they are and go after them. Several women in similar situations have had no problem risking such dangers in order to speak to news organizations.

> And the Reuters story and the Washington Post story I linked today cannot be criticized.

Bwahahaha. The aggressive arrogant stupidity on display is amazing. That is the lamest thing since Dan Rather said the memos came from an “unimpeachable source.”

I failed to typed a word. Your original comment was:

What newspaper story? You linked to a blog, which linked to a blog, which quoted a comment.

to which I meant to answer:

And the Reuters story and the Washington Post story I linked today cannot be socriticized.

In other words, they are indeed news articles, not comments.

700 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 4:49:09pm

re: #679 A.W.

> Btw; Charles posted the same account to which you so disparagingly refer.

Then Charles posted an account whose ultimate reliability is about as solid as Wikipedia.

Here is Charles' reference:

[Link: www.balloon-juice.com...]

And here is another:

[Link: www.boston.com...]

> But it IS evil to demand that a woman sacrifice her life

You haven’t yet established that this is the choice. But we have been over this before. Got anything new?

But it IS the choice, in, for instance, ectopic pregnancies.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

> Glad to hear it.

And waiting for you to admit that I said it in the very beginning of this threat and to apologize for your mendaciousness... but not holding my breath.

To me it sounded too much like 'I disapprove of Dr. Tiller's murder but...'

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Soething to do with the phrase "essential immorality of late term abortions", I suppose. Or to do with the idea that antiabortion assassination is only wrong because there remains the chance of convincing people that all abortions are evil nonviolently. But sometimes, late term abortion is the only humane and decent and compassionate and moral choice that one can make.

> Search for yourself.

Translation, you got nothing. good to know.

I found Charles'oon Juice reference, and provide a link to it in this post.

> YOU are pretending that I DIDN'T immediately say afterwards

You can use allcaps all you want, but it doesn’t turn your lie into the truth.

Calling me the liar doesn't magically morph your quotemining lie into the truth.

I pointed out that your belief that the probable death of a fetus justified killing it was nonsensical. You pretended you didn’t say that. I call you on it. and now you are pretending you didn’t lie in the first place.

And this is out of order, but it’s a great way to end.

Nope; in post # 634, I wrote that:

And because the radiation or chemo therapy necessary to treat the woman's cancer can doom the fetus. Or because the cancer is growing inside the fetus itself, and must be removed before it spreads to the woman.

to which replied, when you quoted the first sentence, but not the second:

Right. So to prevent killing the fetus, they kill the fetus. Burn the village, etc.

Of course, you don't prevent killing a fetus by killing a fetus; if the fetus is destined to die anyway because of necessary cancer treatment given to the woman carrying it there is no saving it, and all one can do is spare the woman the horror of carrying it to term and birthing a doomed, massively deformed mass; there is some chance of saving a fetus with small, early stage cancers, but no chance with late stage metastatic cancer. Then all you can hope for is to save the woman's life.

You DID reply to the second sentence - to make a sick joke about the fetus smoking - then you subsequently denied the possibility that it could happen:

[Link: www.accessexcellence.org...]

And the point is that in cases where a massively deformed fetus is doomed to horrifically die shortly after childbirth anyway, it is nothing other than sadistically viscious, brutal and cruel to demand that she suffer through such a nightmare.

701 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 5:13:55pm

re: #679 A.W.

> But it IS evil to demand that a woman sacrifice her life or physical health in order to give birth to fetuses,

I already addressed the fact you haven’t even demonstrated that her life or physical health is not unexpectedly at risk.

One of those articles I posted states that some horrific birth defects remain undetectable until late in the pregnancy, and that some of these can indeed be fatal to the mother if the pregnancy is brought to term. Likewise, some illnesses that strike the mother and render carrying the pregnancy to term dangerous to her life or health can indeed manifest late in the pregnancy. And it isn't just one 'her'; for all the different things that can go wrong late in a pregnancy, with either the woman or the fetus she carries, there are a THOUSAND 'hers' a year in the US, out of 6 million pregnancies.

As for the rest:

Right. How dare I treat all humans equally? I am a monster.

You remind me of the mentality of Claude Bowers, where to him those who fought for black equality after the civil war are painted not merely as people who disagreed with him, but evil, evil men. Indeed, for a bonus, when this view was fictionalized in the movie “Birth of a Nation” they featured a handicapped man, Arthur Stoneman, based on the real life figure Thaddeus Stevens, who was portrayed with the old stereotype that his handicap was an outward sign of inward deformity. And what do you know? You keep harping on the fear of deformed children, calling them monstrous.

There is something monstrous here: the attitude that could look at a baby born with an imperfect body and call it a monster.

What is so deformed in your soul that you could feel hatred for a baby struggling for its life, and call it monstrous?

Once again, you try to sell the non sequiter expedient of illegitimately equating a born black person with a fetus - this time a horribly malformed one. In many cases, we're not just talking imperfection; we're talking the stuff of lifetime nightmares, especially if you witness it emerging from between your own thighs. Something that has no chance of surviving; something that can only serve to forever haunt the dreams of the woman who pushed it from inside herself.

What kind of diseased and sadistic mind would insist that a terrified woman, who has been told the nature of what resides inside her, and dreads to the very depths of her soul its shattering sight, be forcibly subjected to such a harrowing and scarring experience that she is so desperate to avoid, if it can indeed be avoided?

Yours, apparently.

702 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 5:37:42pm

re: #681 A.W.

Anyway, you have lied.

You have repeatedly quotemined for the purpose of distortion, and I have repeatedly called you on it.

You have a demonstrable cluelessness on basic biology.

You have demonstrated willful ignorance concerning the horrific circumstances that some women face, even when furnished with multiople links to counterfactual evidence.

You have argued that even some fully-born human life is less valuable because it doesn't contribute.

You have postulated a fully born human that was never permitted consciousness, then asked why I would consider such an irretrievable vegetable to possess less value than Sarah Palin.

You have called deformations monsterous.

Some of them can appear posiively Lovecraftian, and sustain only brief and bizarre lives.

You have slandered the OJ Jury in a way that seems, well, racist.

IMO, the racial animus or fear was practiced by members of that jury.

And called anyone who says that a human anytime before birth deserves equal respect "evil" including me.

And it IS evil to equate a woman's life or physical health with the life of the fetus that she carries, and to force her to die or to sustain serious and permanent physical damage in order to bear it.

And apparently you are stuck repeating yourself.

Later you repeat this very post. I have continued to add links to proof of my contentions throughout; you have not proferred a single supporting link for your nauseatingly misogynistic stance.

So i will call this a win and take my ball and go home. you can keep arguing with the same person you have sex with: yourself.

You're the one illegitimately engaging in an orgy of masturbatory self-backpatting, garnished with a false, gratuitous and irrelevant non sequiter sexual ad hominem.

703 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 5:49:40pm

re: #682 A.W.

Ah, so responding to your arguments one at a time = lying.

You gave two reasons and i answered them one at a time. and then you pretend you never gave the first reason.

you lied.

You lied when you claimed that it was a matter of killing a monstrously malformed fetus in order to save it, when often there is no saving it.

And you claimed that a response to stimuli indicated sentience. and you claimed your balls didn't drop until puberty. Sorry, you are a clueless on biology.

Sentience does indeed entail subjectivity, but that point weighs against you, as fetuses do not possess subjectivity, so they cannot possess sentience. And the ball drop canard was from a post many weeeks ago on an entirely unrelated subject, and I immediately aacknowledged the error. But you have claimed that cancer does not appear in fetuses, and I posted a link concerning how some (but not all) fetal cancers can be addressed with prenatal surgery. And you have claimed that a woman's life or physical health can never be threatened by a pregnancy, to which I replied by listing women suffering from cancer, heat disease, emplysema, diabetes, or the fetal conditions of trisomy, hydrocephalia, fetal cancer, and ectopic pregnancy.

But what really is the point of arguing with a person who lies when the truth can just be cut and pasted?

You mean like I have done with all of my many links? Oh, yeah, right; that's

704 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 5:51:50pm

PIMF

You mean like I have done with all of my many links? Oh, yeah, right; that's copied and pasted...

705 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 5:55:29pm

re: #689 A.W.

Btw, you must be pretty stupid for you to take three whole hours to respond to one set of posts. i formulated my first burst this morning in all of half an hour.

But then again, there is alot less creativity involved. i mean, after all, i am not the one lying his ass off.

It takes no brains whatsoever to blather snide, self-contradictory, and insulting nonsense. Which is surpassingly fortunate for you, because you are apparently capable of nothing more.

706 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:08:52pm

re: #691 Salamantis

If they're not born, they're not children.

A ridiculous assertion. Only a die-hard abortion advocate could believe such nonsense. Is there magic fairy dust in the birth canal that transforms a random pile of chemicals into a child?

Although, not scientific evidence, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say about Children:

Main Entry:
child
Pronunciation:
ˈchī(-ə)ld
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural chil·dren ˈchil-drən, -dərn
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jaṭhara belly
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth
b: a childlike or childish person
c: a person not yet of age
3 usually childe ˈchī(-ə)ld archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a: a son or daughter of human parents
b: descendant
5: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
6: product, result
— child·less ˈchī(-ə)l(d)-ləs adjective
— child·less·ness noun
— with child: pregnant

Emphasis placed on the primary definition above.

And someone can work for the number of US abortions to be reduced via sex education and contraceptive access like they do in Europe without also trying to beat the holy fucking shit out of women entering abortion clinics, like I have seen a lot of these theocratically totalitarian assholes do, or firebomb the clinics, or murder doctors. But for the latter folks, it isn't really about reducing abortions; it's about maximizing childbirths, so they can adopt and indoctrinate the extra infants into their faiths, and contraceptive access and sex education don't help that goal along.

Look, I understand that you've directly dealt with activists at the clinics. The freaks that show up at those things are the most radical fringe of the Pro-Life movement. You use your experiences, not only, to classify all Pro-Lifers as murderous maniacs, but also to classify fetuses as dangerous non-human threats to helpless female victims. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you and your loved ones, but you simply aren't being fair-minded.

I find the effort to ban all abortions to be morally problematic, because it dooms women to maiming and death.

As far as I know, you are the only one on this board that has suggested this. And I highly doubt there is a doctor in the USA, or on the planet for that matter, that wouldn't sacrifice the baby to save the mother if it became necessary because complications arose during childbirth. No sane person has a problem with that. Luckily, with modern medical techniques, such situations are exceedingly rare.

People take issue with clinics like Tiller's because the abortions performed there are elective. They are done to prevent a possible future complication, not because there is an actual problem now.

No, her's just being himself - a garden-variety anus.

That's certainly a possibility. I always try to see people in a positive light though.

Btw; great apes, dolphins and elephants also pass this test.

So, how do dolphins touch a daub of paint on their foreheads?

I am a pagan, and have been for decades.

I probably shouldn't ask this, but my curiosity has got the best of me. So, does this mean you worship Pag? Are you just a general non-Christian (classical definition of pagan)? Or is it just forbidden to mention the name(s) of the god(s) in your particular pantheon?

707 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:13:49pm

re: #690 A.W.

> So the fact that they might be dependent upon her love and affection completely escapes you, ayy?

No, what escapes you, however, is that whether we are pillars of society or "useless eaters" our lives are equally valuable. Whether it is a beloved mother, or a loner that no one likes, it is not right to kill one to save the other just because of your assessment of how useful one or the other is.

YOU'RE the one who set the sadistic conditions that would render such a being useless; denial of consciousness from the moment of birth forthwith, so that all critical cognitive maturation periods are past and one is left with an irretrievable vegetable that never had a chance to be anything more.

You would think that with your sparkling personality, you would be opposed to any rule that would say that friendless losers can be killed, if only out of self-interest.

More mirror testing, I see...comparing our relative karmas, you MUST be inadvertantly referring to yourself.

But its funny how quick the rabid pro-abortionist can be lured into saying things that sound so t-4.

I of course did no such thing; handicapped people are consciously self-aware, unlike your hypothetical mostrosity, which never was. Plus, I am not pro-abortion (the Chinese government, which mandates that all pregnancies after the birth of the first hild be aborted, is an example of pro-abortion), I am pro-choice, and support both the right of the mother to choose either to terminate her pre-viability fetus (and to abort her late term pregnancy when her life or physical health are drastically threatened, or when the fetus is so horrifically malformed that it has no chance whatsoever of long surviving childbirth), or to carry her pregnancy to term. I do find it amusing, however, that a rabid antiabortionist extremist such as yourself needed no urging at all to endorse a return of Nazi lebensborn logic to Europe.

708 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 6:53:03pm

re: #706 NukeAtomrod

A ridiculous assertion. Only a die-hard abortion advocate could believe such nonsense. Is there magic fairy dust in the birth canal that transforms a random pile of chemicals into a child?
Although, not scientific evidence, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say about Children:

That is the definition in common parlance, but it is not the medical one. Medically, a fertilized egg before its first division is a zygote, a dividing fertilized egg is an embryo until the 8th week of gestation, and from there until birth it is a fetus.

Common parlance is notoriously scientifically inaccurate (see the common parlance definition of 'theory' next to the scientific one). Also there are words without actual referents; for instance, the word unicorn. And also see the words space and time; neither can be perceived in the absence of the other, because einsteinian spacetime is a single seamless manifold in which matter/energy resides.

Look, I understand that you've directly dealt with activists at the clinics. The freaks that show up at those things are the most radical fringe of the Pro-Life movement. You use your experiences, not only, to classify all Pro-Lifers as murderous maniacs, but also to classify fetuses as dangerous non-human threats to helpless female victims. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you and your loved ones, but you simply aren't being fair-minded.

Some fetuses do indeed constitute threats to the lives or physical health of the woman who carries them; trisomy pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, cancerous fetuses, and hydrocephalic fetuses come readily to mind. And some women are striken during their pregnancies with medical conditions that render carrying ANY fetus to term a grave risk to life or physical health.

While it is true that the vast majority of antiabortionists are not murderous maniacs (and I never said that they were), it is indeed the fact that there are more than a few who murder doctors, clinic staff, and clinic escorts (9 so far) and firebomb clinics (41 bombings, 173 arsons, and 91 attempted bombings or arsons). And a disturbing number of antiabortionists who do not perpetrate such crimes nevertheless vocally or quietly support them.

Sal: I find the effort to ban all abortions to be morally problematic, because it dooms women to maiming and death.

As far as I know, you are the only one on this board that has suggested this. And I highly doubt there is a doctor in the USA, or on the planet for that matter, that wouldn't sacrifice the baby to save the mother if it became necessary because complications arose during childbirth. No sane person has a problem with that. Luckily, with modern medical techniques, such situations are exceedingly rare.

But A.W. seems to me to do precisely that, by the expedient of denying that such situations arise at all.

People take issue with clinics like Tiller's because the abortions performed there are elective. They are done to prevent a possible future complication, not because there is an actual problem now.

People wouldn't go to the anguish or expense accepting their physicians' referrals, travelling thousands of miles, and spending thousands of dollars in order to abort a fetus that they dearly wanted (or otherwise they would have aborted it earlier at much less pain and expense) if the dangers were not real. Nor would their physicians refer them if they weren't.

to be continued...

709 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 7:05:04pm

re: #706 NukeAtomrod

Sal: No, he's just being himself - a garden-variety anus.

That's certainly a possibility. I always try to see people in a positive light though.

After our exchanges on this site, it is exceedingly difficult for me to conclude otherwise.

Sal: Btw; great apes, dolphins and elephants also pass this test.

So, how do dolphins touch a daub of paint on their foreheads?

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

[Link: www.earthtrust.org...]

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Sal: I am a pagan, and have been for decades.

I probably shouldn't ask this, but my curiosity has got the best of me. So, does this mean you worship Pag? Are you just a general non-Christian (classical definition of pagan)? Or is it just forbidden to mention the name(s) of the god(s) in your particular pantheon?

There are many different paganisms; Greek, Norse, Egyptian, Hindu, etc. I am an eclectic Celtic Pagan, and I call my particular God and Goddess Cernunnos and Aradia, but the selfsame God and Goddess are addressed by many names in many cultures.

710 happycamper  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 8:51:13pm

I actually feel sorry for people like Salamatis.

711 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 9:10:34pm

re: #710 happycamper

I actually feel sorry for people like Salamatis.

Isn't that kinda like Ken Lay feeling sorry for Bill Gates?

712 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 12, 2009 10:56:06pm

re: #687 A.W.

you can keep arguing with the same person you have sex with: yourself.

Get your wife drunk enough, and she may admit to you that having sex with herself, or with anyone else, male or female, is a helluva lot more inviting than having sex with you. That is, if she's even real, and her name isn't Rosie Palm.

713 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 8:54:27am

re: #708 Salamantis

The Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary has the same primary definition as above. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/child
I believe you are operating under the false assumption that child and baby are interchangeable terms. To be more precise, child could refer to any of the developmental stages of a human being that you listed above including baby.

While it is true that the vast majority of antiabortionists are not murderous maniacs (and I never said that they were), it is indeed the fact that there are more than a few who murder doctors, clinic staff, and clinic escorts (9 so far) and firebomb clinics (41 bombings, 173 arsons, and 91 attempted bombings or arsons). And a disturbing number of antiabortionists who do not perpetrate such crimes nevertheless vocally or quietly support them.

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice."

Assuming the crimes you listed were perpetrated by unique individuals, you are judging 155,070,459 people by the actions of 314. It's difficult to quantify the "disturbing number" you suggest that support the 314 criminals. In my opinion, 1 is a disturbing number in this case. Nevertheless, the crime rate of "pro-life on abortion staff/property violence" is a remarkably low .000002%. So, once again, I have to conclude that you are being incredibly unfair to those who self-identify as "pro-life."

People wouldn't go to the anguish or expense accepting their physicians' referrals, travelling thousands of miles, and spending thousands of dollars in order to abort a fetus that they dearly wanted (or otherwise they would have aborted it earlier at much less pain and expense) if the dangers were not real. Nor would their physicians refer them if they weren't.

That's one way of looking at it. However, I do wonder about the relative dangers of someone in very frail health going on a long journey for an elective surgery that involves inducing labor vs. the danger of a c-section.

714 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 9:02:22am

re: #712 Salamantis

Get your wife drunk enough, and she may admit to you that having sex with herself, or with anyone else, male or female, is a helluva lot more inviting than having sex with you. That is, if she's even real, and her name isn't Rosie Palm.

Hmm; you slightly surprised me, A.W.; I halfway expected you to post on here pretending to be your own wife, and loudly lauding your lovemaking acumen. But then again, it wouldn't be much of a pretense, would it, since, in a very real since, you most likely ARE your own wife. Which would explain your visceral resentment of all those freely choosing women freely choosing to have nothing whatsoever to do with you. As well as your fervent desire to rule them, so you could COMPEL them to do what you so desperately yet so futilely desire them to do.

715 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 9:40:08am

re: #713 NukeAtomrod

The Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary has the same primary definition as above. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/child
I believe you are operating under the false assumption that child and baby are interchangeable terms. To be more precise, child could refer to any of the developmental stages of a human being that you listed above including baby.

Buit you know very well that when the antiabortionists use the word 'child', they are not trying to invoke the image of a tadpole-sized embryo, but the image of a bouncing baby (which is also why they interchangeably use the term 'baby' to describe embryos and fetuses).

The primary dictionary definition here differs:

[Link: www.thefreedictionary.com...]

And here, too:

[Link: www.answers.com...]

And so does the Wikipedia definition:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

They all maintain that a child is a person/human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

And here a quote fom the Wiki site:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."[2] Biologically, a child is anyone in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood.

And here are the definitions of the Americal Heritage Medical Dictionary and Mosby's Medical Dictionary:

[Link: medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...]

Check the primaries.

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice."

It depends upon how the question is asked. If you asked people not whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, but whether or not they want a blanket ban on all abortions, the 'yes' percentages would be far, far lower. Plus, the correctness of a stand is not determined by its polularity ( a fact that antiabortionists love to trumpet when their poll numbers are low). I wonder how they'd poll after the assassination of Dr. Tiller?

Assuming the crimes you listed were perpetrated by unique individuals, you are judging 155,070,459 people by the actions of 314. It's difficult to quantify the "disturbing number" you suggest that support the 314 criminals. In my opinion, 1 is a disturbing number in this case. Nevertheless, the crime rate of "pro-life on abortion staff/property violence" is a remarkably low .000002%. So, once again, I have to conclude that you are being incredibly unfair to those who self-identify as "pro-life."

Should I have included the 665 anthrax threats, the 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid stink bombs? But I already said in post # 708 that "the vast majority of antiabortionists are not murderous maniacs" (and denied ever asserting that they were). Nevertheless, we are talking about more than a few lone wolf loose screw crazies here. I consider the Army of God and organizations like it to be antiabortion terror cell farms.

That's one way of looking at it. However, I do wonder about the relative dangers of someone in very frail health going on a long journey for an elective surgery that involves inducing labor vs. the danger of a c-section.

The long journey takes but a few hours of flight (and an expensive plane ticket), the health is often not frail yet, just inexorably headed that way, and the procedure can be chosen against, but with the high likelihood of extrememly dire consequences. And if the referring prenatal physician believed that a c section was safer for the woman, or even close to as safe, he would perform it himself.

But you know better in general than prenatal physicians do in particular cases; right?

716 happycamper  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 9:51:51am

re: #711 Salamantis

Isn't that kinda like Ken Lay feeling sorry for Bill Gates?

After reading more of your posts I guess it's more like pity I feel towards you than sorrow. Not pity because of your position on abortion or the five days you've been posting them; not pity because you believe Tiller to be some kind of hero; not pity because you believe you're doing the Lord's work by escorting troubled women into an abortion mill. No, that's not why I feel pity for you.

I feel pity for you because morality doesn't have a place in your "pagan" world view. It seems that what only matters is if it's "legal".

717 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 10:21:17am

re: #716 happycamper

After reading more of your posts I guess it's more like pity I feel towards you than sorrow. Not pity because of your position on abortion or the five days you've been posting them; not pity because you believe Tiller to be some kind of hero; not pity because you believe you're doing the Lord's work by escorting troubled women into an abortion mill. No, that's not why I feel pity for you.

I feel pity for you because morality doesn't have a place in your "pagan" world view. It seems that what only matters is if it's "legal".

You are wrong. Governments and religions both get their moral precepts from the present or past cultures and societies in which they or their predecessors arose and from which they or their predecessors emerged.

In fact, go far back enough, and everybody's ancestors were Pagan, including monotheists'. The Golden Rule was found in the ancient Paganisms of India, China and Greece before it ever appeared in Christianisty as the Golden Rule:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The Ten Commandments themselves owe most of their form and content to ealier lists of moral rules, most prominently the Code of Hammurabi (the Babylonian Pagan):

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

You can say 'thank you' now...;~)

I recommend that you read The Evolution Of God, by Robert Wright.

Oh yeah; and your use of the epithet 'abortion mill' labels you as an antiabortion extremist (as opposed to just being antiabortion) as surely as would using the epithet 'abortuary.' In a secret place inside you that you will never admit to this list, the vicious premeditated murder of Dr. Tiller most likely thrilled you. Which means that you would have to inestimably rise in my estimation to be deserving of anything other than my utter contempt.

718 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 10:24:44am

re: #666 A.W.

OK, AW about your cancer arguments and also as it relates to your statements on deformed fetuses:

1. Both chemotherapy and radiation use substances that are toxic to humans. A fetus can be killed by amounts of those substances that an adult can survive. To abort so as to allow the mother to obtain cancer treatment is a dire choice, but one that must be left to the mother.

2. I have cheered every advance in surgery on fetuses that has allowed more children to be born and go to live full lives. Sadly though, in some cases the fetus cannot be saved. Who do you want making the call on what to do then? The parents and their doctors, or politicians and activists?

719 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:24:14am

re: #716 happycamper

And what's so fucking moral anyway about forcing unwilling women to sacrifice their lives or permanently sacrifice their health in order to bring their pregnancy to term, anyway? And what's so fucking moral about forcing unwilling women to give birth to horribly deformed fetuses that have no chance at all of survival?

To me, such stances are the very definition of immoral.

If that's your idea of morality, I'll avoid your disgusting morality like the misogynistically totalitarian plague it is.

720 happycamper  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:34:41am

re: #717 Salamantis

You are wrong. Governments and religions both get their moral precepts from the present or past cultures and societies in which they or their predecessors arose and from which they or their predecessors emerged.

I absolutely agree. Clitorectomies and honor killings are legal in parts of the world and performed every day on women and young girls. But hey, it's legal, so who are we to argue? Unlike yours, my morals are not dictated by culture or society.


Oh yeah; and your use of the epithet 'abortion mill' labels you as an antiabortion extremist (as opposed to just being antiabortion) as surely as would using the epithet 'abortuary.' In a secret place inside you that you will never admit to this list, the vicious premeditated murder of Dr. Tiller most likely thrilled you. Which means that you would have to inestimably rise in my estimation to be deserving of anything other than my utter contempt.

If using the term "abortion mill" makes a person an anti-abortion extremist, then a man who spends his spare time escorting women to said mill is a pro-abortion extremist. And no, I am not "thrilled" by the vicious premeditated murder of Tiller, any more than you're thrilled by 3200 abortions performed each day in this country. But I don't have to mourn his death or that of his clinic to prove I'm not an extremist, not that I care what someone like you thinks of someone like me.

721 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:36:13am

re: #715 Salamantis

Buit you know very well that when the antiabortionists use the word 'child', they are not trying to invoke the image of a tadpole-sized embryo, but the image of a bouncing baby

Actually, I do not know this. Nor do I have any way of determining it. Since they are using an acceptable and precise definition for the term, I think it is appropriate to take their usage at face value, rather than assign sinister motivations to it.

The primary dictionary definition here differs:
FreeDictionary
Answers
Wikipedia

And here are the definitions of the Americal Heritage Medical Dictionary and Mosby's Medical Dictionary
FreeDictionary Medical

FreeDictionary and Answers have An unborn infant; a fetus. as the secondary definition, which is just as valid as the primary.
Wikipedia is a community created encyclopedia, not a dictionary and not necessarily precise or complete. None of these are Medical Dictionaries, which seems to make a difference to you, so let's move on.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary has an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant as the secondary definition, which, once again, is just as valid as the primary definition.

American Heritage defines child as a person who has not yet reached puberty. So we need their definition of person, which is a living human. So what's human then? FreeDictionary doesn't have a listing from American Heritage, but they do from Mosby, which is a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens.

So, for what it's worth, all the dictionaries seem to agree that the definition of child includes the unborn.

Should I have included the 665 anthrax threats, the 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid stink bombs?

Certainly! So, we are up to 3973 criminal acts, generously assumed to be by unique individuals. So now our crime rate of "pro-life on abortion staff/property violence" is .00002%. If these crimes have widespread support with those that are Pro-Life, as you suggest, one would expect a much higher incidence. Seriously, if a relatively minor crime like vandalism was considered justified by even 10% of Pro-Life supporters, you'd expect abortion clinics to be damaged on a daily basis. In fact, there would be long lines of vandals waiting their turn at every abortion clinic in the nation.

Hypothetically speaking, even if we were to assume every Pro-Lifer is a closet criminal psychopath, how does that negate the belief that unborn children have value as a human being?

But you know better in general than prenatal physicians do in particular cases; right?


Probably in many cases, but I have no way of verifying that without being present during the examinations or the medical records of the patients. Also if you can't get a referral from your primary doctor, you can shop around for a doctor who will give you one. There is probably even an online message board that facilitates this.

722 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 11:58:43am

re: #720 happycamper

Sal: You are wrong. Governments and religions both get their moral precepts from the present or past cultures and societies in which they or their predecessors arose and from which they or their predecessors emerged.

happycamper: I absolutely agree. Clitorectomies and honor killings are legal in parts of the world and performed every day on women and young girls. But hey, it's legal, so who are we to argue? Unlike yours, my morals are not dictated by culture or society.

No, your disgustingly misogynistic and totalitarian morality is dictated by some sects of a particular religion, just as the morality that mandates clitorectomies and honor killings is dictated by some sects of another particular religion. The difference between their version of gender-based enslavement and oppression and yours is a matter not of essence, but of degree. Both of them refuse to allow women to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies.

My morality on the issue is a consequence of this simple principle: all people should enjoy all freedoms that do not infringe upon the freedoms of other people, and where competing freedoms come into inevitable conflict, that conflict should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise. I'm all about maximizing individual freedom, liberty, choice and rights for all, and minimizing any peoples' control of other people. People have enough to do running their own lives without demanding to run other peoples'.

Sal: Oh yeah; and your use of the epithet 'abortion mill' labels you as an antiabortion extremist (as opposed to just being antiabortion) as surely as would using the epithet 'abortuary.' In a secret place inside you that you will never admit to this list, the vicious premeditated murder of Dr. Tiller most likely thrilled you. Which means that you would have to inestimably rise in my estimation to be deserving of anything other than my utter contempt.

happycamper: If using the term "abortion mill" makes a person an anti-abortion extremist, then a man who spends his spare time escorting women to said mill is a pro-abortion extremist. And no, I am not "thrilled" by the vicious premeditated murder of Tiller, any more than you're thrilled by 3200 abortions performed each day in this country. But I don't have to mourn his death or that of his clinic to prove I'm not an extremist, not that I care what someone like you thinks of someone like me.

No, I'm a pro-choice supporter, as I support a woman's choice either to terminate her pregnancy or to carry it to term. You wanna see pro-abortion extremism, go check out the Chinese government, which mandates that every pregnancy after a woman's first one must be aborted. And the correct terminology is abortion clinic; how would you like churches described as 'dogma mills'?

You don't care what I think of you? Fine; that's easy to believe, coming from someone who doesn't care about what women think of your demanding that they relinquish their personal freedoms.

They're not going to give their freedoms up just because you want them to. And they might be able to care less what you think about that fact, but it would be exceedingly difficult.

723 happycamper  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 12:35:04pm

re: #719 Salamantis

And what's so fucking moral anyway about forcing unwilling women to sacrifice their lives or permanently sacrifice their health in order to bring their pregnancy to term, anyway? And what's so fucking moral about forcing unwilling women to give birth to horribly deformed fetuses that have no chance at all of survival?

To me, such stances are the very definition of immoral.

If that's your idea of morality, I'll avoid your disgusting morality like the misogynistically totalitarian plague it is.

You really need to stop projecting and putting words in my mouth. I never said (or would advocate) that a women should sacrifice her life for that of her unborn baby. I think we can both agree on that point.

My only point all along is that it doesn't always require the death of the baby to save the mother's life or to preserve her health. If anytime during the third trimester an otherwise healthy and well formed baby needs to be seperated from the mother to preserve the mother's life and/or physical health then do it. If the seperation is sufficient to save the mother, then to intentionally kill the baby in the process is IMMORAL. Wouldn't you agree? If you want to argue health/life issues, then once the threat to the mother is removed it isn't that enough?

We're not talking about a tooth here - it's a human life whether you call it a person, baby, or a fetus. And there's plenty of reasons to believe that some (not all) of Tiller's victims didn't have to die to save the mother. I believe Tiller may have saved the lives or health of women, but I also believe he un-necessarily killed babies (or fetuses)that didn't need to die to save the mother.

If seperating the baby from mother saves her life, then we would here about the times at Tiller's clinic when mother and child were sent home. But if it's your position that every single procedure Tiller performed to save the mother's life and/or health required the death of the baby, then there's really nothing more I can say other than have a good day.

724 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 12:37:38pm

re: #721 NukeAtomrod

Actually, I do not know this. Nor do I have any way of determining it. Since they are using an acceptable and precise definition for the term, I think it is appropriate to take their usage at face value, rather than assign sinister motivations to it.

When they stand outside clinics that only perform 1st term abortions screaming 'Don't kill your baby!' at the women entering, as I have heard them do countless times, there is no other rational way to interpret it.

FreeDictionary and Answers have An unborn infant; a fetus. as the secondary definition, which is just as valid as the primary.
Wikipedia is a community created encyclopedia, not a dictionary and not necessarily precise or complete. None of these are Medical Dictionaries, which seems to make a difference to you, so let's move on.

Mosby's Medical Dictionary has an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant as the secondary definition, which, once again, is just as valid as the primary definition.

American Heritage defines child as a person who has not yet reached puberty. So we need their definition of person, which is a living human. So what's human then? FreeDictionary doesn't have a listing from American Heritage, but they do from Mosby, which is a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens.

That's not how the US Supreme Court defines 'person'. It's also not what we refer to when we speak of person choice, personal freedom, or personal prerogative. Also see:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

How can a fetus be considered a person, when it cannot exercise responsibilities, which are correlative with rights? You are espousing the religiously advocated speciesist human exceptionalist stance of personhood, which considers all living possessors of unique human DNA to be persons; this is a chemical definition of ensoulment or personhood, which poses the question of whether twins share a single soul, or whether chimeras, who possesss multiple distinctive DNA sequences, possess multiple souls. It also poses the question of how such people can turn around and ignore the content of that DNA, which conclusively demonstrates that humans and other terrestrial lifeforms evolutionarily diverged from a small set of ancient common ancestors with whose DNA their own shares many sequences, in direct contradiction of the independently-and-as-is creationism of many of them.

So, for what it's worth, all the dictionaries seem to agree that the definition of child includes the unborn.

Suddenly you seem much more willing to credit the secondary definitions that you originally discounted.

Certainly! So, we are up to 3973 criminal acts, generously assumed to be by unique individuals. So now our crime rate of "pro-life on abortion staff/property violence" is .00002%. If these crimes have widespread support with those that are Pro-Life, as you suggest, one would expect a much higher incidence. Seriously, if a relatively minor crime like vandalism was considered justified by even 10% of Pro-Life supporters, you'd expect abortion clinics to be damaged on a daily basis. In fact, there would be long lines of vandals waiting their turn at every abortion clinic in the nation.

I'm sure that many of them are deterred from perpetrating such crimes by criminal penalty consequences. And there is no doubt whatsoever that many of those who do not commit such crimes nevertheless cheer on their perpetrators, as Charles has abundantly shown.

cont'd...

725 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 12:38:21pm

re: #721 NukeAtomrod

cont'd...

Hypothetically speaking, even if we were to assume every Pro-Lifer is a closet criminal psychopath, how does that negate the belief that unborn children have value as a human being?

Fetuses have value, but that value does not supersede the value of the woman carrying them, and does not mandate, nor should it, that they must substantially risk their lives or physical health in order to carry them to term.

Probably in many cases, but I have no way of verifying that without being present during the examinations or the medical records of the patients. Also if you can't get a referral from your primary doctor, you can shop around for a doctor who will give you one. There is probably even an online message board that facilitates this.

So now you are accusing women who demonstrated their desire to have children by not aborting them earlier when it would be easier and cheaper to do so of doctor-shopping in order to find a physician who will refer them for a late term abortion. Considering the fact that they demonstrated a desire to carry their pregnancies to term, it would seem much more likely that they would seek out doctors who might offer them ways to avoid late term abortion and give birth to a wanted baby.

726 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 1:06:57pm

re: #723 happycamper

You really need to stop projecting and putting words in my mouth. I never said (or would advocate) that a women should sacrifice her life for that of her unborn baby. I think we can both agree on that point.

And what about greatly risking permanent severe damage to her health? Can we agree on that one? And a fetus only becomes a baby if or when it's born.

My only point all along is that it doesn't always require the death of the baby to save the mother's life or to preserve her health. If anytime during the third trimester an otherwise healthy and well formed baby needs to be seperated from the mother to preserve the mother's life and/or physical health then do it. If the seperation is sufficient to save the mother, then to intentionally kill the baby in the process is IMMORAL. Wouldn't you agree? If you want to argue health/life issues, then once the threat to the mother is removed it isn't that enough?

Of course if both the life and health of the mother and the life of the fetus can be protected and preserved, that is the best possible outcome. And in most cases, it is a feasible one.

But when that separation is not possible, or is extremely unlikely to be successful, while simultaneously preserving the life of the fetus and the life or physical health of the mother, as rarely but occasionally happens (some of the thousand cases in the US per year out of 6 million pregnancies), the life or physical health of the mother would have to of necessity take moral precedence, and the life of the fetus would have to of moral necessity be sacrified in order to protect and preserve the life or the physical health of the mother; wouldn't you agree?

Or when fetuses are so horrifically and monstrously deformed that they cannot long survive childbirth (the rest of those thousand cases a year out of six million US pregnancies), it is immoral, pointlessly sadistic and needlessly cruel to compel horrified woman to endure the pain, rigors, and emotional and psychological scarring of giving birth to them; wouldn't you agree?

We're not talking about a tooth here - it's a human life whether you call it a person, baby, or a fetus. And there's plenty of reasons to believe that some (not all) of Tiller's victims didn't have to die to save the mother. I believe Tiller may have saved the lives or health of women, but I also believe he un-necessarily killed babies (or fetuses)that didn't need to die to save the mother.

It is human and it is alive, but it is not a person. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever for your belief that Dr. Tiller perforned unnecessary late term abortions, and a jury of Dr. Tiller's peers unanimously found precisely the opposite. I sense an emotional exigency or need within you to gratuitously demonize a man who unquestionably saved the lives and physical health of thousands of women, at the ultimate cost of his own life.

If seperating the baby from mother saves her life, then we would here about the times at Tiller's clinic when mother and child were sent home. But if it's your position that every single procedure Tiller performed to save the mother's life and/or health required the death of the baby, then there's really nothing more I can say other than have a good day.

In the many cases where the chances of preserving both the life and health of the mother and the life of the baby are rationally and reasonably acceptable, the woman are never referred to Dr. Tiller; such procedures are performed by their own neonatal physicians and surgeons.

727 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 2:44:40pm

re: #724 Salamantis

When they stand outside clinics that only perform 1st term abortions screaming 'Don't kill your baby!'

We're discussing the use of the word child not baby. Specifically, my use of the word child, which you said was "inaccurate evocative language." Now that we've gone over the standard and medical dictionary definitions, perhaps you will concede that child is an accurate term? As far as your interpretation of the motives behind the language, you have once again trotted out the protesters that beat women with signs etc. So, do you still maintain that these people are not representative of the 51% of Pro-Life Americans or have you changed your mind?

That's not how the US Supreme Court defines 'person'.


Ah, but we are not talking about the Supreme Court. We are talking about the definitions of words in one of three medical dictionaries, which you found credible until now.

How can a fetus be considered a person, when it cannot exercise responsibilities, which are correlative with rights?

What an interesting question. What responsibilities are required for someone to be a person? Can a one month old baby perform those responsibilities? How about a profoundly retarded adult? Or an adult with total paralysis or in a coma?

You are espousing the religiously advocated speciesist human exceptionalist stance of personhood, which considers all living possessors of unique human DNA to be persons

Actually, I wasn't espousing anything. I just used the American Heritage Medical Dictionary to define the word child, then the word person, then the word human, so we could determine if the definition of child included the unborn. It appears it does. If you don't agree, you can take it up with American Heritage.

Suddenly you seem much more willing to credit the secondary definitions that you originally discounted.

I never discounted secondary definitions in the dictionary. I did, however state that a dictionary definition of a word is not necessarily scientific fact. We are pursuing this course of inquiry because you asserted that medical dictionaries are a reliable source of accurate medical definitions as opposed to "notoriously scientifically inaccurate" common parlance.

I'm sure that many of them are deterred from perpetrating such crimes by criminal penalty consequences.

Really? That would explain why there is no graffiti in American cities.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that many of those who do not commit such crimes nevertheless cheer on their perpetrators, as Charles has abundantly shown.

Certainly they have some supporters, but I'm interested in how many. Would you care to put a number on how many many is?

Fetuses have value, but that value does not supersede the value of the woman carrying them, and does not mandate, nor should it, that they must substantially risk their lives or physical health in order to carry them to term.

So we are back to this. Once again, any doctor on the planet would immediately terminate a pregnancy to save a pregnant woman if she was in grave physical peril. Because it would be medically necessary. And it would be the right thing to do.

An elective abortion to prevent a potential complication in the future is more ethically problematic, which is likely the reason most doctors won't perform one. Just by virtue of being elective, the medical necessity of the abortion procedure is questionable.

So now you are accusing women...


Nope. I'm saying that doctors have different ethical boundaries, so if you don't like what one says, you can go to another. Also, you are making the assumption that all the women who have late-term abortions always make logical choices.

728 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 5:21:27pm

re: #727 NukeAtomrod

We're discussing the use of the word child not baby. Specifically, my use of the word child, which you said was "inaccurate evocative language." Now that we've gone over the standard and medical dictionary definitions, perhaps you will concede that child is an accurate term?

The MORE medically accurate terms are zygote, embryo, and fetus, depending upon development. And when most people say 'child' in common conversation, they mean what most of the first definitions say; between birth and puberty.

As far as your interpretation of the motives behind the language, you have once again trotted out the protesters that beat women with signs etc. So, do you still maintain that these people are not representative of the 51% of Pro-Life Americans or have you changed your mind?

They are not representative of most antiabortionists (and as I remarked before, nowhere NEAR 51 % would support a blanket ban on abortions, not that it matters, because it's not a matter of a popularity fccontest, any more than it shouold be a popularity contest in the Deep South whether or not to have segregation and Jim Crow), but they are indeed representative of much more than a miniscule percentage of them. When churches bus congregation member pickets with placards (in their church buses) to protest abortion clinics and they engage in such behavior, as happened with an Assembly of God church and a Southern Baptist church in my hometown, we're not talking about a mere anomaly or aberration. There is indeed a mutually reinforcing network of people who hold anti-evolution, anti-abortion, and anti-gay views, and they are concentrated in the fundamentalist Protestant denominations.

Ah, but we are not talking about the Supreme Court. We are talking about the definitions of words in one of three medical dictionaries, which you found credible until now.

Actually, when it is a matter of the legality of abortion, the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling on the nonpersonhood of the fetus is pivotal. And the links I previously provided, as if you didn't already know and are intentionally pretending to be obtuse, clearly show that when most people talk of persons (plural: people), they ain't meaning fetuses, unless they're committed foot soldiers in the antiabortion crusade.

What an interesting question. What responsibilities are required for someone to be a person? Can a one month old baby perform those responsibilities? How about a profoundly retarded adult? Or an adult with total paralysis or in a coma?

At least SOME responsibility (root word, respondere - to respond). The first two can let you know when they're hungry, and the third has demonstrated responsibility prior to paralysis or coma, and conceivably could do so again in the future. But of course, Terri Schiavo was no longer a person; there was no 'there' there, hadn't been for a long, long time, and never could have been again.

Actually, I wasn't espousing anything. I just used the American Heritage Medical Dictionary to define the word child, then the word person, then the word human, so we could determine if the definition of child included the unborn. It appears it does. If you don't agree, you can take it up with American Heritage.

Or all those other sources whose primary definition of 'child' is a human being between birth and puberty can. (it's not THE definition; it's not even crystal clear that it's THEIR definition).

cont'd...

729 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 5:24:13pm

re: #727 NukeAtomrod

cont'd...

Really? That would explain why there is no graffiti in American cities.

Yeah, because everywhere it is possible to paint graffiti in American cities is just as carefully guarded as are abortion clinics...

Certainly they have some supporters, but I'm interested in how many. Would you care to put a number on how many many is?

Many more than you would be comfortable admitting. In the hundreds of thousands who applaud such actions.

So we are back to this. Once again, any doctor on the planet would immediately terminate a pregnancy to save a pregnant woman if she was in grave physical peril. Because it would be medically necessary. And it would be the right thing to do.

An elective abortion to prevent a potential complication in the future is more ethically problematic, which is likely the reason most doctors won't perform one. Just by virtue of being elective, the medical necessity of the abortion procedure is questionable.

In a sense, ALL medical procedures are elective. Women are always free to refuse abortions, even when such refusals gravely endanger their lives or physical health. Is it possible that in some of the cases where Dr. Tiller performed abortions that the life of the fetus could have been saved, and the woman still survive with no permanent physical consequences? Sure; we're talking probabilities, not certainties here. But is it also likely that had Dr. Tiller endeavored to save the fetus in every case where it was viable, that some women would have died and others would have been seriously and permanently physically impaired? Yes. And if the choice is between the life or physical health of my wife, the wonderful woman whom I met, married, and dearly love, and the fetus she carries, we can perhaps have other children, or adopt them, but although I may be able to find another wife, I can't find another HER, the way she IS. So I would want to err, if error is possible, on HER side.

Nope. I'm saying that doctors have different ethical boundaries, so if you don't like what one says, you can go to another. Also, you are making the assumption that all the women who have late-term abortions always make logical choices.

That doesn't obviate my point that you are accusing women who have already clearly demonstrated by not aborting their pregnancies earlier in their terms when it would have been cheaper and easier that they really want to have their babies to for some strange reason all of a sudden go doctor-shopping for a physician with 'different ethical boundaries' so they can abort their pregnancies late in their terms. And why would some women do such blatantly self-contradictory things? Maybe these childlike emotional women are not making 'logical' choices, you say. I say that's sexist.

730 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 13, 2009 6:23:13pm

Well, I don't think we are going to find any common ground with each other. It almost seems as if we are speaking different languages.

Thank you for the invigorating debate, friend. I've really enjoyed it.

Oh and thanks for sharing the information about your religion as well. Herne is my favorite of the Celtic deities. They have an interesting representation of him in the excellent BBC series Robin of Sherwood. If you haven't seen it, you should.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

The on going rethoric of Darwinst Rage Boy.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

Daniel Ballard
Prove Mitt's Not a Unicorn-Apologies To The Unicorns
41 minutes ago
Views: 26 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

researchok
Out of Gas
1 hour, 25 minutes ago
Views: 58 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

I AM BREITBART!
Seattle Manhunt Launched After Deadly Cafe Shootings, Carjacking
1 hour, 41 minutes ago
Views: 54 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Shiplord Kirel
Dragon to Depart Station Thursday
2 hours, 52 minutes ago
Views: 31 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Randall Gross
Citadel Malware Delivers Reveton Ransomware in attempts to extort money
3 hours, 45 minutes ago
Views: 100 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2

Channeling Confucius
From the previous Diamond Jubilee: Kipling's 'Recessional'
4 hours, 16 minutes ago
Views: 64 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Bob Dillon
REVEALED: Hundreds of Words to Avoid Using Online if You Don't Want the Government Spying on You
5 hours, 20 minutes ago
Views: 120 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2

Learned Mother of Zion
Native Americans Have Jewish DNA!
5 hours, 40 minutes ago
Views: 238 • Comments: 8
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 6

Eclectic Infidel
Mitt Romney for a better Amercia!
5 hours, 45 minutes ago
Views: 126 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Aigle
Ha'aretz, Lost in Translation
9 hours ago
Views: 172 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

 Frank says:

Don't clap for destroying America. This place is as good as you want to make it. -- Zappa introduced "Billy the Mountain" by revealing that Billy and Ethel took a vacation trip across the United States, destroying it in the process. This was Zappa's response to the applause and cheers from the audience. Cleveland Colliseum, 1971