Coulter: ‘I Don’t Think of It As a Murder’

Video • Views: 5,463

Even Bill O’Reilly (who has been pretty cold-blooded about the murder of Dr. George Tiller) seems a little taken aback when Ann Coulter says, “I don’t think of it as a murder … I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

And: “If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.” And: “That’s why liberals are so hysterical about this, because generally they’re on the pro-death side … in this one case, they’re finally against someone dying, a man responsible for killing 60,000 babies.”

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

727 comments
1 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:36:32pm

She's cold hearted and not worth watching.

2 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:36:56pm

OK, the 60,000 babies thing is needs to die. It's impossible.

3 Town Of Rock Ridge  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:37:54pm

Hag. Used to like her. Not anymore.

4 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:38:23pm

"Why should anyone get riled up about political killings in America? Especially when the murdered had it coming."

-The thinking of Ann Coulter about Tiller.
-The thinking of Osama Bin Laden about 9/11.

5 Athens Runaway  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:38:26pm

There's a certain amount of psychosis in that statement, methinks.

6 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:39:39pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

I used to think she knew her stuff. I have one of her books. Now, not so much. It's sad, because I know she's much smarter than this. Just another bomb thrower the left can use as part of their broad brush against conservatives.

7 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:40:08pm

Boy she would be pissing her panties if someone was gunning for her and other pompous commentators egged them on.

8 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:40:13pm

Thank you Ms. Coulter for furthering the discussion.

/

9 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:40:34pm

Coulter has turned into an ass-oholic.

/now going back to the prior thread ... she's not worth more

10 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:41:43pm

She has a lot of pat buchanan in her.

11 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:00pm

“I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

---------- Really -----------

(Coulter) "No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

12 Truck Monkey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:04pm

re: #10 _RememberTonyC

She has a lot of pat buchanan in her.

Ish

13 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:10pm

It sounds to me like, in her ham-handed way, she was trying to parody the pro-choice people in her "I don't believe it's murder [etc.]" lines. Still inexcusable.

14 Athens Runaway  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:21pm

re: #6 pingjockey

I used to think she knew her stuff. I have one of her books. Now, not so much. It's sad, because I know she's much smarter than this. Just another bomb thrower the left can use as part of their broad brush against conservatives.

Yep. I agree. I have a signed copy of "Treason," and it is extremely well-researched and interested (did you know that McCarthy's allegations were verified in the 1990s by the CIA?), but she just annoys me to no end when she shoots her mouth off like this. And sadly, it's not a one-time thing.

15 KingKenrod  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:30pm

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

and

"If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.”

are inversions of well-known pro-choice slogans. Just replace abortionist with abortion. She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

16 horse  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:37pm

'I Don't Think of It As a Murder' she shouts from the shark's belly. She didn't just jump the shark some while back, she landed right in its mouth.

17 Bloodnok  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:42:48pm

That's CPAC Invitee Ann Coulter.

*sigh*

18 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:43:00pm

60,000 babies:

20 years, 7 days a week, 8.21 babies a day.

19 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:43:10pm

re: #14 Athens Runaway
It has become a standard of hers and it drives me nuts.

20 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:43:56pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

And failing at it.

21 A Kiwi Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:44:09pm

re: #6 pingjockey

I used to think she knew her stuff. I have one of her books. Now, not so much. It's sad, because I know she's much smarter than this. Just another bomb thrower the left can use as part of their broad brush against conservatives.

Dead right PJ, if the left want ammunition to carte blanche introduce legislation that paints all conservatives as criminals, she giving them all they need.

22 Town Of Rock Ridge  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:44:40pm

*BLAM*

*BLAM*

Both feet. Shot.

23 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:44:50pm

I'm sure Kobe didn't think of it as really a rape.

24 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:45:04pm
a man responsible for killing 60,000 babies

Crack open a friggin math book Ann.

25 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:45:36pm

Either life is sacred or it is not.

We are not making any progress here.

And the left will just eat this up.

Shame on Coulter.

26 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:46:01pm

re: #21 A Kiwi Infidel
I don't know how she does it. Gets both feet into her mouth at the same time. Susan Estrich on the other hand....

27 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:46:24pm

Plus, she's not wearing eye protection, and her Isoceles Stance is deficient (should be leaning forward more).

28 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:47:13pm

Ann will only give a damn when her books stop selling. Until that happens, she'll stick with the shock jock formula that has made her rich and popular with her target market.

29 A Kiwi Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:47:20pm

re: #23 Sharmuta

I'm sure Kobe didn't think of it as really a rape.

Same argument islamic "yoots" use when they claim a western girl was "asking for it, she was "uncovered meat". Does it make it ok? Shit no.

Murder is murder is murder.

30 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:47:27pm

Isn't Coulter a lawyer? This is pretty strong stuff, but on the other hand, controversy is what keeps those books of hers flying off the shelf.

31 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:47:33pm

re: #27 Occasional Reader
That picture looks photoshopped and I don't know why. It just looks odd.

32 Hawaii69  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:48:05pm

Someone needs to tear that rubber mask of hers off on live TV, to reveal "The Visitor" underneath.

...or maybe take secret footage of her in the Green Room, unhinging her jaw to swallow a live rodent whole

33 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:48:26pm

re: #21 A Kiwi Infidel

Dead right PJ, if the left want ammunition to carte blanche introduce legislation that paints all conservatives as criminals, she giving them all they need.

true but Coulter is a child of the MSM...she and her ilk are evrybody's problem....this shit poisons our entire society, right and left....I hate thee MSN

34 opnion  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:48:50pm

re: #13 Occasional Reader

It sounds to me like, in her ham-handed way, she was trying to parody the pro-choice people in her "I don't believe it's murder [etc.]" lines. Still inexcusable.

I saw it & I agree with you. The problem is that she goes too far over the top for shock value.

35 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:49:18pm

re: #13 Occasional Reader

It sounds to me like, in her ham-handed way, she was trying to parody the pro-choice people in her "I don't believe it's murder [etc.]" lines. Still inexcusable.

True but it's also belies an attitude that some members of the "pro-life" movement aren't going to discourage anti-abortion violence. That's why so many people cringed when Sarah Palin balked at calling anti-abortion violence "terrorism". She may have had a more nuanced point but the fact that there are people like Coutler out there leaves it open to interpretation.

36 Kragar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:49:49pm

And when I tell people I'm a conservative, they think of this.

Thanks Ann

37 Town Of Rock Ridge  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:49:56pm

Wow. Laker haters everywhere these days. Sheesh.......

38 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:50:53pm

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And when I tell people I'm a conservative, they think of this.

Thanks Ann

don't sweat it....it's the best gig in town

39 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:51:19pm

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And when I tell people I'm a conservative, they think of this.

Thanks Ann

My condolences. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot more self inflicted damage to the conservative brand over the next 4-8 years> Hang in there. It'll get better eventually.

40 ckb  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:51:50pm

Her satire here is cutting. Of course there is a chance she means it - you can never tell - but she succeeds once again in making us squirm.

41 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:51:56pm

re: #2 BigPapa

OK, the 60,000 babies thing is needs to die. It's impossible.

Agreed. I'm getting really sick of this cartoonishly impossible number being paraded out over and over again by people on this issue.

I am also sick of people who howl about being part of a "Culture of Life" and all life being sacred but then nonchalantly say in the next breath they are ok to some degree with a man being murdered in a church.

How stupid do you have to be to not see the sick irony. Where did she get her law degree from, a box of non-FDA regulated Cherrios?

42 SixDegrees  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:51:59pm

Coulter dove into the deep end a long time ago. She isn't worth paying attention to. She's long since jumped the shark.

Apparently, playing the mean-spirited, slack-jawed bigot is her only way of promoting her books these days.

43 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:52:06pm

re: #35 Killgore Trout

True but it's also belies an attitude that some members of the "pro-life" movement aren't going to discourage anti-abortion violence. That's why so many people cringed when Sarah Palin balked at calling anti-abortion violence "terrorism". She may have had a more nuanced point but the fact that there are people like Coutler out there leaves it open to interpretation.

So what do you think of her Isosceles Stance?

44 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:52:31pm

re: #18 BigPapa

60,000 babies:

20 years, 7 days a week, 8.21 babies a day.

Well sure, when you say it like that, that number sounds absolutely idiotic.
/

45 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:52:46pm

Anne "it's ok to lie as long as it's for Jesus" Coulter pimping the false number again.

46 A Kiwi Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:06pm

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And when I tell people I'm a conservative, they think of this.

Thanks Ann


Exactly! When I tell someone I am a Christian they think I am like that unhinged bigoted lot from Westboro. And when the UN gets their way and gets countries to outlaw Christianity and the Bible because of the hate spewed by Phelps and his crowd, and the trucks start rolling up in the dead of night, I get rounded up with them, and Coulter.

Thanks buddies!
/

47 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:19pm

re: #36 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Be a centrist like me.
And check out the modern whig party.

48 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:22pm

She's simply showing the inanity that some pro-choice arguements evidence if one would grant that human fetuses deserve some protection.
In other words, it's irony.

“I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

This is pretty much exactly the Obama & Clinton position, when the human being in question is still in utero.

49 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:40pm

Ann Coulter is a slack-jawed fucko.

50 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:43pm

re: #39 Killgore Trout
It's gonna be tough. The msm trots out Pat Buchanan, Coulter, Luap Nor, etc.. as the face of the conservative movement. When it is really the folks who work hard, do their best to raise their kids, play by the rules and at every turn are fucked over by the govt.

51 A Kiwi Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:53:45pm

re: #39 Killgore Trout

My condolences. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot more self inflicted damage to the conservative brand over the next 4-8 years> Hang in there. It'll get better eventually.


I'm not holding my breath KT

52 opnion  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:54:23pm

re: #40 ckb

Her satire here is cutting. Of course there is a chance she means it - you can never tell - but she succeeds once again in making us squirm.

This comment is akin to when she was talking about Muslims saying, We should invade their lands, kill their leders & convert them to Christianity."
My guess at the time was that she was doing a parody on Jihadists.
Today, I hope that's what it was.

53 guftafs  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:54:26pm

... off the deep end. Bye, Ms Coulter!

54 EaterOfFood  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:54:40pm

That is just disgusting. Beyond disgusting. I can't even look at this woman (assuming that thing on her neck is just a goiter) anymore.

55 A Kiwi Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:54:45pm

re: #45 Thanos

Anne "it's ok to lie as long as it's for Jesus" Coulter pimping the false number again.


Christian Taqiya? Thats new!

56 quickjustice  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:55:27pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

She's mocking the moral relativism of pro-abortion activists. And I must say, she's succeeding. Here's the analogous sentence: "I am personally opposed to murder, but I don't want to impose my morality on others. If you don't believe in murder, don't commit murder."

57 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:56:10pm

re: #54 EaterOfFood

Coulter has one of those faces which transmits very well the shape of her skull underneath.

58 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:56:16pm

Ann Coulter: the name alone is a boner-killer.

59 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:56:17pm

Speaking of iconic "conservative" idols, I see that the discussion over on HA about the misspelling on the banner at one of Pat B.'s "confereneces" is all about... misspelling.

Nothing on how it was intended to be an ugly attack on Sotomayor.

Or that Pat's comrade in arms is Brimelow.

Someone (iceweasel ?) put the Thinkprogress article in the spin-offs yesterday. Many here may diss Thinkprogress... but it is worth checking out.

60 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:56:44pm

re: #57 Ojoe
The woman needs some cheeseburgers!

61 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:57:34pm

re: #48 nikis-knightOf course, I should say that that response is a terribly poor one because it seems, as Kilgore said, to approve of the killing. And if her numbers are wrong, that is certainly a valid criticism.

62 Steffan  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:57:39pm

re: #14 Athens Runaway

Yep. I agree. I have a signed copy of "Treason," and it is extremely well-researched and interested (did you know that McCarthy's allegations were verified in the 1990s by the CIA?), but she just annoys me to no end when she shoots her mouth off like this. And sadly, it's not a one-time thing.

I get the feeling that she's doing it deliberately, for the shock value -- and the publicity. Mainly for the publicity, I think.

The KGB's own files vindicated McCarthy -- but he was still a grandstanding asshat. So is Coulter.

63 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:58:09pm

re: #60 pingjockey

And ice cream.

Cushy, I like it.

64 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:06pm

I don't think of Ann as a blond.

65 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:15pm

I'm a Goldwater conservative thru and thru...I could care less what people here or across the street think....Ann Coulter means nothing to me in the big picture...I have my values and I live by them....so did my dad and so will my kids...real abuse is being a Cowboy fan for 40+ years...that's almost unbearable

66 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:30pm

re: #48 nikis-knight

She's simply showing the inanity that some pro-choice arguements evidence if one would grant that human fetuses deserve some protection.
In other words, it's irony.

This is pretty much exactly the Obama & Clinton position, when the human being in question is still in utero.

Oh I get it.....Ann is just using a rhetorical argument to turn the other side on its head. She really is sickened that a man was shot to death in his own church in front of his family. Glad you cleared that up for all of us!

67 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:32pm

Oh, the Thinkprogress article is here:


[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

68 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:40pm

re: #2 BigPapa

OK, the 60,000 babies thing is needs to die. It's impossible.


The 60,000 figure is Tiller's own estimate.

Liveleak Video

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

The 60k is widely accepted and I have yet to see it refuted. In fact, the figure originally showed up in an AP article, from what I can tell.

69 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:47pm

re: #63 Ojoe
Yep. That anorexic Hollywood size zero crap is unhealthy. The better half says the average US woman is a size 10-12.

70 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 3:59:47pm

re: #63 Ojoe

And ice cream.

Cushy, I like it.

and cheesecake
and brownies
and some good Italian sausage and pasta
and grilled hotdogs
and pot roast

Excuse me, it's time to go and make dinner. :)

71 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:00:52pm

Bill and Anne are both in the wrong on this, they know it's not ok to sympathize, excuse, or support terrorism, but they are really both doing that. They are both willing to go morally relativistic and intellectually dishonest here so they can stay in the news on the topic and sell more books.

72 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:11pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

and

"If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.”

are inversions of well-known pro-choice slogans. Just replace abortionist with abortion. She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

I think she is mocking pro-choicers too.
But she could make her points in a much better way, imo.
She has a tendency to sound mean and shrill (and perhaps she actually is mean and shrill), and that doesn't do anything to further any conversation.

73 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:15pm

My hope (and gut feel) is that future generations will not view Tiller kindly. I know we fall back on "well, it's legal, if you don't like it, change the law" but I find that falls a bit short.

Lots of things are/have been legal that aren't right. We must whittle away at them to change things, but we should never excuse something just because there currently are no laws against it.

Societies (generally) move forward. What Tiller did was medieval and I believe in time, his legacy will reflect such.

That said, we don't need Coulter providing her insights if this is what she has to day. Let it rest and let Tiller's own actions speak for themselves.

74 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:30pm

re: #47 Ojoe

Be a centrist like me.
And check out the modern whig party.

If you support the Whig party does that make you a Whigger?

75 opnion  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:32pm

re: #65 albusteve

I'm a Goldwater conservative thru and thru...I could care less what people here or across the street think....Ann Coulter means nothing to me in the big picture...I have my values and I live by them....so did my dad and so will my kids...real abuse is being a Cowboy fan for 40+ years...that's almost unbearable

Uh huh, move to Chicago & you hear a constant moan from Cub fans.
The worst for them is when the White Sox won it all in 05.
They seem to expect the worst.

76 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:38pm

re: #69 pingjockey

Yep. That anorexic Hollywood size zero crap is unhealthy. The better half says the average US woman is a size 10-12.

Erm... the chief health problem of the average US woman (or man) ain't exactly anorexia.

(I don't see Coulter as "anorexically" thin, by the way.)

77 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:01:39pm

re: #66 Big Steve

Oh I get it.....Ann is just using a rhetorical argument to turn the other side on its head. She really is sickened that a man was shot to death in his own church in front of his family. Glad you cleared that up for all of us!

I don't know what sickens her or doesn't, nor do I see where I commented upon it, but it is undeniable those are literally word for word slogans said by people in favor of allowing women their sacred right to choose to kill viable babies.

78 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:02:08pm

re: #68 n2stox

That video, it shows nothing. No audio either. Just a few seconds of a dark screen.

79 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:02:48pm

re: #56 quickjustice

She's mocking the moral relativism of pro-abortion activists. And I must say, she's succeeding. Here's the analogous sentence: "I am personally opposed to murder, but I don't want to impose my morality on others. If you don't believe in murder, don't commit murder."

It's a roundabout way to endeavor to draw a moral equivalency between a zygote or embryo and the adult woman in whose body it resides.

80 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:02:49pm

re: #72 reine.de.tout
Damn straight. She could've ripped the proabortionists a new asshole. Instead, she went for over the top hyperbole and totally blew the point she could have made.

81 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:02:53pm

re: #68 n2stox

The link doesn't work.

82 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:03:01pm

Oh, and the whole "I don't want to force my morality on others" thing is a total mockery of liberals.

That's how I took it.

A recent episode of The Goode Family had the same issue. Their refuge from Myanmar was sleeping in the garden shed and they didn't want to invite her into the house to sleep in their spare bedroom, for that would be imposing our Western values on the refuge.

It was funny as hell.

83 Truck Monkey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:03:24pm

I believe that The Crypt Keeper said this to be ironic. Not many people will listen to what she has to say and understand it as irony though IMHO. She strikes me as someone who always had to be the smartest person in the room.

84 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:03:54pm

re: #76 Occasional Reader
My poor vocab strikes again. You know what I mean. Scarily skinny.

85 clgood  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:04:05pm

I used to be a big Coulter fan. Not so much anymore. But I have to say that you, and Bill, are being unfair to her here. She clearly called it a murder at the beginning of the interview, and was simply turing pro-abortion rhetoric on its head to show how absurd it is. The "if you don't support x, don't do x" sophistry is worthy of the ridicule she gave it.

In this interview, at least, she seemed to be right on the money. The Democrats are the party of death exactly the way Islam is the religion of (not) peace. The fact that they suddenly got upset about someone getting killed does indeed show their hypocrisy. These are people who would rather kill babies in the womb than murderers on death row, and who worried after 9/11 that Muslims might be the victims of hate crimes.

Well, the hate crimes never came. And, as Ann pointed out, the number of crazy violent pro-lifers is too small to be considered significant. But the pro-death MSM is always going to harp on those few to make them seem common, exactly as they ignore Muslim terrorism to make it seem rare.

86 Sumo  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:04:18pm

I think she was trying to make a rhetorical point by using the arguments that pro-choicers use, not that she actually believes what she said. Here's the same quote with the word "abortions" substituted for "shooting abortionists".

“I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to abortions, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

And: “If you don’t believe in abortions, don’t have an abortions.”

Not saying I agree with her sentiments or the way she presented her argument. It was a tactless statement.

87 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:04:29pm

re: #68 n2stox

That's not Tiller speaking, That's Randall Terry who originated the 60 k figure. Do you have a reputable news agency link to that video or tape? You'll only find it on extreme anti abortion sites

88 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:04:29pm

re: #75 opnion

Uh huh, move to Chicago & you hear a constant moan from Cub fans.
The worst for them is when the White Sox won it all in 05.
They seem to expect the worst.

think of it like this....when the Cubs win the WS it will be the greatest achievement in the history of mankind...feel better?

89 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:04:36pm

re: #79 Salamantis

It's a roundabout way to endeavor to draw a moral equivalency between a zygote or embryo and the adult woman in whose body it resides.

It's not at all roundabout, it's rather direct, provided one can get ironic statements and has been paying attention.

90 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:05:49pm

I personally don't believe in winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, but I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else. If you don't like winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, don't wind Ann Coulter's guts on a spool.

91 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:06:06pm

re: #78 Slumbering Behemoth

I get the audio, but not the video.

Just sayin' the 60,000 figure, from what I can tell in Googling a couple of pages, is that it is Tiller's own words + an original AP story that appeared in the WA times.

Since then, the AP has published that number many times.

The guy was performing abortions for 35+ years, wasn't he?

As one of only 3 doing later term abortions, it's very easy he could have done that many.

92 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:06:52pm

re: #13 Occasional Reader

It sounds to me like, in her ham-handed way, she was trying to parody the pro-choice people in her "I don't believe it's murder [etc.]" lines. Still inexcusable.

Yea, she said Tiller was aborted in the 160 th trimester or whatever, sick analogy.

93 mrgreen  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:06:55pm

I saw that interview, and at first I was shocked, but it was quickly clear as she went on that she was only paraphrasing the ludicrous arguments of the pro-abortion crowd. Regardless of your position on abortion, anybody who claims that they are personally opposed, but don't feel it is right to try to impose that belief on others is either naive, a liar (or both), and just trying to play both sides. If you are personaly opposed, then you consider a foetus to be a human life, and you should no more willing to defer to somebody else's "choice" than to say that you don't believe in murder, but who are you to tell Charles Manson how to behave? You can't have it both ways, but many try.

Although clumsy, Coulter shows how disingenuous the pro-abortion crowd sounds when making claims like this.

94 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:05pm

re: #90 Cato the Elder

I personally don't believe in winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, but I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else. If you don't like winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, don't wind Ann Coulter's guts on a spool.

See, now you are grasping the logic of the "I'm opposed, but I don't want to impose my beliefs" crowd.

95 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:14pm

re: #87 Thanos

That's not Tiller speaking, That's Randall Terry who originated the 60 k figure. Do you have a reputable news agency link to that video or tape? You'll only find it on extreme anti abortion sites

I looked for specific ones, but all I really find is AP stories parroting the line.

Saying it's impossible doesn't make it so.

Why is that number impossible? I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't dismis it outright, either.

96 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:22pm

re: #80 pingjockey

Damn straight. She could've ripped the proabortionists a new asshole. Instead, she went for over the top hyperbole and totally blew the point she could have made.

She could only rip proabortionists a new asshole if she went to China and slammed their government. People in the US who support keeping abortion a legal alternative are pro-choicers.

97 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:27pm

Coulters rhetorical dodge is that she's "mocking the liberal viewpoint."

How many times has she used that one now?

98 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:27pm

re: #90 Cato the Elder

That comment was not well thought-out.

99 retief_99  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:55pm

I think she was making a sarcastic point by using the same language that many pro abortionists use when an anti abortionist makes moral judgments about abortion. I believe the murderer of Tiller should be punished to the full extent of the law, including the death penalty. As far as the number of children aborted by Dr. Tiller, does it really make that much difference? Is it 60000, 20000, 10000, by any measure it is a lot of dead babies. I don't like abortion, but I think, like any other right, it is not an absolute right. There needs to be strong penalties imposed for abusing the procedure of late term abortion, abortion for sex selection of the child, and abortions performed on minors that are not reported to the authorities as seems to be general policy in the abortion industry. I pray for Tiller and his family.

100 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:57pm

re: #90 Cato the Elder

I personally don't believe in winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, but I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else. If you don't like winding Ann Coulter's guts on a spool, don't wind Ann Coulter's guts on a spool.

agreed...
all this hyper attention to TV and radio pundits is digusting imo...

101 Idle Drifter  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:07:57pm

re: #35 Killgore Trout

True but it's also belies an attitude that some members of the "pro-life" movement aren't going to discourage anti-abortion violence. That's why so many people cringed when Sarah Palin balked at calling anti-abortion violence "terrorism". She may have had a more nuanced point but the fact that there are people like Coutler out there leaves it open to interpretation.

I view it as terrorism. Because it fits the definition.

Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By people giving it an excuse makes them enablers of terrorism. Terrorism should be a black and white issue with little gray area.

102 Nevergiveup  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:06pm

N.J. Teen Won't Face Child Porn Charges for Posting Nude Photos of Self on MySpace
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
PrintShareThis
TRENTON, N.J. — A 14-year-old New Jersey girl who posted nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com will have child pornography counts dropped.

The Passaic County Prosecutor's Office says the girl must undergo at least six months of counseling and probation and must stay out of trouble. If she does, all charges will be dropped.

The Clifton teen was initially arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. If convicted on those counts, she could have been required to register as a sex offender.

At last a sign a of sanity in NJ?

103 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:12pm

re: #91 n2stox

The guy was performing abortions for 35+ years, wasn't he?

As one of only 3 doing later term abortions, it's very easy he could have done that many.

It's easy to assume that all of those were later term abortions. It's also easy to assume that all those late term abortions were because a near term mother just decided to cancel her pregnancy.

Don't take the easy way.

104 iLikeCandy  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:25pm

re: #14 Athens Runaway

I have a signed copy of "Treason," and it is extremely well-researched and interested (did you know that McCarthy's allegations were verified in the 1990s by the CIA?),

Beware Ann Coulter's faux scholarship. Michael Moore also brags that "Sicko" was fact-checked by a team of elves on loan from the New Yorker, and each fact on its own pretty much does stand up. How they're put together is another matter.

Dorothy Rabinowitz calls her "the Maureen Dowd of the Conservatives."

David Horowitz got her number, too.

105 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:38pm

re: #77 nikis-knight

I don't know what sickens her or doesn't, nor do I see where I commented upon it, but it is undeniable those are literally word for word slogans said by people in favor of allowing women their sacred right to choose to kill viable babies.

She is mocking the argument that while one can prefer not to do something themselves, they can support the right for it to exist. However the world is full of exactly his same logic and we all accept it. For example, I think starving oneself to appear stick figure thin, is something I would never do but I no problem with others doing this. So turning the opponent's argument on its head when it is a common and ACCEPTED argument is a red herring. Ann is totally and 100% satisfied that another abortion doctor has died.

106 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:54pm

re: #97 Charles

Coulters rhetorical dodge is that she's "mocking the liberal viewpoint."

How many times has she used that one now?

I don't think it's simply a rhetorical dodge; her intent was, indeed, to mock. I do not read her as applauding the murder of Tiller, or calling for more such acts. I still think her comment was distasteful.

107 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:08:58pm

A lot of the interview is O'Reilly whining about being attacked.

108 clgood  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:09:00pm

re: #97 Charles

It's just what she does. Seems fair.

Coulter just throws it back at them. I'd expect it to continue.

109 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:09:02pm

re: #91 n2stox

I get the audio, but not the video.

Just sayin' the 60,000 figure, from what I can tell in Googling a couple of pages, is that it is Tiller's own words + an original AP story that appeared in the WA times.

Since then, the AP has published that number many times.

The guy was performing abortions for 35+ years, wasn't he?

As one of only 3 doing later term abortions, it's very easy he could have done that many.

It's not Tiller. Find me a reputable news agency link that carries that audio as Tiller, and I might believe you. It's Randall Terry agitprop

110 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:09:07pm

re: #96 Salamantis
I'm gonna disagree, in ignorance though. I don't know if abortion clinics give all of the alternatives besides abortion.

111 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:10:26pm

My view hasn't changed since yesterday on this - these are vile and reprehensible words. She knows she is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a spokesperson for the conservative movement. As such, her "disclaimer" of being "her morality" isn't worth a hill of beans. She is a lawyer and very deliberate in her words - she is wanting this to be viewed as "common think" amongst conservatives. She should be called to task on this post haste.

112 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:10:58pm

re: #97 Charles

Coulters rhetorical dodge is that she's "mocking the liberal viewpoint."

How many times has she used that one now?

The excuse that a leftist had written something as "satire" that the right just didn't get didn't fly here. Her excuse doesn't fly with me either.

113 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:11:21pm

re: #109 Thanos

It's not Tiller. Find me a reputable news agency link that carries that audio as Tiller, and I might believe you. It's Randall Terry agitprop

I've done a lot of searching and have not found any independent confirmation of that figure. That audio recording comes from an extremist anti-abortion website and shouldn't be trusted without verification.

114 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:11:26pm

re: #95 n2stox

I looked for specific ones, but all I really find is AP stories parroting the line.

Saying it's impossible doesn't make it so.

Why is that number impossible? I'm not saying it isn't, but I don't dismis it outright, either.

Because as someone says, this would mean by doing 60,000 late term abortions would require doing more than 8 a day, 7 days a week, for 20 years. And in fact, the state of Kansas records all abortions and the 60,000 figure would mean than Tiller did nearly every abortion in his state.

115 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:11:39pm

re: #105 Big Steve

She is mocking the argument that while one can prefer not to do something themselves, they can support the right for it to exist.

The reason that logic and statement in the context of the abortion debate deserves this vicious mockery is that is quite willfully ignores WHY pro-life people are opposed to abortion, while pretending in an Obama-esque way to neatly stradle both sides.

116 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:11:40pm

So if he did abortions for 35 years, at 5 days a week all year, that's still 6.6 abortions per day. Still silly.

117 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:11:55pm

re: #107 Charles

A lot of the interview is O'Reilly whining about being attacked.

"It's all about ME ME ME."

He's as bad as Obama.

118 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:12:08pm

re: #94 nikis-knight

See, now you are grasping the logic of the "I'm opposed, but I don't want to impose my beliefs" crowd.

Never had any trouble grasping that. You must have me confused with someone else.

The real point is that the argument actually parodies the pro-choice stance instead of analogizing it. It's not "I personally am opposed.." but "I personally wouldn't have one..." There is a difference, but people who knowingly substitute blunt-force pseudo-analogies for logic, like Coulter, can never admit that.

119 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:12:10pm

re: #85 clgood

I used to be a big Coulter fan. Not so much anymore. But I have to say that you, and Bill, are being unfair to her here. She clearly called it a murder at the beginning of the interview, and was simply turing pro-abortion rhetoric on its head to show how absurd it is. The "if you don't support x, don't do x" sophistry is worthy of the ridicule she gave it.

In this interview, at least, she seemed to be right on the money. The Democrats are the party of death exactly the way Islam is the religion of (not) peace. The fact that they suddenly got upset about someone getting killed does indeed show their hypocrisy. These are people who would rather kill babies in the womb than murderers on death row, and who worried after 9/11 that Muslims might be the victims of hate crimes.

Well, the hate crimes never came. And, as Ann pointed out, the number of crazy violent pro-lifers is too small to be considered significant. But the pro-death MSM is always going to harp on those few to make them seem common, exactly as they ignore Muslim terrorism to make it seem rare.

I can't except the Democrats are the party of death line, that is over the top.

120 Occasional Reader  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:13:03pm

re: #114 Big Steve

Because as someone says, this would mean by doing 60,000 late term abortions would require doing more than 8 a day, 7 days a week, for 20 years. And in fact, the state of Kansas records all abortions and the 60,000 figure would mean than Tiller did nearly every abortion in his state.

I'm reminded of Wilt Chamberlain's claim about how many women he had slept with. (Hmm... maybe there's a connection...)

121 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:13:05pm

re: #116 BigPapa

So if he did abortions for 35 years, at 5 days a week all year, that's still 6.6 abortions per day. Still silly.

Exactly. You have to believe he was doing more than 6 abortions a day, every single working day for 35 years straight. The number is absurd on its face.

122 clgood  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:13:44pm

re: #119 avanti

Not so over the top. A good case can be made for it.

It is where most of the support for abortion is, after all.

123 nikis-knight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:13:54pm

re: #118 Cato the Elder

Never had any trouble grasping that. You must have me confused with someone else.

The real point is that the argument actually parodies the pro-choice stance instead of analogizing it. It's not "I personally am opposed.." but "I personally wouldn't have one..." There is a difference, but people who knowingly substitute blunt-force pseudo-analogies for logic, like Coulter, can never admit that.


No, you are simply wrong.

Many, many, usually democrat, politicians say verbatim that they are opposed but will not impose their own morality.

124 flyovercountry  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:14:01pm

I used to read her weekly article. I won't anymore.

125 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:14:42pm

re: #86 Sumo

I am basing this on the quotes, I can't get the link to work. I will withdraw my comments in 111 if necessary - even then, I think to word choice and point could have been made better in so many different ways. This undermines those of us who are pro-life, and would never be in favor of murdering a person in cold blood such as this.

126 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:15:32pm

re: #107 Charles

A lot of the interview is O'Reilly whining about being attacked.

O'Reilly's favorite topic, it seems to me, from the last few times I watched him (which has been awhile).

127 Thinking Mans Republican  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:15:47pm

>... but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.

128 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:15:57pm

re: #120 Occasional Reader

I'm reminded of Wilt Chamberlain's claim about how many women he had slept with. (Hmm... maybe there's a connection...)

Bill Wyman kept a book and still has it...a record of every girl....he was voracious and his claims are backed up by everybody that knows him...jus sayin....you never know

129 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:16:25pm

re: #114 Big Steve

I don't get the importance of the number here. If he had performed a million abortions would this murder be justified? No! It isn't justified for any number, real or imagined.

130 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:16:56pm

re: #110 pingjockey

I'm gonna disagree, in ignorance though. I don't know if abortion clinics give all of the alternatives besides abortion.

People aren't dragged into abortion clinics by clinic personnel; in fact, they often have to run a gauntlet of rabid placard-swinging antiabortion pickets.

The alternatives are obvious; they are to carry the pregnancy to term, and either keep it, or put it up for adoption.

And, as a clinic escort, I have heard the question asked many times:

"Forget about what everybody else wants; is this what YOU want to do?"

131 patrickafir  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:17:05pm

I turn off O'Reilly when Ann Coulter is on. She's a joke, and I can't stand having people like her, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh putatively speaking for me. O'Reilly hasn't been cold-blooded about the murder of Tiller, though. He simply hasn't engaged in the hero worship – as opposed to sober factual analysis – that most other media commentators have defaulted to in their coverage of this crime. I respect him for that (even as I find him hypocritical vis-à-vis Hot Air blog comments) given how many liberal mouthpieces have blamed him personally for this act of cowardice by an anti-abortion loon.

132 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:17:30pm

re: #18 BigPapa

60,000 babies:

20 years, 7 days a week, 8.21 babies a day.

A week is at most 5 days, quite possibly 4. Call it 200 work days per year with some vacation.

That's 4000 days over 20 years. 15 a day. While it's usually a short procedure, 15 procedures a day sounds heavy to me. 15 patients? Easy as clinic visits.

60k sounds high for one guy. 30,000, OTOH, would be completely plausible.

133 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:17:58pm

re: #130 Salamantis
Thank you. I know exactly one woman who had an abortion.

134 IslandLibertarian  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:18:10pm

re: #119 avanti

I can't except the Democrats are the party of death line, that is over the top.

You're right.
They're all about saving polar bears, wolves, snail darters, puppies, sea kittens, baby harp seals, trees, rivers, oceans, (all of which I believe need to be protected), but, unborn babies, not so much.

Enslave the whales!

135 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:18:36pm

re: #132 spudly

I mean plausible for ALL abortion types, not late terms. for late terms even 30k is absurd.

136 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:18:39pm

"I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists abortions, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others. If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists abortion, don’t shoot an abortionist have an abortion."

Is she trying to be funny? Trying to "turn the tables"? Because if she's serious, moral consistency would dictate that she be pro-choice.

Is she insane?

137 soxfan4life  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:19:57pm

re: #132 spudly

A week is at most 5 days, quite possibly 4. Call it 200 work days per year with some vacation.

That's 4000 days over 20 years. 15 a day. While it's usually a short procedure, 15 procedures a day sounds heavy to me. 15 patients? Easy as clinic visits.

60k sounds high for one guy. 30,000, OTOH, would be completely plausible.


No matter the number, killing someone is wrong, and if you are a pro-life person killing someone can never promote your argument,ever.

138 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:20:35pm

Her and Glenn Beck need to get a room.

139 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:20:36pm

Anne Coulter!

Youtube Video
140 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:20:40pm

re: #134 IslandLibertarian

You're right.
They're all about saving polar bears, wolves, snail darters, puppies, sea kittens, baby harp seals, trees, rivers, oceans, (all of which I believe need to be protected), but, unborn babies, not so much.

Enslave the whales!


saving icebergs is popular nowdays

141 soxfan4life  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:21:13pm

re: #138 LatinGent

Her and Glenn Beck need to get a room.


How can I sleep now with that mental picture in my head?

142 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:21:15pm

re: #137 soxfan4life

No matter the number, killing someone is wrong, and if you are a pro-life person killing someone can never promote your argument,ever.

I wasn't disagreeing, just working the numbers.

143 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:22:08pm

re: #136 medaura18586

"I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists abortions, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others. If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists abortion, don’t shoot an abortionist have an abortion."

Is she trying to be funny? Trying to "turn the tables"? Because if she's serious, moral consistency would dictate that she be pro-choice.

Is she insane?

Insane is a very kind word for the condition Ann suffers from.

Think of Ayn Rand if she had never gotten laid.

144 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:22:22pm

re: #141 soxfan4life
Use an internally applied liquid analgesic. In liberal doses.

145 soxfan4life  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:22:37pm

re: #142 spudly

I wasn't disagreeing, just working the numbers.


I see that, but the original argument by whoever put that number out is absurd.

146 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:23:03pm

re: #115 nikis-knight

The reason that logic and statement in the context of the abortion debate deserves this vicious mockery is that is quite willfully ignores WHY pro-life people are opposed to abortion, while pretending in an Obama-esque way to neatly stradle both sides.

To prove an argument fallacious, one flips one premise and shows that it leads to a logical absurdity. If the opposite is absurd, then the original by definition is logical.

So the original argument is...

A. Person X believes action Y to be acceptable to occur in society.
B. Person X would never perform action Y.

Therefore Person X is being logical.

However if one reverses one premise.

A. Person X believes action Y to be acceptable to occur in our society.
B. Person X has performed action Y.

Therefore Person X is being illogical. This is absurd, thus proving the original to be accurate.

147 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:23:06pm

re: #143 Cato the Elder

P.S. A stupid Ayn Rand, tautological as that may seem.

148 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:23:12pm

Put on yer outrage pants and get ready to seeeeeethe!
What Obama didn't mention

A couple of surprising words were missing from President Barack Obama’s 55-minute news conference on Wednesday: “Iraq” — and “Afghanistan.”

Also MIA: “Korea,” “Pakistan,” “soldiers,” “surge” and “war” — as well as the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

The omissions were partly a result of the short attention span of the press, which did not ask about those topics after the president did not mention them in his opening statement.

But the silence on those subjects also provides a striking illustration of one of the singular differences between Obama and his predecessor.


Lol

149 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:23:29pm

re: #122 clgood

Not so over the top. A good case can be made for it.

It is where most of the support for abortion is, after all.

So it's a book title, that makes it acceptable ?
Is the GOP the party in favor of women dying in botched home abortions ? Not in my opinion. No question more liberals are less religious and pro choice, but that does not make them the party of death, just the party that supports a woman's choice. No Democrats are pro abortion in the sense that we think it the thing to do, just choice that we'd like women to keep.

150 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:23:53pm

The fact is that Anne Coulter's book sales have steadily fallen with each new release since Treason, and now she's selling retreaded material to the world nut daily niche market.

151 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:24:26pm

re: #122 clgood

Not so over the top. A good case can be made for it.

It is where most of the support for abortion is, after all.

No it is over the top and completely asinine. A gross over-simplification of the complexities of reality and an unfortunate side-effect of the "left" and "right" constantly arguing past each other on the abortion issue. No sane person is "pro-death" and to make such a claim is intellectually dishonest at best, an deeply insulting at worst.

152 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:24:36pm

re: #129 ArmyWife

I don't get the importance of the number here. If he had performed a million abortions would this murder be justified? No! It isn't justified for any number, real or imagined.

I agree completely but it is irritating that people are believing the 60,000 and thereby buying the argument basis a large seemingly horrible number.

153 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:24:44pm

Reporters ask about the hot button questions because they only get one question. If they got fifteen, we'd get a wider ranger of questions.

154 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:24:47pm
155 soxfan4life  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:08pm

re: #150 Thanos

The fact is that Anne Coulter's book sales have steadily fallen with each new release since Treason, and now she's selling retreaded material to the world nut daily niche market.

I read your post quick and thought you had wrote retarded rather than retreaded. Both apply.

156 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:10pm

OT: The Ed McMahon obit at the BBC.

157 debutaunt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:26pm

re: #147 Cato the Elder

P.S. A stupid Ayn Rand, tautological as that may seem.

Keep going. Still trying to make a little sense of it.

158 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:33pm

re: #150 Thanos

The fact is that Anne Coulter's book sales have steadily fallen with each new release since Treason, and now she's selling retreaded material to the world nut daily niche market.

Rather like Mr Spencer, in fact.

Same book, different cover.

159 Big Steve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:45pm

re: #150 Thanos

The fact is that Anne Coulter's book sales have steadily fallen with each new release since Treason, and now she's selling retreaded material to the world nut daily niche market.

Is that true? Do you have a source for her book sales?

160 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:25:53pm

re: #147 Cato the Elder

Ann Coulter is far from stupid. Misguided and wrong perhaps, but not dumb. I really enjoyed her work on McCarthy. I just don't like the fringe rhetoric that keeps popping up more and more.

161 wiffersnapper  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:26:01pm

re: #3 Town Of Rock Ridge

Hag. Used to like her. Not anymore.

same here

162 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:26:52pm

re: #148 Killgore Trout

HATE☢ON™!

163 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:26:58pm

re: #152 Big Steve

I here you. Those focused on the number are losing the forest for the trees, though.

164 Noam Sayin'  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:27:00pm

She's such a dink.

BTW, typo in the second paragraph, Charles - "iberals."

165 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:27:12pm

re: #150 Thanos

I also find it kinda ironic that after Malkin's book Liberals: Unhinged, she now just blogs about crazy conspiracy theories.

166 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:27:39pm

re: #143 Cato the Elder

Insane is a very kind word for the condition Ann suffers from.

Think of Ayn Rand if she had never gotten laid.

lol. I dare not!

167 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:27:52pm

re: #149 avanti

I'm not a "pro-lifer." I'm an atheist, in fact, and pro-choice up until a certain point. That point pragmatically for me is viability.

At that point, it's not a choice any more than any other murder is a choice. The "choice" belongs to the 2d party—the baby—in other words. Viability is a reasonable standard since a late term abortion could just as well be an early term delivery, they are effectively identical procedures minus the murder in the case of the former.

So if you can come up with a legitimate reason for a late term abortion, why not force them to pay for the NICU time and deliver the baby for adoption instead?

I argue this from an entirely humanist POV.

168 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:27:54pm

BBL, maybe. The Percocet is staring to really kick in and I don't want to say something I'd really regret.

169 Hhar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:28:15pm

re: #115 nikis-knight

I agree. Coulter is over the top, probably factually wrong, and definitely offensive here.

But then again, "Don't like abortions? Don't get one!" is so vacuous as to border on offensive. People say it all the time without a trace of apparent irony, though.

170 wintercat  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:28:25pm

Ann Coulter has really discredited herself IMO. Not worth my time. Pat Condell, on the other hand, is my hero.

171 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:28:37pm

re: #159 Big Steve

Is that true? Do you have a source for her book sales?

This is from an article at Think Progress that came up with a quick google, I've read it other places too:

Her 2006 polemic, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, sold 279,100 copies in hardcover, according to BookScan; Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror, published in 2003, sold 396,600 hardcover copies, and 2002’s Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, sold 333,100 copies, plus another 108,300 in paperback. (The two other books she published over that period, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, are both collections rather than original works, so I left them out for the sake of apples-to-apples comparison.)

172 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:28:47pm

re: #165 Killgore Trout
I registered at HA a while ago, the last tme I was there, it was appalling.

173 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:28:47pm

re: #164 Noam Sayin'

She's such a dink.

BTW, typo in the second paragraph, Charles - "iberals."

Those are leftists from Spain I think.

/

174 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:29:15pm

re: #165 Killgore Trout

I also find it kinda ironic that after Malkin's book Liberals: Unhinged, she now just blogs about crazy conspiracy theories.

A classic case of projection. Malkin has been unhinged since I first started tuning in to her garbage. She's just better at covering up her trails than Ann Coulter, who openly flaunts her bigotry. But both bitches have made a living out of it... Malkin also writes for the disgusting white nationalist publication VDARE, to whom it may concern.

175 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:29:22pm

re: #168 pingjockey

BBL, maybe. The Percocet is staring to really kick in and I don't want to say something I'd really regret.

Corollary to the Iron Fist Rule. Ciao!

176 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:29:33pm

re: #170 wintercat

I may be a lone ship in the night, but I still really like Rush and Mark Levin. Well, Mark Levin in his books and between screaming fits.

177 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:30:17pm

Here's another source:

[Link: www.portfolio.com...]

Coulter's latest book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, is something of a misfire by Coulterian standards. Of course, what constitutes a disappointment for Coulter would be a mega-hit for most authors; in its two months on sale, Guilty has sold 100,500 copies, according to Nielsen BookScan (a number that only reflects around 70 percent of actual sales).
178 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:30:18pm

re: #168 pingjockey

BBL, maybe. The Percocet is staring to really kick in and I don't want to say something I'd really regret.

haha!...Coulter or anyone like her is hardly worth the effort...losen up bro

179 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:30:32pm

re: #163 ArmyWife

I hear you, too. ;)

180 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:30:48pm

re: #175 Cato the Elder
Heh. Well, hell. Ball game isn't on yet.
Had a biopsy today. Get the plan for the radiation/chemo on Thursday.

181 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:32:00pm

re: #180 pingjockey

Heh. Well, hell. Ball game isn't on yet.
Had a biopsy today. Get the plan for the radiation/chemo on Thursday.

Best of luck with that. I had to wait longer than that just to get the results of a biopsy. May everything turn out fine for you, as it did for me.

182 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:32:28pm

Hah! FNC talking about the camera pens. The Iranian gov't has caught on so some tv station is LA is sending something new. Ain't technology great!

183 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:32:37pm

re: #174 medaura18586

ironic that you refer to these women as "bitches" all the while complaining they are bigots.

184 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:32:38pm

re: #167 spudly

I'm not a "pro-lifer." I'm an atheist, in fact, and pro-choice up until a certain point. That point pragmatically for me is viability.

At that point, it's not a choice any more than any other murder is a choice. The "choice" belongs to the 2d party—the baby—in other words. Viability is a reasonable standard since a late term abortion could just as well be an early term delivery, they are effectively identical procedures minus the murder in the case of the former.

So if you can come up with a legitimate reason for a late term abortion, why not force them to pay for the NICU time and deliver the baby for adoption instead?

I argue this from an entirely humanist POV.

How about the fetus that is doomed to die in hours or days, or those with only a brain stem ? If you think most late term procures are done just for convinced, you'd be wrong. I support strong laws to prevent any such procedures.

185 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:32:56pm

re: #167 spudly

I'm not a "pro-lifer." I'm an atheist, in fact, and pro-choice up until a certain point. That point pragmatically for me is viability.

At that point, it's not a choice any more than any other murder is a choice. The "choice" belongs to the 2d party—the baby—in other words. Viability is a reasonable standard since a late term abortion could just as well be an early term delivery, they are effectively identical procedures minus the murder in the case of the former.

So if you can come up with a legitimate reason for a late term abortion, why not force them to pay for the NICU time and deliver the baby for adoption instead?

I argue this from an entirely humanist POV.

Because sometimes the mother has succumbed to a medical condition such that the rigors of c section or childbirth would substantially endanger her life or pose a permanent threat to her health. And sometimes the fetus is either already dead or else so horrifically deformed that it would not long survive childbirth.

These medical conditions have been described in detail on past threads.

186 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:33:29pm

re: #181 Cato the Elder
Thank you. Doc says surgery is out. The damn growth is around the lymph nodes and down by my voice box.

187 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:33:40pm

re: #73 n2stox

My hope (and gut feel) is that future generations will not view Tiller kindly.

This statement strikes me interesting. Why do you want Tiller to be viewed negatively? Whether or not Tiller has a positive or negative legacy has little to do with the subject at hand.

188 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:33:47pm

re: #183 ArmyWife

ironic that you refer to these women as "bitches" all the while complaining they are bigots.

I don't see the irony. Which characterization do you disagree with?

189 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:34:34pm

re: #172 pingjockey

She's still using ice-cream photos as some sort of smear tactic.

Smeared by frozen cow fat!

190 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:34:41pm

re: #184 avanti
IIRC, didn't this doc have to have all kinds of refferals and reports before the abortion could be performed, by state law.

191 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:35:15pm

re: #188 medaura18586

I don't see the irony. Which characterization do you disagree with?

Maybe it's bigoted to be negative about bitches?

I think it's about as controversial as disliking assholes.

192 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:35:23pm

re: #189 freetoken
WTF? ice cream?

193 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:35:40pm

re: #190 pingjockey

IIRC, didn't this doc have to have all kinds of refferals and reports before the abortion could be performed, by state law.

two...his partner was the other....story I heard

194 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:35:54pm

re: #191 Cato the Elder

Aren't you clever.

195 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:36:17pm

re: #190 pingjockey

IIRC, didn't this doc have to have all kinds of refferals and reports before the abortion could be performed, by state law.

Yes.

196 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:36:30pm

re: #193 albusteve
I really thought there was more to it. Then again, maybe not.

197 DEZes  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:36:36pm

I quit caring what Ann had to say years ago.
Now if she would just shut up, and quit dragging me into the ooze with her.

198 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:36:37pm

re: #186 pingjockey

Thank you. Doc says surgery is out. The damn growth is around the lymph nodes and down by my voice box.

Mine was in that region too. My nick is now blue for the next 30 minutes if you want someone to talk to.

199 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:38:07pm

re: #198 Cato the Elder
Thanks. Maybe later on. Still trying to get my head around all of this, you know. My wife is about to flip. We lost her mom 11 years ago.

200 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:38:39pm

re: #169 Hhar

I agree. Coulter is over the top, probably factually wrong, and definitely offensive here.

But then again, "Don't like abortions? Don't get one!" is so vacuous as to border on offensive. People say it all the time without a trace of apparent irony, though.

"Don't like gay sex? Don't have it!" But don't demand that gays stop having it.

"Don't like evolution? Don't public school educate your kids!" But don't demand that your creationist dogma be taught as fact to everyone's kids in public high school science class.

"Don't like abortions? Don't have one!" But don't tell women what they can and cannot choose to have happen with and within their own bodies.

In other words, tend your own garden, and stop demanding the right to tend the gardens of others for them. They're sure as hell not demanding that right as far as you are concerned.

201 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:38:40pm

re: #191 Cato the Elder

Maybe it's bigoted to be negative about bitches?

I think it's about as controversial as disliking assholes.

C'mon, Cato... I was trying to lure her into putting it into her own words. Is it bigoted to be negative about motherf**kers too? Let's get gender specific here. Assholes can swing both ways. My latent female misogyny is boiling over...

Not.

202 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:38:55pm

re: #199 pingjockey

Anytime. Really.

Pax tecum.

203 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:38:55pm

re: #183 ArmyWife

ironic that you refer to these women as "bitches" all the while complaining they are bigots.

Anyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general. They are all some ones Mother, Sister, Wife, Daughter or grandmother etc. May we not do that?

204 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:39:31pm

re: #185 Salamantis

I'm fine with them for anencephaly, or other birth defects. Those of course can be diagnosed well in advance of 24 weeks, or whatever is considered "viable." Heck, they could up "viable" to a date where more that 50% survive to adulthood, or something—I'm not religious about it. I think "the life of the mother" is a red herring. My wife (equally atheist) is a surgeon, BTW, and I'm basing my opinion on her take on life threatening conditions that simultaneously allow an invasive surgical procedure.

Bottom line is that there is some point where any reasonable person would say it is murder. 1 minute before live birth? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? If you admit this, then we (society) can pick a date before which it is 100% legal, and after is not (or requires court permission).

205 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:39:39pm

re: #193 albusteve

More important than all of this, how are you?

206 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:39:45pm

re: #198 Cato the Elder
The thing that is gonna be tough is my boys are suddenly not my 3 members of the Mongol Horde! Acting all nice! Scared the hell out of me!

207 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:05pm

re: #203 LatinGent

I appreciate your support. It did not go unnoticed.

208 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:22pm

re: #202 Cato the Elder
Many, many thanks.

209 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:34pm

I'll be back in a bit, I've just gotten back from Alaska and I'm quickly running out of steam. We ended up on one of those infamous mechanical failure flights coming back and sat on the tarmac for hours only to get canceled. 36 hours later we got home still in the same clothes and without any sleep.
I'm going to see if I got any good photos while I was up there.

210 realwest  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:37pm

re: #186 pingjockey
Ah geez ping - I am so sorry to hear that. I know lots of folks are pulling for you out here - but if you have the time and inclination, I'd love to e-chat with you at your convenience of course.
And you're going on The List right now.
And my personal Prayers going up for you now my friend.

211 irish rose  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:47pm

re: #180 pingjockey

Heh. Well, hell. Ball game isn't on yet.
Had a biopsy today. Get the plan for the radiation/chemo on Thursday.

{pingjockey}

I'm so sorry that you have to go through this.

212 freetoken  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:40:58pm

re: #192 pingjockey

WTF? ice cream?

Technically I think it was frozen yoghurt. Someone I'm sure will have all the details....

Yes, Malkin is still putting up photos of the President eating an ice cream (yoghurt) cone...

213 Jack_ITA  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:18pm

Is she crazy, or what?

And, for a more important question, why everyone in any tv shows posing as a "conservative" spokesman/woman is apparently a wacko? (Coulter, Pat Buchannan, that creepy Kron kid, I'm sure you got what i mean...). If i was an American elector of the GOP, i would be quite pissed off with my party, and demand some serious ass-kicking out. I suppose the GOP is not hearing you out much, though.

214 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:28pm

re: #205 ArmyWife

More important than all of this, how are you?

a few aches and pains...just typical stuff, otherwise cool as a cucumba!

215 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:44pm

{ping} I'm so sorry to hear that.

216 AmeriDan  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:56pm

re: #18 BigPapa

60,000 babies:

20 years, 7 days a week, 8.21 babies a day.

20 years?

217 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:56pm

re: #203 LatinGent

Anyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general. They are all some ones Mother, Sister, Wife, Daughter or grandmother etc. May we not do that?

Piffle. You can say the same about assholes. Every single one of them is somebody's little sweetie-pie.

218 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:41:59pm

re: #209 Thanos

Welcome home. I hope you enjoyed your trip!

219 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:42:09pm

re: #210 realwest
I'm gonna cry now. I should've kept my yap shut. Thanks all.

220 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:42:19pm

re: #207 ArmyWife

I appreciate your support. It did not go unnoticed.

You certainly dont need defending ArmyWife, you stand on your own. BTW, I`m an Army Dad.

221 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:42:33pm

re: #74 BigPapa

A "Whiggamore" I think. It is a Scottish term originally.

222 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:42:35pm

re: #214 albusteve

good. Thought about you today. I'm here.

223 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:42:54pm

re: #203 LatinGent

Anyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general. They are all some ones Mother, Sister, Wife, Daughter or grandmother etc. May we not do that?

And to me, one of them is Self. But I find the word entirely appropriate in certain settings, and in fact I find those who consider it a taboo to be misogynists, treating women like frail china, not to be sullied by emotional language. Who will stand up for men and claim the use of "motherfu**er" to be inherently misandryous?

So you've just outed yourself to be misogynous in my books. Congratulations!

224 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:43:06pm

re: #220 LatinGent

YAY! Army guys are the best.

225 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:43:08pm

re: #218 ArmyWife

Welcome home. I hope you enjoyed your trip!

I sure did, got to see the whole family together again, and FBX is always a great visit at Solstice.

226 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:43:47pm

re: #222 ArmyWife

good. Thought about you today. I'm here.

thanks

227 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:44:04pm

re: #212 freetoken
They're still fixated on that? Jesus in the Haymow! We have Iran in a revolution, Norks wanting to do missle shots, any number of serious as a heart attack shit, and they're worrying about ice cream. Goddamn idiots.

228 Digital Display  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:44:30pm

re: #219 pingjockey

I'm gonna cry now. I should've kept my yap shut. Thanks all.

God Bless you ping.. Prayers for you...
I love you dude..

229 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:44:48pm

re: #223 medaura18586

Their is nothing frail about the women in my life, all very strong and beautiful. My wife would whack you for that.

230 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:45:03pm

re: #201 medaura18586

C'mon, Cato... I was trying to lure her into putting it into her own words. Is it bigoted to be negative about motherf**kers too? Let's get gender specific here. Assholes can swing both ways. My latent female misogyny is boiling over...

Not.

It's actually a form of thinking that the "fair sex" needs to have its doors opened for it and its language buffered around it.

I like a woman who can swear like a sailor when the occasion calls for it, but that's just me.

231 realwest  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:45:41pm

re: #219 pingjockey
I'm sorry you're gonna cry now, but also NOT sorry - if this is the first time, it's past time for you to cry for yourself my dear friend. And there's nothing wrong with it or with being afraid, even though I'm sure things will work out for you.
And as someone battling cancer myself, please, PLEASE e-mail me - maybe we can make each other stronger somehow.

232 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:45:55pm

re: #228 HoosierHoops

Hi there! Good day at the office?

233 VegasRick  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:46:13pm

re: #230 Cato the Elder

It's actually a form of thinking that the "fair sex" needs to have its doors opened for it and its language buffered around it.

I like a woman who can swear like a sailor when the occasion calls for it, but that's just me.

My wife just told me, to tell you, to go fuck yourself.
/

234 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:46:17pm

re: #230 Cato the Elder

It's actually a form of thinking that the "fair sex" needs to have its doors opened for it and its language buffered around it.

I like a woman who can swear like a sailor when the occasion calls for it, but that's just me.

That's misogynous. Fair sex my ass.

235 Ojoe  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:46:27pm

re: #219 pingjockey

Prayers on the way

236 irish rose  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:47:06pm

re: #203 LatinGent

Anyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general. They are all some ones Mother, Sister, Wife, Daughter or grandmother etc. May we not do that?

Normally I would agree with you.
However, I have known some women who absolutely deserve the moniker.

It's true, they may be some ones' mother, sister, wife, daughter or grandmother.... but they're also vicious, petty, vindicitive human beings who make it their mission in life to poison the lives of innocent people, destroy people that they don't like, and poison everything that they touch.

I've known many such women over the years, both online and offline, and they all deserved the title.

237 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:47:23pm

re: #228 HoosierHoops
Thanks very much
Now as to 'bitches'. I have used that term and the female in question was very deserving of the term. One word I have never used, even when provoked above and beyond the call is the c word.
My 15 year old listens to that rap crap, and some of that music is misonginist(sp) in the extreme.

238 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:47:32pm

What Rose said.

239 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:48:04pm
240 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:48:14pm

For years, Coulter made a big deal about her books being accurate because of all the pages of footnotes they had.

Then I found a couple of articles that showed a large percentage of her references said something totally different, even opposite, of the points she was making in the book. I never heard her response to that. On the other hand, I haven't heard her mention footnotes in a long time.

241 DEZes  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:48:27pm

re: #237 pingjockey

Fight the good fight Ping.
Lizards will pray.

242 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:48:40pm

re: #200 Salamantis

I wish I could say:

"Don't like free markets? Then go live on a commune but don't take capitalism away from me." Leftists really want to tend my garden when it comes to that.

243 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:48:42pm

re: #231 realwest
You betcha RW, not today, ok. Just want to sit here and solve the worlds problems with y'all and gonna watch baseball later.

244 Digital Display  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:49:20pm

re: #232 ArmyWife

Hi there! Good day at the office?

Hi Armywife....
We had visitors in from our company from around the world discussing Oracle issues....I sat in meetings all day drinking massive amounts of coffee praying for 5 pm...I have Weds. to look forward too..
I need better coffee!
Always nice to see you

245 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:49:29pm

re: #236 irish rose

I agree with you - that wasn't the point of what started this little rant. My point, however, is much less fun then what this has been spun in too! Oh well. Sometimes you're the lion, sometimes you're the gazelle.

246 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:49:54pm

re: #236 irish rose

Cant agree. People in general sometimes bring out the worst in us, its up to the person being offended on how they react. I dont think name calling is productive just because you dont like the person, male or female.

247 Salamantis  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:50:39pm

re: #204 spudly

I'm fine with them for anencephaly, or other birth defects. Those of course can be diagnosed well in advance of 24 weeks, or whatever is considered "viable." Heck, they could up "viable" to a date where more that 50% survive to adulthood, or something—I'm not religious about it. I think "the life of the mother" is a red herring. My wife (equally atheist) is a surgeon, BTW, and I'm basing my opinion on her take on life threatening conditions that simultaneously allow an invasive surgical procedure.

The onset of severe pregnancy-caused diabetes can risk blindness or comprehensive renal failure, and a severe heart condition, weak brain blood vessels or a severe case of COPD can be risky from both the pain and from painkilling drugs or anaesthesia. Some fetal deformations can put the life of the woman at risk if they are allowed to continue to grow. The fetus can also be cancerous, with the danger that the cancer will spread. And these are just a few.

Bottom line is that there is some point where any reasonable person would say it is murder. 1 minute before live birth? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? If you admit this, then we (society) can pick a date before which it is 100% legal, and after is not (or requires court permission).

Dr. Tiller's late term abortions received three medical opinions: Dr. Tiller's, a concurring Kansas physician's (requirted by Kansas state law), and the pediatric physician who referred the women to Dr. Tiller in the first place. To me, that sounds like a much more professional collective medical opinion than could be levied by a lawyer or a judge.

248 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:51:20pm

re: #240 ShanghaiEd

For years, Coulter made a big deal about her books being accurate because of all the pages of footnotes they had.

Then I found a couple of articles that showed a large percentage of her references said something totally different, even opposite, of the points she was making in the book. I never heard her response to that. On the other hand, I haven't heard her mention footnotes in a long time.

There are lies, damned lies, and footnotes.

249 irish rose  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:51:37pm

re: #245 ArmyWife

I agree with you - that wasn't the point of what started this little rant. My point, however, is much less fun then what this has been spun in too! Oh well. Sometimes you're the lion, sometimes you're the gazelle.

Sorry, just got here and haven't backread.
It's my daughters' birthday today, and I've been busy with fajitas and homemade ice cream.

250 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:51:45pm

re: #243 pingjockey

You aren't alone, and we will leave it there until you want to talk about it.

251 realwest  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:52:06pm

re: #213 Jack_ITA
I suppose anyone can call themselves conservative if that's what they want to do, but you should know that the esteemed William F. Buckley Jr. (RIP) threw Buchanan out of the conservative movement quite some time ago. And as Michael Steele e-mailed me "there's no way I can prevent folks from putting an "R" after their name - just run and fund primary opponents against them" (as with Arlen Specter one of two individual Republicans he and I had e-mailed each other about, before Specter switched from R to D).
And frankly, although I haven't read the thread, as far as I'm concerned Ann Coulter should have an (F) after her name - for Fascist. But of course that's just me, unafraid to impose my sense of moral right and wrong on others.

252 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:52:25pm

re: #249 irish rose

That's ok! It wasn't a slight at you at all.

253 irish rose  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:52:32pm

re: #246 LatinGent

Cant agree. People in general sometimes bring out the worst in us, its up to the person being offended on how they react. I dont think name calling is productive just because you dont like the person, male or female.

I'm Irish.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

254 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:53:21pm

re: #253 irish rose

Agreed!

255 legalpad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:54:00pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

and

"If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.”

are inversions of well-known pro-choice slogans. Just replace abortionist with abortion. She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

Yeah, I think it it satire along the lines of Swift's A Modest Proposal. I think our society, whether left or right, has developed mores which include much control over speech: i.e. The "N" word, standard cursing, and things which cannot really be discussed, even beyond was is allegedly politically incorrect.

Also, the left is always looking for ways to gain the moral high ground for obvious reasons, Trent Lott's not thinking out all the logical derivatives of his compliment to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday being one of the more obvious examples.

Many in the "center", even center right, have relatively thin skin when it comes to moral criticism from the left, and are angry whenever someone stupidly or deliberately gives them ammunition. Ann's of course is deliberate, because her beliefs about how much of her speech should be controlled by a hypocritical left differs from what most of us are willing to put up with just to avoid erroneous arguments.

I somehow wound up on a calling list of some pro-choice people and I told them the main thing I objected to was their extensive use of euphemisms to represent what the believed in. I gave them examples. This made them very uncomfortable.

256 realwest  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:54:07pm

re: #243 pingjockey
Hey, no problem ping - whenever you want to and feel up to it, just let me know,(send me an e-mail) ok?

257 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:54:07pm

re: #250 ArmyWife
Thank you.
One funny thing, I'm 5'8" and go 200lbs. My dress shirts i have tio have tailored, I have a size 20 neck! The doc says "Oh great, another nose guard"! He says, do you lift weights? Heh.

258 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:55:10pm

re: #256 realwest
Bet your Bippy! Somebody said that the other day and I flashed back to Laugh In.

259 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:55:24pm

re: #234 medaura18586

That's misogynous. Fair sex my ass.

Well, when it comes to intimate relations and the rhetorical stuff you gals sometimes see fit to bring up in an argument, I've often thought the adjective should be qualified with a negator.

=^0

260 norman1905  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:55:25pm

You need to watch the whole thing. She's provocative, but that's her gimmick. I'm not in the US, so I actually find her entertaining.

261 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:55:36pm

re: #246 LatinGent

Cant agree. People in general sometimes bring out the worst in us, its up to the person being offended on how they react. I dont think name calling is productive just because you dont like the person, male or female.

Name calling may not be productive. That doesn't mean it betrays a deep lack of respect for women in general, as you said before: "Anyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general."

Anyone who actually thinks that, is misogynous as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not even joking.

262 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:56:12pm

re: #257 pingjockey

Wow - did you say I do, 12 oz at a time?

263 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:56:21pm

re: #259 Cato the Elder

Well, when it comes to intimate relations and the rhetorical stuff you gals sometimes see fit to bring up in an argument, I've often thought the adjective should be qualified with a negator.

=^0

Errrr... what?

264 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:57:17pm

An abortion-related item from some newly released "Nixon tapes":

Nixon saw interracial pregnancy as grounds for abortion

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

265 Randall Gross  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:57:18pm

One other note, I wasn't able to post but was able to follow the main page articles here just fine while in AK through my Kindle Subscription.

266 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:57:29pm

re: #263 medaura18586

Errrr... what?

= "unfair"

267 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:57:33pm

re: #262 ArmyWife
Heh. Not as much as when I was single! Only weekends when bar b qing, now.

268 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:59:21pm

re: #265 Thanos

One other note, I wasn't able to post but was able to follow the main page articles here just fine while in AK through my Kindle Subscription.

I'm finding that Kindle + iPhone is all the compute-y things I need on vacation. Taking the iBook would just represent the temptation to work. Can't have that.

269 horse  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:59:52pm

re: #230 Cato the Elder

It's actually a form of thinking that the "fair sex" needs to have its doors opened for it and its language buffered around it.

I like a woman who can swear like a sailor when the occasion calls for it, but that's just me.

Sure, swearing if fine, as long as they aren't swearing at you. Unless you're into that sort of thing...

270 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:59:57pm

re: #261 medaura18586

I can see you`re not joking. What I dont see is how you can spin my statement to misogyny. And calling any woman a name, no matter what that name may be, is wrong. How is that misogyny?

271 realwest  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 4:59:59pm

Well y'all I'd love to stay and chat, but dinner is waiting and so I gotta go! I hope you all have a great evening and I hope I get the chance to see you all down the road!

272 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:00:32pm

re: #271 realwest

say hi to mom!

273 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:00:57pm

OT ... President Barack Obama plans to throw out the
ceremonial first pitch before the All-Star game at Busch Stadium in
St. Louis on July 14.

Jeezus .... stop being a celebrity and start being a leader

274 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:01:32pm

A swing voter or Reagan Democrat who sees the likes of Coulter or Beck will likely think that no way should the Right be allowed back in power.

The Democrats would be politically insane to muzzle such 'conservative pundits' via restoration of the 'Fairness' Doctrine.

IMHO they've figured that out.

275 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:01:36pm

re: #266 Cato the Elder

= "unfair"

aaaaaaaaah, touche!

276 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:03:18pm

re: #273 _RememberTonyC
It's what Presidents do. Granted, he's not showing a whole lot of leadership, but, IMO, just like the ice cream jaunt, don't worry about 1st pitches.

277 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:03:26pm

re: #270 LatinGent

I can see you`re not joking. What I dont see is how you can spin my statement to misogyny. And calling any woman a name, no matter what that name may be, is wrong. How is that misogyny?

Unless you say the same about name-calling and men, it assumes that women qua women automatically deserve respect you don't grant to men.

I've known women who deserve to be called names and then horsewhipped for the way they treat men. How about that?

278 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:03:33pm

re: #270 LatinGent

And calling any woman a name, no matter what that name may be, is wrong.

You absolutely sure about that?

279 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:03:56pm

re: #247 Salamantis

It was my understanding that the Kansas law allowed for the "health" which included mental health.

I'm not a religious pro-lifer, but I think there is a point at which it is abhorrent. Lethal birth defects are obviously a special case, but the incidence of that (particularly those that only present after viability) has got to be exceedingly rare.

Gestational diabetes is a risk, but they screen for that, and even the few severe cases are mostly treatable. So while it might be legitimate, again, we're talking a fraction of 1% of pregnancies at most, and then the procedure to deliver is not particularly more invasive than the abortion.

I'm fine with a medical panel as long as the docs are not "related" to the primary physician. That or things like the medical-legal panel we have here in NM that vets malpractice cases.

I'm not dogmatic about it, but I think that being dogmatic that it is just fine until a nanosecond before birth is equally wrong-headed. In fact, I think that rules to severely limit late term abortions (defined as viability, plus some slop factor for late screening tests like gestational diabetes out to 28 weeks or so), but keep all before that would be approved of by the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation (I'm an Independent, in case you care ;) )

280 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:04:13pm

re: #278 Jimmah

Gah! Who the hell is that?

281 Banner  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:04:14pm

It's sarcasm

Sheesh, no one gets sarcasm anymore, do they? She just took their argument and turned it back on them. That's what she does!

I'm just amazed that so many people haven't figured that out yet. She takes left wing arguments and claims, swaps things around and goes out and says it. If you're outraged at what she says, then maybe you should be outraged at the original argument.

282 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:04:44pm

re: #273 _RememberTonyC

OT ... President Barack Obama plans to throw out the
ceremonial first pitch before the All-Star game at Busch Stadium in
St. Louis on July 14.

Jeezus .... stop being a celebrity and start being a leader

I think that has been done before, not even worth a "pitchgate" label.

283 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:04:46pm

re: #277 Cato the Elder

I did say that it applies to people in general. #246.

284 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:05:17pm

re: #280 Cato the Elder

Gah! Who the hell is that?

Myra Hindley - child torturer/murderer.

285 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:05:18pm

re: #274 jvic

A swing voter or Reagan Democrat who sees the likes of Coulter or Beck will likely think that no way should the Right be allowed back in power.

The Democrats would be politically insane to muzzle such 'conservative pundits' via restoration of the 'Fairness' Doctrine.

IMHO they've figured that out.

Maybe right now they're right, but by the time of the next presidential campaign Coulter may seem rational and reasonable compared to the Obama administration.

286 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:05:36pm

Assholes have abortions. Self-absorbed vermin only do this to their children. Loving women would gladly give their lives to allow their babies to live. (rape/incest disclaimer understood, but that's 1/1,000,000%)

287 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:06:27pm

re: #282 avanti

That's what I said. The right, as in MM/Beck/O'Reilly, whoever needs to focus on real issues not this mickey mouse stuff. The President, any President does stuff like 1st pitches, etc..

288 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:06:49pm

re: #270 LatinGent

I can see you`re not joking. What I dont see is how you can spin my statement to misogyny. And calling any woman a name, no matter what that name may be, is wrong. How is that misogyny?

I don't take kindly to calling women names, whether they're profane or something more along the lines of "she's ugly". But some women actually do deserve some of the names they're called. For example- some women abuse their children. I would not hesitate to call them bad things.

289 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:06:59pm

re: #281 Banner

It's sarcasm

Sheesh, no one gets sarcasm anymore, do they? She just took their argument and turned it back on them. That's what she does!

I'm just amazed that so many people haven't figured that out yet. She takes left wing arguments and claims, swaps things around and goes out and says it. If you're outraged at what she says, then maybe you should be outraged at the original argument.

maybe that's true but the vast majority of people won't get it....she does not need to be so clever as to constantly be 'mistaken'...she is too smart by half

290 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:07:31pm

re: #273 _RememberTonyC

OT ... President Barack Obama plans to throw out the
ceremonial first pitch before the All-Star game at Busch Stadium in
St. Louis on July 14.

Jeezus .... stop being a celebrity and start being a leader

Because Bush would never have done something like that.

2001
2004
2005
2006
2006

291 bobbuck  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:07:46pm

I don't know why everyone gets so worked up over abortion because Obama's socialized health care will resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. The pro-choice crowd will enjoy unrestricted tax-payer funded abortions and the pro-life crowd will appreciate the 10 to 12 month queue for the procedure. Everybody wins!

292 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:07:55pm

re: #277 Cato the Elder

Unless you say the same about name-calling and men, it assumes that women qua women automatically deserve respect you don't grant to men.

I've known women who deserve to be called names and then horsewhipped for the way they treat men. How about that?

You know my mother-in-law?

293 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:08:01pm

re: #274 jvic

A swing voter or Reagan Democrat who sees the likes of Coulter or Beck will likely think that no way should the Right be allowed back in power.

The Democrats would be politically insane to muzzle such 'conservative pundits' via restoration of the 'Fairness' Doctrine.

IMHO they've figured that out.

To be honest, before I started hanging out here, I did think Coulter was far more mainstream right then she is. Even, just a few months back on here, she had more then a few defenders, but I think she's gone off the rails.

294 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:08:14pm

re: #292 Spare O'Lake
Mwahahaha!

295 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:08:23pm

re: #281 Banner

Actually- what it shows is the lack of a real argument when people resort to the tactics of simply flipping something around to make their point. If they had a real argument to speak of, they wouldn't have to resort to rhetorical twisting.

296 DistantThunder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:08:25pm

Anne is a shock jock. She makes the rest of us look like moderate conservatives. Is that good or bad?

I think a close equivalent to Tiller on the left are the Whale Wars terrorists. They claim to want to sink the Japanese fishing boats mid-ocean. Certainly life-threatening to the fishermen. They ram the boat, and terrorize the fisherman with acid bombs. Until Tiller killed the doctor, he also acted as a clinic "monkeywrencher" as the leftist call them.

Is Anne worse than code pink?
Here they are assaulting Don Rumsfeld and Mrs. Rumsfeld

[Link: www.thefoxnation.com...]


Or the New York Times that actually reveals state secrets that threaten the safety of our service men?

I think we need a depravity scale for journalists, commentators and monkeywrenchers, bombers, and murderers.

297 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:08:29pm

Situational ethics are situational ethics are situational ethics.

298 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:09:07pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

Assholes have abortions. Self-absorbed vermin only do this to their children. Loving women would gladly give their lives to allow their babies to live. (rape/incest disclaimer understood, but that's 1/1,000,000%)

And the Devil's Advocate asks, Why should a baby suffer because his/her father is guilty of rape?

299 MJ  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:09:44pm

re: #107 Charles

A lot of the interview is O'Reilly whining about being attacked.

I came to the conclusion a while back that every O'Reilly interview is really with himself.

300 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:10:21pm

re: #288 Sharmuta

True this, but child molesting torturers and abusers are`nt who we were talking about. Just cant get right with casual name calling. I`ve seen where it can go when it starts to escalate, as it usually does.

301 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:10:36pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid
Watch the broad brush. I know one and only one woman who had an abortion. It has torn her up, but she had no choice in this, none. Please be careful with that brush.
BTW, like the badge.

302 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:10:40pm

re: #290 Cato the Elder

Because Bush would never have done something like that.

2001
2004
2005
2006
2006

Both are lefties too. :)

303 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:10:49pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

(rape/incest disclaimer understood, but that's 1/1,000,000%)

Don't assume everyone who is pro life agrees with that statement. Catholic church policy is abortion is murder, no exceptions.

304 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:10:51pm

*is staying out of this arguement*

305 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:11:10pm

re: #297 Catttt

Situational ethics are situational ethics are situational ethics.

Sorry to disagree, but that would depend entirely on the circumstances.

306 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:12:39pm

re: #305 Spare O'Lake

Sorry to disagree, but that would depend entirely on the circumstances.

Heh.

307 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:12:41pm

I hear BO has an excellent sinker to go with his knuckleball

308 sngnsgt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:13:17pm

re: #291 bobbuck

LOL! Ba-dum-bum!

309 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:13:19pm

re: #270 LatinGent

I can see you`re not joking. What I dont see is how you can spin my statement to misogyny. And calling any woman a name, no matter what that name may be, is wrong. How is that misogyny?

OK, I'll try to explain:

If you think calling anyone a name is simply improper, and your outrage is motivated by gender-neutral standards of decency, then your distaste for calling any woman a "bitch," or any other pejorative, would be a mere corollary of your position. I'd pick no bone with that, however stuck-up I find such puritan attitude.

If, on the other hand, as you wrote upthread, you maintain that "[a]nyone that refers to any woman in such a way shows a deep disrespect for women in general," you offend me, as a woman. -- hence the accusation of misogyny.

Why? Because you are implicitly imputing the quality of being a bitch to women in general -- i.e. you are treating women collectively, not individually, and moreover, you are treating them as if they were an enfeebled fragile category of creatures, needing your protection from verbal abuse. The generalization of the verbal abuse exists only in your head, not in me, or anyone in particular, who calls a particular woman a "bitch," or any other unflattering name. So you are dehumanizing women, by treating them as a collective.

If you at least felt that "anyone that refers to any man [as an asshole or motherfuc**r] shows a deep disrespect for men in general," I would merely conclude that you're a radical collectivist who can't discern the trees from the forest when needed. But I doubt you feel as strongly about men being called gender specific names, which reinforces my suspicion that you think of women as frail, weak creatures deserving of special treatment.

I find that attitude as misogynous as the well-meaning Leftists who would impose favorable quotas for women in the workforce and university admissions. Affirmative action is offensive to me as a women, even though it's supposed to favor me, and so is your chivalry.

Did I make myself clear?

310 jcm  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:13:20pm

re: #305 Spare O'Lake

Sorry to disagree, but that would depend entirely on the circumstances.

Absolutely.

311 Digital Display  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:13:51pm

re: #298 ShanghaiEd

And the Devil's Advocate asks, Why should a baby suffer because his/her father is guilty of rape?

Why does a woman have to suffer or have her life destroyed because of being raped?
This is a moral decision left to the mother.her Doctor and God..Nobody else gets to be involved or gets to play a guessing game....

312 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:14:12pm

re: #307 albusteve
I hope he goes out and practices! Nothing is as bad as the Prez bouncing a pitch to the plate!

313 nyc redneck  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:14:53pm

i'm against late term abortion. it seems so inhumane.
if there are situations when the mother's life really is in danger that is another story.
i just find it odd that this particular dr. would specialize in procedures that were designed only to end the lives of viable late term unborn babies.
why wouldn't the family doctor of the pregnant woman make the call on a life and death predicament.
or the emergency room handle the trauma the mother was experiencing that required her to abort her baby.

i don't think he should have been murdered. and i do call it murder because i am a law and order kind of person. the man who killed him needs to be brought to justice.

i don't like the dr. tho. there seems to be something so strange abt. this man who carved out a special niche for himself to engage in this kind of procedure.

314 LeonidasOfSparta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:14:56pm

re: #281 Banner

It's sarcasm

Sheesh, no one gets sarcasm anymore, do they? She just took their argument and turned it back on them. That's what she does!

I'm just amazed that so many people haven't figured that out yet. She takes left wing arguments and claims, swaps things around and goes out and says it. If you're outraged at what she says, then maybe you should be outraged at the original argument.

Agree. Thanks for the reminder.

315 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:15:11pm

re: #312 pingjockey

I hope he goes out and practices! Nothing is as bad as the Prez bouncing a pitch to the plate!

watch him overcompensate and toss it in the stands!

316 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:15:45pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

"Assholes have abortions."

Somehow your assertion seems like a bit of a low blow.

317 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:16:10pm

Well, that was my LGF fix for the day. I'm 82% (Kindle tells you these things) of the way through Cryptonomicon, and the suspense is killing me.

[One advantage - or not, depending on your state of mind - of the Kindle that I haven't seen discussed much is it makes it significantly less easy to read ahead and spoil the story for yourself.]

318 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:16:19pm

re: #315 albusteve
Heh. Mr. Susan Sarandon smacking the bull in the head in 'Bull Durham'.

319 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:16:57pm

re: #317 Cato the Elder
Have a good evening. And Thanks.

320 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:16:58pm

re: #315 albusteve

and then blame Bush.

321 Killgore Trout  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:16:59pm

re: #274 jvic

A swing voter or Reagan Democrat who sees the likes of Coulter or Beck will likely think that no way should the Right be allowed back in power.

The Democrats would be politically insane to muzzle such 'conservative pundits' via restoration of the 'Fairness' Doctrine.

IMHO they've figured that out.

Good point.

322 DEZes  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:18:05pm

I'm out, take care Lizards.

323 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:18:29pm

re: #322 DEZes
Good evening.

324 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:19:08pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

Assholes have abortions. Self-absorbed vermin only do this to their children. Loving women would gladly give their lives to allow their babies to live. (rape/incest disclaimer understood, but that's 1/1,000,000%)

Not only are you confused about human nature, you're apparently in the dark about female anatomy, as well.

325 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:19:13pm

re: #259 Cato the Elder

Well, when it comes to intimate relations and the rhetorical stuff you gals sometimes see fit to bring up in an argument, I've often thought the adjective should be qualified with a negator.

=^0

You gals? ? ? Pigeonhole much?

What are you, bitter or something?

326 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:19:19pm

re: #318 pingjockey

Heh. Mr. Susan Sarandon smacking the bull in the head in 'Bull Durham'.


heh...I liked the cover coming off the ball on the ding dong thee Natural smacked

327 spudly  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:20:01pm

re: #247 Salamantis

BTW, if you can't take the painkilling drugs or anaesthesia, you're not up for the abortion, either (one of my wife's points).

The 900lb gorilla of course remains the baby, regardless. At a certain point (albeit somewhat arbitrary) the baby matters. So the life of the mother might be at risk, but if one of the treatment modalities is killing the baby, the baby is certainly at risk. If you want to argue which life matters more, that strikes me as something you ask a judge, right? It's not objective, but subjective. Any medical argument might reasonably have to include both people, right? Say my brother needed a transplant from me or he might die. Unfortunately, the transplant is my heart, and if I give him mine, I WILL die. It is one thing for me to volunteer, it is another entirely for him to commandeer my heart.

Any answer to this question that is simplistic is almost certainly wrong, IMO. In either partisan direction.

I'm willing to be bitch-slapped into a different opinion by some lizard-physician of an appropriate (ie: surgical) specialty, too. As I said, I don't hold dogmatic positions, just those I consider reasonable with data at hand. :)

328 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:20:11pm

Which network favors Obambi the most?
ABC
CBS
NBC
CNN

O'Reilly poll
IMO, it's PMSNBC

329 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:20:57pm

re: #320 ArmyWife

and then blame Bush.


certainly
(ODS)

330 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:21:03pm

re: #326 albusteve
Heh. Yeah, and a 55+ year old dude playing MLB!

331 Aye Pod  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:21:14pm

Night folks.

332 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:21:23pm

re: #277 Cato the Elder

Unless you say the same about name-calling and men, it assumes that women qua women automatically deserve respect you don't grant to men.

I've known women who deserve to be called names and then horsewhipped for the way they treat men. How about that?

On the other hand, I called a guy a beoch today. Am I sexist? :D

333 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:22:20pm

re: #285 Spare O'Lake

Maybe right now they're right, but by the time of the next presidential campaign Coulter may seem rational and reasonable compared to the Obama administration.

IMO the pharisee 'leaders' who ran the GOP into the ground are clinging to their positions and expecting that Democrat mistakes will bail them out.

I don't expect that to work out any better than their permanent-majority strategery did.

334 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:22:34pm

re: #332 Catttt
Nah, gender confused maybe. :)

335 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:22:48pm

re: #309 medaura18586

Did I make myself clear?

Absolutely clear. Well said.

336 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:23:17pm

re: #276 pingjockey

It's what Presidents do. Granted, he's not showing a whole lot of leadership, but, IMO, just like the ice cream jaunt, don't worry about 1st pitches.

once in awhile they throw out the first pitch .... usually on opening day in DC or baltimore. it's not just this one incident. it's the NCAA bracket, date night, burger runs, etc. he seems more interested in being a celebrity than anything else.

337 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:24:41pm

re: #290 Cato the Elder

Because Bush would never have done something like that.

2001
2004
2005
2006
2006


bush didn't have to act like a celebrity all the time ...

338 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:25:15pm

re: #336 _RememberTonyC

once in awhile they throw out the first pitch .... usually on opening day in DC or baltimore. it's not just this one incident. it's the NCAA bracket, date night, burger runs, etc. he seems more interested in being a celebrity than anything else.

think so?....you are a deranged crackpot who sufferes ODS and are killing the party!

339 DistantThunder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:25:32pm

Medaura killed the thread. Bitch is hateful speech, even if it isn't officially "hate speech."

340 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:25:33pm
"I don't do it in front of my kids. I don't do it in front of my family. I'm 95% cured, but sometimes I mess up."
- POTUS

IIRC there was a time when __________ was not discussed by the President at news conferences.

341 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:25:44pm

re: #325 Catttt

You gals? ? ? Pigeonhole much?

What are you, bitter or something?

The operative word is "sometimes".

Skip syntactical elements much?

;^)

342 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:25:50pm

I should mention, I'm kind of a gender bender (I used to test 80% masculine on those personality tests, later changed to "aggressiveness"), and I've more than once been assumed to be either a guy or a gay guy, so when people say "you gals," it makes me guffaw.

343 wrenchwench  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:15pm

Hi {ping}

344 Kronocide  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:18pm

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

No True Scotswoman would have an abortion!

345 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:25pm

re: #309 medaura18586

Very clear. You seem to think that women as a collective should be exposed to slander in a casual way because you`re not fragile beings, and my point is that no one should. It is not a puritan point of view to expect a level of common decency from my brothers and sisters, and I`m certainly not proposing a purified society that does away with all criticism for one another. What i am saying is that we can be critical of one another without stooping to name calling. I did not mean to offend you personally.

346 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:34pm

re: #336 _RememberTonyC

You maybe right, I hope to hell you're not! I also think he's getting a lot of nitpicking press from the faaar right. I don't like the man, don't trust him, and have no faith he'll stand up for the oath he took.
However, he's never out of communication, ever. Remember how the msm spun GWs 'vacations' to Texas.

347 Gus  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:36pm

Fact checking Bill Oreilly's claim that in Victoria, Australia one can get an abortion "right up until birth." He characterizes the law as being a simple matter. The requirement is that one would have to get the independent opinion of two doctor after 24 weeks.

From New law will not end abortion controversy

The proposed law also throws a spotlight on the moral ambiguity surrounding latetermabortions by restricting a woman's right to choose to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. After this time, an abortion would only be lawful if two doctors independently determined the abortion was necessary because of the risk to the woman if the pregnancy continued.

According to the same article we find:

At present, fewer than 1% of the 20,000 terminations performed in Victoria each year are for pregnancies of more than 20 weeks gestation; most abortions occur between seven and eight weeks.

Also, from Abortion reform clears last hurdle:

The new law is the most liberal in any state in Australia, allowing women to have an abortion at any time during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, and later if they obtain the agreement of two doctors.

Prior to this law "Victorian abortion law was based on the Victorian Crimes Act as interpreted by the Menhennitt ruling of 1969, in the case of R v Davidson. Under the ruling, abortions were legal if necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or health – beyond the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth – that would result if the pregnancy continued, and is not disproportionate to the danger being averted," according to Wiki.

348 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:37pm

re: #339 DistantThunder

Medaura killed the thread. Bitch is hateful speech, even if it isn't officially "hate speech."


my thread live on...gotta light?

349 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:26:40pm

re: #339 DistantThunder

Medaura killed the thread. Bitch is hateful speech, even if it isn't officially "hate speech."

So what would you call a woman who has earned that insult?

350 DistantThunder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:27:00pm

re: #336 _RememberTonyC

once in awhile they throw out the first pitch .... usually on opening day in DC or baltimore. it's not just this one incident. it's the NCAA bracket, date night, burger runs, etc. he seems more interested in being a celebrity than anything else.

His self-esteem is reflective, due to the adulation he receives from outside of himself, therefore, he needs a constant resupply in great quantities.

351 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:27:16pm

re: #333 jvic

IMO the pharisee 'leaders' who ran the GOP into the ground are clinging to their positions and expecting that Democrat mistakes will bail them out.

I don't expect that to work out any better than their permanent-majority strategery did.

Some biblical Jews ran the GOP into the ground?

352 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:27:18pm

re: #343 wrenchwench
Howdy!

353 brookly red  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:28:10pm

re: #349 Sharmuta

So what would you call a woman who has earned that insult?

/ I usually call her "boss" :)

354 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:28:24pm

re: #341 Cato the Elder

The operative word is "sometimes".

Skip syntactical elements much?

;^)

"You gals sometimes" implies that ALL "gals" do it at least some of the time - naughty, naughty!

To be PC, you need more disclaimers!

355 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:28:28pm

re: #345 LatinGent

I'm sorry you got pulled in to this.

356 apachegunner  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:28:56pm

Hello lizards, from old alexandria just outside the nations capitol. I think expectant mothers should be able to sell their babies to the highest bidding family with a known good history with children, theirs or others. Many couples would pay 10s of thousands for a newly birthed child and the mother wouldn't think so quickly of abortion. what do ya think?

357 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:29:17pm

re: #351 Spare O'Lake
Hahaha! Would that make the knotheads on Capitol Hill, the money changers?

358 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:29:26pm

re: #356 apachegunner

Hello lizards, from old alexandria just outside the nations capitol. I think expectant mothers should be able to sell their babies to the highest bidding family with a known good history with children, theirs or others. Many couples would pay 10s of thousands for a newly birthed child and the mother wouldn't think so quickly of abortion. what do ya think?

I think slavery is illegal.

359 itellu3times  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:29:44pm

re: #7 Big Steve

Boy she would be pissing her panties if someone was gunning for her and other pompous commentators egged them on.

what he said

360 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:30:00pm

re: #356 apachegunner
Oh my. You are a stinker. :)

361 DistantThunder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:30:33pm

re: #349 Sharmuta

So what would you call a woman who has earned that insult?

Unless a person is evil, I usually see them as personality-disordered. They are still toxic, but understanding the disorder gives me more information and more ways to undermine them.

362 itellu3times  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:30:44pm

re: #356 apachegunner

Hello lizards, from old alexandria just outside the nations capitol. I think expectant mothers should be able to sell their babies to the highest bidding family with a known good history with children, theirs or others. Many couples would pay 10s of thousands for a newly birthed child and the mother wouldn't think so quickly of abortion. what do ya think?

madonna, is that you?

363 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:30:59pm

re: #349 Sharmuta

So what would you call a woman who has earned that insult?

Probably Medaura.

(((Medaura)))

364 Daffy Duck  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:31:45pm

re: #356 apachegunner

Nah, sounds too much like capitalism - can't have that

/

365 apachegunner  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:31:52pm

re: #358 Catttt

I think slavery is illegal.

366 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:08pm

I like this place. It's complex. So many places are not complex to the point that you want to scream.

367 apachegunner  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:10pm

re: #365 apachegunner


as opposed to abortion?

368 albusteve  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:13pm

"I don't do it in front of my kids. I don't do it in front of my family. I'm 95% cured, but sometimes I mess up."
- POTUS

what a pinhead...he knows nothing of addiction, then tries to beg sympathy by calling himself nearly cured....smoking is not a disease, there is no cure....you either do or you don't...this guy sucks...it's his own fault he's a tobacco junkie

369 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:33pm

re: #363 Cato the Elder

You bad. :D

370 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:38pm

re: #356 apachegunner
I know my SiL sister and her husband adopted from Rumania because the rigamarole over here was too damn complicated. IIRC, they'd been going through hoops for 3 years and were no closer to adoption than when they'd started. So they went o'seas.

371 Sharmuta  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:46pm

re: #363 Cato the Elder

I was thinking a different name that ended in "a".

372 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:32:46pm

re: #356 apachegunner

Hello lizards, from old alexandria just outside the nations capitol. I think expectant mothers should be able to sell their babies to the highest bidding family with a known good history with children, theirs or others. Many couples would pay 10s of thousands for a newly birthed child and the mother wouldn't think so quickly of abortion. what do ya think?

Jonathan Swift got there first. And he allowed for a wider use of the product.

373 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:33:13pm

re: #367 apachegunner

as opposed to abortion?

Well, yeah. Duh. In a nutshell.

374 apachegunner  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:33:51pm

re: #370 pingjockey
yes, that seems to be the trick now a days. can't get it done here so check the world.

375 pingjockey  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:33:53pm

Going up to see the LOUNGE!

376 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:34:18pm

re: #345 LatinGent

Very clear. You seem to think that women as a collective should be exposed to slander in a casual way because you`re not fragile beings, and my point is that no one should.

I either was not clear or you are obtuse.

"All women are bitches" -- is an offensive statement. "Most women are bitches" is an offensive statement. "Some women are bitches" is not an offensive statement. Neither is "Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are bitches," or "insert-name is a bitch." Confounding the second two statements, which are not at all inherently offensive to women, with the first two, by imputing to the utterers of the last two statements the motives and prejudices of those who would make the first two statements, is offensive.

Capisce?

377 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:34:38pm

re: #354 Catttt

"You gals sometimes" implies that ALL "gals" do it at least some of the time - naughty, naughty!

To be PC, you need more disclaimers!

You're right.

"Some of you gals sometimes..." etc. p.p.

Henceforth let all PC disclaimers be assumed unless specifically disclaimed!

378 ArmyWife  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:35:03pm

re: #349 Sharmuta

We could criticize whatever it is they did to earn the moniker rather than call a name, I suppose. Let me be honest, I have in the past and probably will in the future call people who've "earned" it a bitch. I was pointing out the irony of a statement made, rather than attacking the usage of the word. That has been lost what with the grandstanding of a certain few who repeatedly find pleasure in being ugly to others for ugly's sake. LatinGent has his personal convictions on this, and good on him for being so disciplined in such matters. As noted above, I'm not, heck I'm not even close! Does that make sense?

379 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:37:26pm

re: #376 medaura18586

I either was not clear or you are obtuse.

"All women are bitches" -- is an offensive statement. "Most women are bitches" is an offensive statement. "Some women are bitches" is not an offensive statement. Neither is "Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter are bitches," or "insert-name is a bitch." Confounding the second two statements, which are not at all inherently offensive to women, with the first two, by imputing to the utterers of the last two statements the motives and prejudices of those who would make the first two statements, is offensive.

Capisce?

I get it. :D I'd like to add, I can call a guy a beoch if he is one without - by just using the word - impugning the entire female gender. Personally, I prefer to confuse and humiliate an opponent with charm, wit, and sneakiness, but sometimes you just need to call 'em a name.

380 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:38:00pm

re: #325 Catttt

As for the bitter part, please do not confuse me with Maxim Gorky.

And now,

I must away,
Ere break of day
To claim my long-forgotten gold.

381 Cato the Elder  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:38:47pm

re: #379 Catttt

I get it. :D I'd like to add, I can call a guy a beoch if he is one without - by just using the word - impugning the entire female gender. Personally, I prefer to confuse and humiliate an opponent with charm, wit, and sneakiness, but sometimes you just need to call 'em a name.

Dude, you are so right!

382 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:39:47pm

re: #350 DistantThunder

His self-esteem is reflective, due to the adulation he receives from outside of himself, therefore, he needs a constant resupply in great quantities.


thus the need to be a "rock star"

383 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:41:44pm

re: #336 _RememberTonyC

once in awhile they throw out the first pitch .... usually on opening day in DC or baltimore. it's not just this one incident. it's the NCAA bracket, date night, burger runs, etc. he seems more interested in being a celebrity than anything else.

He is a celebrity, like it or not. Among the folks that like him, we enjoy seeing him out and about. Sadly, if you hate the guy, it's like a root canal.

384 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:41:57pm

re: #351 Spare O'Lake

re: #333 jvic

IMO the pharisee 'leaders' who ran the GOP into the ground are clinging to their positions and expecting that Democrat mistakes will bail them out.

I don't expect that to work out any better than their permanent-majority strategery did.

Some biblical Jews ran the GOP into the ground?

Main Entry: phar·i·see
Pronunciation: ˈfa-rə-(ˌ)sē
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pharise, from Old English farise, from Late Latin pharisaeus, from Greek pharisaios, from Aramaic pĕrīshayyā, plural of pĕrīshā, literally, separated
Date: before 12th century

1 capitalized : a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law
2: a pharisaical person

Main Entry: phar·i·sa·ical
Pronunciation: -ˈsā-ə-kəl
Function: adjective
Date: 1531

: marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness

385 medaura18586  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:42:48pm

re: #379 Catttt

I get it. :D I'd like to add, I can call a guy a beoch if he is one without - by just using the word - impugning the entire female gender. Personally, I prefer to confuse and humiliate an opponent with charm, wit, and sneakiness, but sometimes you just need to call 'em a name.

I'm not a fan of name-calling either, but I feel perfectly justified in selectively employing it. Frankly, as a woman and a "minority," I can get away with murder -- let alone with with calling women who deserve it, "bitches."

386 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:43:27pm

...

387 Samurai  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:43:32pm

re: #48 nikis-knight

Exactly... anyone should be able to instantly see that she's parodied the left's talking points on abortion and applied them to an abortionist instead. She's not serious here, she's trying to show how bankrupt the "I don't agree with baby-killing personally, but if others choose to do it, who am I to say they're wrong?" argument is.

388 georgietheghost  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:44:04pm

Ann Coulter is a satirist, a brilliant satirist in the manner of Mark Twain. Or in a parallel style as that which she is mocking. “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”
One of the most powerful tools of a satirist is exaggeration, which Ann does magnificently, in the manner of Mark Twain [Link: www.twainquotes.com...]

389 Catttt  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:44:10pm

re: #334 pingjockey

Nah, gender confused maybe. :)

I prefer to think of it as gender enhanced.:D

390 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:45:07pm

re: #346 pingjockey

You maybe right, I hope to hell you're not! I also think he's getting a lot of nitpicking press from the faaar right. I don't like the man, don't trust him, and have no faith he'll stand up for the oath he took.
However, he's never out of communication, ever. Remember how the msm spun GWs 'vacations' to Texas.

I'm sure he's always in the loop, although when he took a smaller plane (not Air Force I) to NYC for date night, one has to wonder if he had as much command and control capability in the Cessna or Gulfstream as he would have on Air Force I. My issue is the constant need to be in the public eye as a celebrity. I think he's famous enough that he doesn't need to continue what seems to be an endless campaign.

391 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:46:12pm

re: #311 HoosierHoops


This is a moral decision left to the mother.her Doctor and God..Nobody else gets to be involved or gets to play a guessing game....

My opinion precisely, HH.

It's just that whenever I hear somebody who's supposedly "pro-life" make a unquestioned radical exception for rape/incest, I always want to hear how they justify it. Because it says a lot about their mindset and their assumptions. So far, Abu has not enlightened me in that regard. I'm still eager to hear.

And yes, this is a sore point for me.

392 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:48:10pm

re: #383 avanti

He is a celebrity, like it or not. Among the folks that like him, we enjoy seeing him out and about. Sadly, if you hate the guy, it's like a root canal.


I never said I hate the guy. I have been more fair to him than many others. I think his constant need to act like a celebrity reflects a certain shallowness. He is already the biggest celebrity in the world. I want him to act like a President, not a publiciity seeker.

393 LatinGent  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:52:14pm

We may all agree to disagree on this, but name calling, no matter how you may justify it, can escalate. I live in a world that has changed drastically over just the last 5 years, where people commit acts of violence over what seems like the smallest thing. I fear no one, but common sense tells me to just be polite to all people and reserve my criticisms for proper venues. Casual name calling has backfired more than once, with results ranging from a butt kicking to shooting. Is it worth it? There are much more clever ways to be critical. Hope to be back after commute and dinner.

394 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:52:18pm

re: #388 georgietheghost

Ann Coulter is a satirist, a brilliant satirist in the manner of Mark Twain. Or in a parallel style as that which she is mocking. “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”
One of the most powerful tools of a satirist is exaggeration, which Ann does magnificently, in the manner of Mark Twain [Link: www.twainquotes.com...]

Coulter as today's Mark Twain? I am...gob-smacked. That's all.

395 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 5:58:19pm

The book SLANDER changed my life. After 9/11, I changed. But that book, I knew every story. I have never been as angry as I was after I shut that book. It seems all that conservatives had going for them have taken on an "ego life" of their own. It seems some have forgotten the message for ones own gains. Don't get me wrong, I own every Ann book, all but one is autographed. And, yes, Ann is a bomb thrower. Ann is very smart and she is very funny, if you get her wit. But G*d damn it, it is time to stop driving a wedge, time to stop being better then Oberdouche, Beckel, Bagallia, and the guy married to Mary Matlin. I mean, WTF? Malkin? Deep end. Glenn Beck, recently off the deep end. (I have listened to Glenn for 9 years, not 2 minutes) Hannity? O'reilly? I am not looking for anyone to help me change hearts and minds, I can, and have, done that myself. (about 6 and still throwing the facts) I don't need a leader. I just need someone to step to the fucking plate. No where are they found thus far. All these politicians are so fuckig concerned about keeping their jobs, they seem to forget whose money is keeping the store afloat. Right/ left, Left/ right. Fuck you. Stand the fuck up for what you believe in, what you will not back down from and what the fuck your convictions are. I don't ask for public opinion when I give my opinion to the public. The next mother fucker that has the G*d damned gonads to say that might have a chance. But I am not so sure they will get the clue. Sorry, I guess I am just frustrated. Been that way since Saturday. We have no leadership, left or right. We have no one that will stand up and let us know all will be OK. And not just to say it. We need someone to believe it. They way we believe it. But, we have been through more as a country and we are still here. And we ain't going no where.

396 nimslight  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:00:38pm

I like Ann Coulter she makes good points. She is right. right on point, people just don’t like the
way she make the point. Conservative are weak, they just don’t fight the fight
So what I am happy Hitler was killed .
Does that make me a bad person ?
I am happy the baby killer is no longer
Now the question for me is. will I be block out for this?

397 tjseagrove  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:04:11pm

If everyone would stop talking then no one would ever be offended.

I saw it as Anne's crude style of parady humor, nothing more.

Killing the unborn is wrong and filling the abortionist is wrong, both should be an outrage to anyone.

398 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:06:26pm

re: #388 georgietheghost

Ann Coulter is a satirist, a brilliant satirist in the manner of Mark Twain. Or in a parallel style as that which she is mocking. “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”
One of the most powerful tools of a satirist is exaggeration, which Ann does magnificently, in the manner of Mark Twain [Link: www.twainquotes.com...]

1. National Review didn't appreciate her sense of humor because they stopped featuring her after her 9/11 comments.

2. Here is a summary of her controversial comments. Yes, it's Wikipedia, but references are provided. Apparently the Ann-is-a-satirist defense is pretty standard.

3. Maybe I've been too humorless about politics. I've missed the knee-slapping element in people like Lester Maddox, Louis Farrakhan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and so on. Class clown and life of the party, every one.

399 Longacre  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:07:29pm

Um, well as usual I don't have time to catch up here, but the statements are obviously sarcasm... The first statement is simply turning around an argument that many pro-choice advocates use (and one generally used by folks on the left when excusing stuff they don't find "offensive").

Imho, Coulter's acerbity works better in print than live... but if there's no more in there than the highlighed statements, then this got too much attention.

400 jpd158  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:07:37pm

Admitting I haven't read all 396 posts, I think many are misinterpreting Ann. She's using the language of pro abortion people against the pro abortion people. Don't they like to say, "If you're against abortion, don't have one"? Don't they say the while they are "personally opposed to abortion", they won't deny someone's right to an abortion?

Someone said here she is a satirist. And that's what she's doing.... satirizing.

If O'Reilly was taken aback, then he's not getting it.

JPD

401 avanti  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:08:23pm

re: #397 tjseagrove

You are confusing a moral position with a legal one. Abortion is a legal medical procedure, killing a doctor performing the procedure is murder.

402 Enkidu90046  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:08:51pm

re: #396 nimslight

I am happy the baby killer is no longer

What a disgusting thing to say. I may be in favor of abortion rights, but I completely understand and appreciate the point of view of those that are opposed to such rights and the reasons for it. I chastise people that I know who hold so-called pro-choice beliefs for demonizing and making caricatures of the so-called pro-life movement. But I will never understand the point of view of those who would revel in the murder of an abortion doctor and dare to compare such a doctor to Adolph Hitler.

403 TMF  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:09:24pm

No. 15 was spot on.

Shes parodying the left. SHes mocking moral relativism. Its a bit too nuanced for some, apparently.

404 NY Nana  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:09:50pm

re: #257 pingjockey

Late to comment...all I can say is that with so many Lizards praying for you, and your attitude, you will make it...and win!

405 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:10:57pm

Some of us understand very clearly that her rhetorical dodge is that she's "turning the tables" on those dastardly pro-death liberals -- and I for one still think it's creepy and offensive when she says these things. She's flirting with the idea of approving of murder, and it's disgusting no matter what flimsy excuse she uses for that "wink wink, nudge nudge" bit.

Her little schtick didn't "go over my head" at all. I got it just fine. And it makes it even sleazier.

406 altermite  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:11:15pm

re: #396 nimslight

I like Ann Coulter she makes good points. She is right. right on point, people just don’t like the
way she make the point. Conservative are weak, they just don’t fight the fight
So what I am happy Hitler was killed .
Does that make me a bad person ?
I am happy the baby killer is no longer
Now the question for me is. will I be block out for this?

I certainly hope so. Domestic terrorism is not how we do things in a civilized society, and condoning it isn't just barbaric, but evil.

407 Gus  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:11:20pm

The actual Victoria legislations reads in part:

Termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioner after 24 weeks

(1) A registered medical practitioner may perform an abortion on a woman who is more than 24 weeks pregnant only if the medical practitioner—

(a) reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances; and
(b) has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who also reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances.

(2) In considering whether the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances, a registered medical practitioner must have regard to—

(a) all relevant medical circumstances; and
(b) the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances.

[Link: www.legislation.vic.gov.au...]

In a United States Supreme Court case we find Doe v. Bolton in which, "The Georgia law in question permitted abortion only in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or the possibility of severe or fatal injury to the mother. Other restrictions included the requirement that the procedure be approved in writing by three physicians and by a special committee of the staff of the hospital where the abortion was to be performed." (1) In this case the secondary physician requirement was struck down and it was the opinion of Justice Blackmun (Nixon appointee) that:

acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs, and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice. The attending physician will know when a consultation is advisable -- the doubtful situation, the need for assurance when the medical decision is a delicate one, and the like. Physicians have followed this routine historically, and [p200] know its usefulness and benefit for all concerned.

and

In summary, we hold that the JCAH-accredited hospital provision and the requirements as to approval by the hospital abortion committee, as to confirmation by two independent physicians, and as to residence in Georgia are all violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

See [Link: www.law.cornell.edu...]

408 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:12:37pm

re: #298 ShanghaiEd
Disposing of innocent human life is unacceptable. I sure wish I had an easy answer, I don't. First things first. Respect life.

Will Obamacare remove ovaries after, say, the third abortion? Fat folk in Britain can't get hip replacements.

I respect a woman's right to choose - not to get pregnant. And yes, if that means refraining from several minutes of pleasure. Sex is fleeting. Babies deserve a chance to change our world.

Obama's father, stepfather, and mother abandoned him. Thankfully after he was born, and had family to care for him.

409 melinwy  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:12:42pm

re: #66 Big Steve

as sickened as all the libs are over the death of untold babies...oh wait fetuses...oh wait "choices" eh?

410 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:15:03pm

re: #32 Hawaii69

...or maybe take secret footage of her in the Green Room, unhinging her jaw to swallow a live rodent whole

Oh, please -- rodents are nothing but calories!

411 NY Nana  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:15:50pm

re: #396 nimslight

So you think that that bitch with her Adam's apple, who wants the Jews to be 'perfected', is OK?

So help me, if I ever was unlucky enough to see her? I would spit in her smarmy face. She is a bigoted POS.

Youtube Video
412 tjseagrove  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:16:47pm

re: #401 avanti

I understand the "legal" part. Just because the supreme court said ok does not make it morally ok. Someday the tide may shift and RvW may be overturned. The Supremes have changed position before...

413 altermite  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:17:01pm

I wonder what Goldwater's opinion on Coulter's M.O. would have been...

“To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.”


oh, right.


Lets not get started on his view of religiously backed political movements on abortion and gays and such.

414 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:17:14pm

re: #396 nimslight

I am happy the baby killer is no longer
Now the question for me is. will I be block out for this?

Yes, you will. Get off my website.

415 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:17:19pm

re: #411 NY Nana

So you think that that bitch with her Adam's apple, who wants the Jews to be 'perfected', is OK?

So help me, if I ever was unlucky enough to see her? I would spit in her smarmy face. She is a bigoted POS.

Youtube Video

Nana ... As I said upthread, "she has a lot of pat buchanan in her."

416 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:21:13pm

re: #408 Abu Bin Squid

Disposing of innocent human life is unacceptable. I sure wish I had an easy answer, I don't. First things first. Respect life.

That was not my question, Abu. I asked why you believe abortions should automatically be permitted in cases of rape or incest.

Unless you're saying babies that are the result of rape or incest are not "innocent," in which case I have a bunch of other questions.

417 Musings  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:21:32pm

Ann is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. I knew what she was doing the minute she said “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

We hear the same thing from the pro abortionists but we have become immune to their cruel and hateful statements. It is shocking when we hear Ann talking about not thinking it is murder because we were raised to believe life is sacred. Sadly in this country it is becoming not only common but approved of, only for now it is the elderly and the helpless.

418 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:22:36pm

re: #417 Musings

Ann is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd....

Right. I know. And I'm not buying it.

419 NY Nana  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:24:28pm

re: #415 _RememberTonyC

Nana ... As I said upthread, "she has a lot of pat buchanan in her."

I will seek your post and upding it...wish I could give you a few thousand dings up...I agree, they are very much alike...she is his Eva Braun.

420 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:28:41pm

re: #419 NY Nana

I will seek your post and upding it...wish I could give you a few thousand dings up...I agree, they are very much alike...she is his Eva Braun.

you're too kind :) someone dinged it down, but i never even heard of the person who did that.

421 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:29:34pm

re: #400 jpd158

What Coulter does is not satire, but a cheap rhetorical trick. Say offensive things with a straight face. The part of her audience who agree with those offensive things get their money's worth, and she gets a paycheck.

And when someone who is offended by those comments criticizes her or questions her truthfulness, she can say "Hey, can't you take a joke?"

The "rubes" get the raw red meat, and the "upstanding" fans get to pretend there's no meat at all. Both groups give her money.

Coulter is not the first or only bigot to use this cowardly approach, but with the approval of the MSM she has polished the trick to a healthy glow.

422 Silvergirl  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:29:49pm

re: #417 Musings

Ann is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. I knew what she was doing the minute she said “I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

We hear the same thing from the pro abortionists but we have become immune to their cruel and hateful statements. It is shocking when we hear Ann talking about not thinking it is murder because we were raised to believe life is sacred. Sadly in this country it is becoming not only common but approved of, only for now it is the elderly and the helpless.

Limbaugh also falls back on that demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. It doesn't endear him to me.

423 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:33:37pm

re: #422 Silvergirl

Limbaugh also falls back on that demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. It doesn't endear him to me.

Silvergirl, I agree. I should have mentioned in my #421 that Limbaugh also uses this cheap rhetorical trick of Coulter's. Not as often or as predictably as she does, but still to a disturbing degree.

424 NY Nana  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:34:50pm

re: #420 _RememberTonyC

Dug you up...I found it.

/There seem to be a group of ding-a-lings who have far too much time on their hands.

425 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:38:56pm

re: #2 BigPapa

OK, the 60,000 babies thing is needs to die. It's impossible.

And they were never babies in the first place.

Coulter is as damning to conservatives as Beck and Limbaugh are. Yet all three have a loyal following. If conservatives want to improve their image, they're going to have to find a way to cast off these leeches.

426 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:39:01pm

re: #424 NY Nana

Dug you up...I found it.

/There seem to be a group of ding-a-lings who have far too much time on their hands.

and a few others who just have poor judgment :)

427 Throbert McGee  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:43:01pm

re: #169 Hhar

I agree. Coulter is over the top, probably factually wrong, and definitely offensive here.

But then again, "Don't like abortions? Don't get one!" is so vacuous as to border on offensive.

Word. (And upding.)

428 calcajun  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:43:58pm

I just got finished reading a book about the age of Jackson and it dealt with the rise of the abolitionist movement. Say what you want about John Brown, the man was a murderer no different than Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols or Tim McVeigh, and he was properly hanged. However, the northern paragons of virtue like Emerson and Thoreau, according to this book, Waking Giant, championed Brown for what he had done in both Kansas and at Harper's Ferry. Essentially, he committed horrible acts in a good cause.

The same mentality is alive and well. Frankly, I don't think it is really new at all. I'm sure more ancient examples can be unearthed. The shocking point here is not that Coulter and others think this way. It's that despite all our advances and supposed civilization, we still think this way and find ways to condone the most barbaric of actions.

429 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:47:18pm
430 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:48:00pm

One more thought on Coulter, and I'm onward to the Lounge...

I really get tired of hearing Coulter's writing compared to Jonathan Swift's brilliant essay, "A Modest Proposal." Very disingenuous comparison.

What makes Swift's rhetorical strategy work is that virtually none of his readers actually agreed that cannibalism of children was a good economic plan. Whereas, a sizeable proportion of Coulter's readers...judging from the e-mails they post on comment boards...agree with her entirely, and gleefully, on such subjects as poisoning judges, bombing the NY Times offices, shooting abortion providers, etc., etc.

What she maintains by the "satire" schtick is a pretense of plausible deniability, but it's only a pretense. And it's dishonest as hell.

431 boofar  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:51:28pm

Eww...

I remember when she came to my university after Sheehan. Apparently the college dems and reps invited them both and paid money in order to just talk. I remember thinking that the tuition money that I paid was just wasted...

432 erevu  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:55:27pm

You people realize that she's lampooning the left's response to arguments against abortions, right? Replace "shooting abortioninsts" with "abortions" and you have the responses she's lampooning. I realize you're all super serious with your red meat responses, but take a moment to realize that she's not entirely serious.

433 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:56:19pm

re: #432 erevu

You people realize that she's lampooning the left's response to arguments against abortions, right?

Yes, "we people" do realize that. Try reading the previous comments.

434 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 6:57:18pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

She's cold hearted and not worth watching.

She's not arguing, she's performing. But you've gotta wonder if she can even tell the difference anymore.

435 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:00:16pm

re: #425 eclectic infidel

And they were never babies in the first place.

I'm of two minds about the significance of the 60,000 figure. On one hand, exaggeration/lying is bad and people deserve to know the truth.

On the other hand, what if the actual number were found to be 6,000? I can't imagine one avid "pro-lifer" who would respond, "Oh, that's different." They would instead reply, "Well, one is too many..." and the argument would start from square one.

I'm inclined to think the number is a distraction, and about as relevant as the AGW-related argument that the scientists are all mistaken because...Al Gore has money.

436 Machalot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:03:20pm

Lame. She was clearly being facetious to make a rhetorical point.

437 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:04:24pm

re: #416 ShanghaiEd

That was not my question, Abu. I asked why you believe abortions should automatically be permitted in cases of rape or incest.

Unless you're saying babies that are the result of rape or incest are not "innocent," in which case I have a bunch of other questions.

Where did I say that? I meant, and wrote, that abortion is "acceptable" in those cases, not mandated. Sorry if I gave you that impression is was mandated.

Sorry for the delay. Picked up child and had dinner.

438 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:06:29pm

re: #437 Abu Bin Squid

Your second graph I cut and pasted should have been ital. Sorry for the confusion.

439 erevu  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:07:31pm

re: #433 Charles

I'm glad to hear it. I don't have time to read the thread, but I do have time to respond to the initial presentation, which is self righteous and indignant, and doesn't appreciate that angle at all.

440 Machalot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:08:45pm

re: #439 erevu

Hear hear.

441 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:11:33pm

re: #437 Abu Bin Squid

That was not my question, Abu. I asked why you believe abortions should automatically be permitted in cases of rape or incest.

Unless you're saying babies that are the result of rape or incest are not "innocent," in which case I have a bunch of other questions.

Where did I say that? I meant, and wrote, that abortion is "acceptable" in those cases, not mandated. Sorry if I gave you that impression is was mandated.

Sorry for the delay. Picked up child and had dinner.

Thanks for the reply, Abu.

I didn't say "mandated," either. I said "permitted," as did you.

My question is, why should it change the equation just because a crime was committed, if the fetus or baby is not responsible for that crime?

I have a certain degree of respect for any consistent position, but the rape/incest loophole seems hugely inconsistent, and arbitrary, to me.

442 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:11:43pm

re: #439 erevu

I'm glad to hear it. I don't have time to read the thread, but I do have time to respond to the initial presentation, which is self righteous and indignant, and doesn't appreciate that angle at all.

Really? Please quote the "self-righteous and indignant" part of my post.

443 bluejudad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:12:15pm

re: #436 Machalot

Lame. She was clearly being facetious to make a rhetorical point.

“I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

Did not any of you understand what she was doing? She was using the "pro-abortion" line to make a point. This is a case of Charles and the rest of you having selective intelligence. Watching something and purposefully (only explanation) contriving to promote an anti Coulter agenda. It's so obvious. Now have at me.

444 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:13:28pm

re: #443 bluejudad

Here comes another one who doesn't bother to read before telling everyone how dense they are.

445 Flavia  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:15:48pm

re: #180 pingjockey

Had a biopsy today. Get the plan for the radiation/chemo on Thursday.

May you have a full, complete recovery.

446 CynicalConservative  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:21:00pm

Where do you people come from dropping stinky bombs at the end of an old thread without reading through the discussion? Spare us, please.

Charles, I don't know how you do it, but thanks for keeping the place classy.

CC

447 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:22:02pm

re: #441 ShanghaiEd

If someone raped you would you want to care for that child for the rest of your life? As a man it's impossible for me to emphasize with a raped pregnant woman. But since I can only sympathize it seems to me that would be an exception to my stance against abortion. The violation of being raped would push me to the brink of wanting to end my own existence.

My main point is adults wanting children should be the only ones "trying" to get pregnant. Far fetched, yes. Moral, indeed.

448 Flyers1974  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:22:11pm

re: #441 ShanghaiEd

Good evening SE.

449 Machalot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:25:00pm

re: #446 CynicalConservative

It's only an "old thread" to people who have been sitting here keeping up with the comments for the last couple of hours. For people who come home from work at 6 Pacific time and check LGF, it's a brand new post. It takes a long time to read all the comments, and there's no reason we shouldn't just be able to express our opinions without reading them all first. That's the difference between a comment thread and a true forum (in my opinion).

450 noahsatellite  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:26:01pm

re: #444 Charles

Charles, I have to disagree. I watched the vid and, while it may not have been a good choice of words, it seems pretty obvious to me that she was being facetious. After speaking about how some want to legalize the 'termination' of any fetus at any time for any reason, she mentioned that she saw this murder as a termination in the 203rd trimester. You don't have to like her style, but I think it's pretty clear that she was taking a stab at the proponents of 'anytime' abortions.

Bad taste? Perhaps. But I wouldn't go overboard with the analysis here....

451 American Sabra  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:26:25pm

re: #447 Abu Bin Squid

If someone raped you would you want to care for that child for the rest of your life? As a man it's impossible for me to emphasize with a raped pregnant woman. But since I can only sympathize it seems to me that would be an exception to my stance against abortion. The violation of being raped would push me to the brink of wanting to end my own existence.

My main point is adults wanting children should be the only ones "trying" to get pregnant. Far fetched, yes. Moral, indeed.

Good answer! And as a man too! heh

I would only add, in particular if the child looked like the father. Rape and incest aren't choices for women, as you pointed out and that's the difference if you need to have one. I'm on the pro-choice side myself.

452 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:27:55pm

Charles,
There is a headline on your site about how Ann's meaning flew over your head. That'll get dinged down to death.

453 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:28:56pm

Oh, I get it. Free Republic linked to this one! That's where you folks who can't be arsed to read the thread are coming from.

454 Obsidiandog  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:29:55pm

re: #116 BigPapa

How many thousands of abortions are acceptable to you then?

455 wily  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:32:00pm

I have to say this particular blog entry misleading. First you misquote Coulter, then intentionally leave off her remarks immediately following her "I don't like to think of it as a murder" comment. So the casual reader who comes in and doesn't watch the video is led to believe that she simply said "I don't think of it as a murder". Deceptive. Yes, I know the sycophants won't like me for this comment.

456 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:33:30pm

re: #455 wily

Yeah! And to show you just how deceptive I really am, I even included the full video clip so you could watch for yourself and really get fooled...

Oh, wait.

457 CynicalConservative  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:33:54pm

re: #455 wily

Ya know, that was an intelligent, well written post until you blew it with the last sentence. Sad.

458 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:33:55pm

re: #443 bluejudad

“I don’t think of it as a murder ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

Did not any of you understand what she was doing? She was using the "pro-abortion" line to make a point.

What point is that?

459 keithgabryelski  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:34:42pm

re: #450 noahsatellite

There is a difference.

When one talks about supporting capital punishment, one is supporting something that some call murder, but is a legal act.

When one talks about supporting abortion-rights, one is supporting something that some call murder, but, again, is a legal act.

When one talks about supporting the act of violence against an abortion doctor, you are supporting and illegal act.

There is no even weighting here, you may attempt to say they are similar but they are not, legally, in THIS society.

460 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:35:16pm

re: #455 wily

So the casual reader who comes in and doesn't watch the video is..

Lazy.

461 [deleted]  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:35:17pm
462 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:35:48pm

re: #448 Flyers1974

Good evening SE.

Hi, Flyers! (Pun intended) :)

463 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:35:52pm

You bunch of pantywaists!

464 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:36:29pm

re: #451 American Sabra

Thanks, I think. From a woman, no less! :~)

I guess some would say I'm pro-choice since my stance is not unbendable. Yet I'm firmly pro-embryo/fetus/baby. Pro-family.

Dr. Tiller's murder was wrong. Period. Regardless of my beliefs about his chosen (legal) professional practice.

465 Racer X  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:39:44pm

re: #463 Charles

You bunch of pantywaists!

And you run a leftwing blog!

Stupid is strong over there.

466 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:46:09pm

re: #465 Racer X
How many comments did you have to slug through to find that nugget? I made it through 4 or 5. Ham steak and sauerkraut pierogis started to back up.

467 American Sabra  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:46:13pm

re: #464 Abu Bin Squid

Thanks, I think. From a woman, no less! :~)

I guess some would say I'm pro-choice since my stance is not unbendable. Yet I'm firmly pro-embryo/fetus/baby. Pro-family.

Dr. Tiller's murder was wrong. Period. Regardless of my beliefs about his chosen (legal) professional practice.

I'm pro-family too. Doesn't that just sound silly.... I mean, who would say I'm anti-family?

It's not a subject I like to discuss because like God and religion, it's not anything anyone is going to change their mind about. I leave it as it should be a woman's choice.

The better choice is having contraceptive alternatives. I've mentioned it before on these topics boards, many conservative groups say no to contraception, no to abortion and yes to abstinence only and that's unrealistic, particularly when young girls have folks like Britney Spears as a role model.

468 Gus  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:46:30pm

re: #463 Charles

You bunch of pantywaists!

What part of Roe v. Wade do they not understand?

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 --- Decided: January 22, 1973

...

XII

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.

Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 252-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). We are not dealing with a statute that, on its face, appears to abridge free expression, an area of particular concern under Dombrowski and refined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 50.

We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional.

The judgment of the District Court as to intervenor Hallford is reversed, and Dr. Hallford's complaint in intervention is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment [p167] of the District Court is affirmed. Costs are allowed to the appellee.

It is so ordered...

Justice Blackmun

469 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:47:58pm

re: #447 Abu Bin Squid

If someone raped you would you want to care for that child for the rest of your life? As a man it's impossible for me to emphasize with a raped pregnant woman. But since I can only sympathize it seems to me that would be an exception to my stance against abortion. The violation of being raped would push me to the brink of wanting to end my own existence.

My main point is adults wanting children should be the only ones "trying" to get pregnant. Far fetched, yes. Moral, indeed.

Abu: Personally, I believe that abortion is a matter to be decided by "a woman, her doctors, and God," as Hoosier Hoops put it cogently here, a little while ago.

So, you're saying your position is a personal, i.e. arbitrary, choice for you because you "can empathize" with a victim of rape or incest? Nothing wrong with that if, I presume, you're willing to extend that choice to others who disagree.

What about someone who becomes pregnant in spite of meticulously using birth control? They weren't "trying" to get pregnant either.

My bottom line is: if someone honestly believes "abortion is murder," and some people do, how can they justify that "murder" because of the circumstances of the pregnancy? I maintain you can't have it both ways. It's a total contradiction in logic.

470 American Sabra  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:49:18pm

re: #468 Gus 802

Justice Blackmun

Pffft.... please. Don't confuse them with facts or the law! They'd much rather listen to Coulter's barbaric sensationalism!

471 Egregious Philbin  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:52:33pm

Ann Coulter, .... hmm, what is that word that rhymes with the smallest dog in the litter?

Media whore, nutjob creationist, and pro life, provided she gets to choose which life....

15 minutes are up Ann, go find a man who can stand you and get some steamy monkey love, you really need it.

472 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:04:59pm

re: #351 Spare O'Lake

Some biblical Jews ran the GOP into the ground?

Thank you!

473 Lynn B.  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:05:52pm

re: #464 Abu Bin Squid

Thanks, I think. From a woman, no less! :~)

I guess some would say I'm pro-choice since my stance is not unbendable. Yet I'm firmly pro-embryo/fetus/baby. Pro-family.

Dr. Tiller's murder was wrong. Period. Regardless of my beliefs about his chosen (legal) professional practice.

Beliefs based upon ignorance are ... well, I'll leave it there.

474 American Sabra  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:07:31pm

re: #469 ShanghaiEd

If I may...

Rape is not a woman's choice. Sex between two consenting adults, or even teenagers, is quite a different matter. I don't see the scenario as arbitrary. One child is created out of love (or hormonal lust) and the other out of a crime. Personally, it's all a women's decision, but one may be more apathatic to a women who was forced into her pregnancy.

475 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:08:07pm

Sorry Ann -

As much as we may agree on other things - AND WE DO - the killing of Dr. Tiller is good old Common Law MURDER, "with malice aforethought" even if he was as you purport, and I suspect He was.
Your scenario in this case is one of wartime, not the defeat of a POLITICAL ENEMY. Last I looked - this is still the USA, at "Peace" internally.
I am personally "Pro-Life" - in fact to such an extent that I believe that a "Strict Construction" of Roe v. Wade would be an IMPROVEMENT. Roe/Wade allowed the States NO POWER in the First Trimester, some discretion in the Second, and the Power to Prohibit in the Third. As what was once said about Christian Belief - GREAT IDEA - let's try it.
What say all'y'all?

-S-

476 Mich-again  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:12:42pm

re: #471 Egregious Philbin

Thoughtful commentary.

not.

477 swamprat  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:14:22pm

re: #455 wily

Sycophant!

Oh boy!

A free thinker you are!

478 Soccermom  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:19:30pm

"...impose my morality on someone else." Excuse me, this is murder. She's way over the line. I think I'll make my child return the Ann Coulter doll ;-) In my opinion, no decent person can waffle on murder.

479 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:20:18pm

re: #474 American Sabra

If I may...

Rape is not a woman's choice. Sex between two consenting adults, or even teenagers, is quite a different matter. I don't see the scenario as arbitrary. One child is created out of love (or hormonal lust) and the other out of a crime. Personally, it's all a women's decision, but one may be more apathatic to a women who was forced into her pregnancy.

I don't disagree at all. Very natural, to be empathetic to anyone who is the victim of a crime. But it's an emotional reaction, not a logical one. And to me, it has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.

My sore spot is people who maintain that (a) abortion is murder, unless (b) the mother is a crime victim, and would legislate that idea of "morality" for all people to follow, under penalty of law. Because that's nowhere near reasonable or logical. Do you agree?

480 Enkidu90046  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:20:26pm

re: #441 ShanghaiEd

I have a certain degree of respect for any consistent position, but the rape/incest loophole seems hugely inconsistent, and arbitrary, to me.

I have often pointed out this apparent contradiction among many in the "pro-life" camp (as an aside, I really hate that terms, just as I also hate the term "pro-choice").

If abortion is wrong and should not be allowed/permitted in cases where there has been no crime because of the justification that the fetus is a human baby, then I can see no reason why those who oppose abortion would make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest. If the baby had been born, it isn't like any same person would say that the baby could be killed simply because that baby was the result of rape or incest.

So, if you believe that a fetus and a baby that has been born are equivalent in all material respects (at least in terms of being considered a human being with a right to life), then if you believe that abortion can be permitted in the case of rape or incest, there appears to be a pretty obvious contradiction.

Maybe someone who holds such beliefs can explain to me why it isn't contradictory.

481 Machalot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:25:51pm

re: #480 Enkidu90046

People take that position because they don't like the consequences of consistency.

482 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:26:12pm

re: #467 American Sabra
Great post! Wouldn't change a word you typed.

483 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:29:14pm

re: #480 Enkidu90046

Yes! You worded it much more succinctly than I did.

I can't help but think the rape/incest exception is a dishonest position, and usually hides a very punitive agenda just under the surface.

484 mrclark  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:29:59pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

and

"If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.”

are inversions of well-known pro-choice slogans. Just replace abortionist with abortion. She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

Simply amazing how many people here didn't get it.

485 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:33:15pm

You'll leave it at that and pretend to be morally superior? Explain, please.

486 Egregious Philbin  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:33:30pm

re: #476 Mich-again

Yeah, you are right, who'd want to do her?

I'm sick of folk like Ann defining conservatives.

487 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:34:19pm

Thanos, et al,

Virtually every source I see about the 60,000 figure quotes it as coming from the AP or from Tiller's own website, which is now gone.

I myself wonder where the figure comes from, but I find no credible rebukes, either, other than "that coule never have happened."

Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star: "The governor also has an oddly close relationship with George Tiller, a Wichita doctor who brags on his Web site that he has performed more than 60,000 late-term abortions since 1973. He's now facing trial for 19 counts of performing illegal abortions.

Here's an artile form the far far left SEattle PI restating the 60,000 number: [Link: www.seattlepi.com...]

npr carried the same story and also printed the 60,000 number:
[Link: www.npr.org...]

And, lastly, a Howard Kurtz article from the WaPo stating the same 60,000.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

These aren't exactly right wing sources, ya know.

So, will we ever know, since the records will likely be secret forever? Doubt it. But simply saying it could never happen I believe is a mistake, too. If you have the ability to pull up a cached site of Tiller's, maybe we can find out. But we also have some liberal leaning pro-choicers using the 60k figure, too.

Maybe you should down-ding them.

488 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:35:12pm

re: #484 mrclark

Simply amazing how many people here didn't get it.

MrClark: Did you "get" my post #421? I'd appreciate a response, since it's on precisely the subject you raise.

489 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:36:00pm

re: #485 Abu Bin Squid

You'll leave it at that and pretend to be morally superior? Explain, please.

Abu, is this response to me, or someone else?

490 legalpad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:36:56pm

re: #484 mrclark

Simply amazing how many people here didn't get it.

Somebody didn't get this either, because someone dinged-down people who said the same thing.

Yeah, I think it is satire along the lines of Swift's A Modest Proposal. I think our society, whether left or right, has developed mores which include much control over speech: i.e. The "N" word, standard cursing, and things which cannot really be discussed, even beyond what is allegedly politically incorrect.

Also, the left is always looking for ways to gain the moral high ground for obvious reasons, Trent Lott's not thinking out all the logical derivatives of his compliment to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday being one of the more obvious examples.

Many in the "center", even center right, have relatively thin skin when it comes to moral criticism from the left, and are angry whenever someone stupidly or deliberately gives them ammunition. Ann's of course is deliberate, because her beliefs about how much of her speech should be controlled by a hypocritical left differs from what most of us are willing to put up with just to avoid erroneous arguments.

I somehow wound up on a calling list of some pro-choice people and I told them the main thing I objected to was their extensive use of euphemisms to represent what they believed in. I gave them examples. This made them very uncomfortable.

Coulter was satirizing their euphemisms.

491 GnomeKing  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:37:36pm

Some of you don't "get" it. Ann is very much a satirist. She's repeating the most common arguments used by pro-abortion people to justify their position. She just replaces "fetus" with "abortionist"

492 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:38:59pm

re: #486 Egregious Philbin

Yeah, you are right, who'd want to do her?

I'm sick of folk like Ann defining conservatives.

I'm sick of folk like Ann, too. But I'm also sick of the kind of dismissive sexism in your last two comments. Whether Coulter needs sex or is sexually desirable to you has no bearing whatever on her arguments, and makes you sound like a dork for bringing it up. Sorry, that's just me.

493 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:39:39pm

My #485 was for Lynn B.'s response to me. Maybe Lynn B. needs to read the comments before...I'll leave it at that.

494 legalpad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:40:07pm

re: #492 ShanghaiEd

Sorry, that's just me.

It's not just you.

495 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:40:31pm

re: #489 ShanghaiEd

Sorry. See my #493

496 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:42:12pm

re: #491 GnomeKing

Some of you don't "get" it. Ann is very much a satirist. She's repeating the most common arguments used by pro-abortion people to justify their position. She just replaces "fetus" with "abortionist"

We "get" it. We don't "buy" it. Please respond to my posts #421 and #430 if you're interested in discussing the subject without presumption.

497 jimmyk  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:47:31pm

re: #484 mrclark

Simply amazing how many people here didn't get it.

Yes, it's amazing how many people just won't accept the fact that she was being satirical. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't find it funny, or you don't like her sense of humor. But to claim that she really meant literally what she said, just because you didn't find her funny, is a bit ridiculous.

And I thought the conservatives' went a little overboard with the Letterman-Palin incident, though I do think he crossed a line that Coulter did not, which was to joke at the expense of someone's children.

498 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:48:08pm

re: #492 ShanghaiEd

I believe we're kindred spirits. Your 492 and 496 were spot on! Coulter's sexuality, or not, is not the point. Why do some of us (men) decide issue s with "...well, I'd do her, so she's not that bad."?

499 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:50:23pm

re: #497 jimmyk

Yes, it's amazing how many people just won't accept the fact that she was being satirical. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't find it funny, or you don't like her sense of humor. But to claim that she really meant literally what she said, just because you didn't find her funny, is a bit ridiculous.

And I thought the conservatives' went a little overboard with the Letterman-Palin incident, though I do think he crossed a line that Coulter did not, which was to joke at the expense of someone's children.

jimmyk, you and others here are positing a false dichotomy, I do believe, and also have not read our detailed discussion. Please see my posts #421 and #430 for why I don't buy your paragraph above. I look forward to your response.

500 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:55:39pm

re: #490 legalpad

legalpad, my post #430 was an indirect reply, I just realized, to your comment about Jonathan Swift, and my #421 was an antecedent to it on the subject of Coulter in general. If you didn't see them, I'd appreciate your reaction.

501 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:56:42pm

re: #498 Abu Bin Squid

I believe we're kindred spirits. Your 492 and 496 were spot on! Coulter's sexuality, or not, is not the point. Why do some of us (men) decide issue s with "...well, I'd do her, so she's not that bad."?

Because they are more interested in sex than whether someone is making sense. Actually, I find the idea of having sex with someone as nasty as Ann Coulter repulsive. But many men don't care about the mind of the woman as long as they can get their rocks off.

502 jimmyk  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:57:19pm

re: #499 ShanghaiEd

jimmyk, you and others here are positing a false dichotomy, I do believe, and also have not read our detailed discussion. Please see my posts #421 and #430 for why I don't buy your paragraph above. I look forward to your response.

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to the more reasoned objections to her form of satire, but to people using words like "psychosis" and "playing the mean-spirited, slack-jawed bigot" and comparing her to Pat Buchanan. And Charles referred to the "satire" claim as a "rhetorical dodge." I disagree. It is satire, and clever satire at that, but perhaps a bit too clever in that it's primary effect seems to be to make people squirm.

503 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:58:08pm

re: #498 Abu Bin Squid

I believe we're kindred spirits. Your 492 and 496 were spot on! Coulter's sexuality, or not, is not the point. Why do some of us (men) decide issue s with "...well, I'd do her, so she's not that bad."?

Thanks for the kind words, Abu. Sexism is way deeply ingrained in our culture, unfortunately, including me. I try to overcome, with very mixed success. But I try.

504 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 8:59:10pm

re: #497 jimmyk

Yes, it's amazing how many people just won't accept the fact that she was being satirical. Now it's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't find it funny, or you don't like her sense of humor. But to claim that she really meant literally what she said, just because you didn't find her funny, is a bit ridiculous.

And I thought the conservatives' went a little overboard with the Letterman-Palin incident, though I do think he crossed a line that Coulter did not, which was to joke at the expense of someone's children.

jimmyk -

"...which was to joke at the expense of someone's children - OR PETS Remember FALA!

-S-

505 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:02:38pm

re: #502 jimmyk

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to the more reasoned objections to her form of satire, but to people using words like "psychosis" and "playing the mean-spirited, slack-jawed bigot" and comparing her to Pat Buchanan. And Charles referred to the "satire" claim as a "rhetorical dodge." I disagree. It is satire, and clever satire at that, but perhaps a bit too clever in that it's primary effect seems to be to make people squirm.

jimmyk...thanks for the reply, but it has nothing whatever to do with what I said in my referenced posts #421 and #430. I can't speak for Charles or others here. If your reply is to me, I'd appreciate your addressing my particular points.

506 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:03:38pm

re: #502 jimmyk

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to the more reasoned objections to her form of satire, but to people using words like "psychosis" and "playing the mean-spirited, slack-jawed bigot" and comparing her to Pat Buchanan. And Charles referred to the "satire" claim as a "rhetorical dodge." I disagree. It is satire, and clever satire at that, but perhaps a bit too clever in that it's primary effect seems to be to make people squirm.

They are some things that should not be joked about and a cold-blooded murder by a religious-zealot terrorist is one of them.

507 LotharBot  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:11:01pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t believe in imposing my morality on others.”

and

"If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.”

are inversions of well-known pro-choice slogans. Just replace abortionist with abortion. She obviously mocking pro-choicers.

Exactly. I can't believe people took this any other way. She's making a clear and obvious mockery of common "pro-choice" lines by demonstrating how absurd they sound when applied to someone who everyone considers a person (rather than to someone only half of the political spectrum considers a person.) It's absolutely baffling that anyone would have trouble picking up on that.

There are times when you could say she's using the "mockery" position as a dodge, but this is not one of them.

508 docremulac  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:13:42pm

re: #15 KingKenrod

I had to read 15 posts down before reading one from somebody that understood she was being factitious. It's called sarcasm. Thank God for the many people that up-dinged KingKenrod for pointing out the painfully obvious.

She DOES think it was murder, she was making an ironic juxtaposition of pro-choicer's rhetoric with this situation to illustrate her point. You can disagree with the method, but to think she was saying she didn't believe this was murder is misunderstanding to put it politely.

She begins the piece by saying Bill has been "magnificent" in the reporting and commenting on this man's "murder" and Bill has clearly and repeatedly decried this act for what it is. As a pro-choice atheist myself I don't agree with Coulter on a lot of issues but I'll stand by her on this one, if for no other reason than that she's got a lot of guts to stand up to both the left and the "shocked and appalled" polite right to speak her mind.

Good for you KingKenrod, it takes balls to stand in front of a crowd armed with pitchforks and torches and say "This woman is not a witch". Or maybe more appropriately: "She may be a witch, but that's not a flying broom she's holding."

509 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:15:47pm

Thanos,

Is this legit?

"We have some experience with late terminations... about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

From a speech given by George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting on April 2-4, 1995 in New Orleans, LA

Can't find any "credible" news sourse on that, either, but it seems it should be straight forward.

510 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:15:58pm

re: #507 LotharBot

Exactly. I can't believe people took this any other way...

Lothar, at the risk of repeating myself, there are lots of plainly-stated arguments on this thread that you're completely ignoring. Including my #421 and #430, as to why your explanation doesn't wash, with me. Could you address those points, in particular, before marveling again at our obtuseness?

511 jimmyk  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:18:40pm

re: #505 ShanghaiEd

jimmyk...thanks for the reply, but it has nothing whatever to do with what I said in my referenced posts #421 and #430. I can't speak for Charles or others here. If your reply is to me, I'd appreciate your addressing my particular points.

I think it does address your points by (respectfully) disagreeing. But to elaborate, I don't think she should necessarily be held responsible for the idiot commenters you refer to in your 430. Who knows who they are? It's true that there is a shock effect from what she says, and of course she gets notoriety from that, but she's quite a bit more clever than the shock jock types who merely say outrageous things to attract attention. As I said, perhaps too clever.

512 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:20:15pm

re: #508 docremulac

Nothing personal, doc, but there's something a little ironic about being #508 on a thread and bragging about reading posts 1 through 15. A lot has been said since then that you're altogether ignoring, including my own posts #421 and #430. I'd appreciate hearing your response to those, and to some of the other voices here.

513 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:21:08pm

re: #508 docremulac

"doc" -

Love your choice of "planet" - the small one, near France.

In any case, Ann, like Beck, Rush and sometimes Levin is an entertainer. Certainly her comments were satire/humor - and as with all humor, to be funny, needs some elements of truth.
Unfortunately, in this case, An "Pulled a Letterman."

-S-

514 n2stox  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:22:18pm

re: #109 Thanos

It's not Tiller. Find me a reputable news agency link that carries that audio as Tiller, and I might believe you. It's Randall Terry agitprop

CAn you show me proof that it is not Tiller?

I googled "George Tiller recording debunked" and nothing came up.

515 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:25:00pm

re: #513 Dr. Shalit

"doc" -

Love your choice of "planet" - the small one, near France.

In any case, Ann, like Beck, Rush and sometimes Levin is an entertainer. Certainly her comments were satire/humor - and as with all humor, to be funny, needs some elements of truth.
Unfortunately, in this case, An "Pulled a Letterman."

-S-

That is a reasonable way to look at it. The thing is; So far Coulter has not apologized, and unlike Letterman I don't think she ever will.

516 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:25:19pm

re: #511 jimmyk

I think it does address your points by (respectfully) disagreeing. But to elaborate, I don't think she should necessarily be held responsible for the idiot commenters you refer to in your 430. Who knows who they are? It's true that there is a shock effect from what she says, and of course she gets notoriety from that, but she's quite a bit more clever than the shock jock types who merely say outrageous things to attract attention. As I said, perhaps too clever.

Coulter should not be held responsible for the people in her audience who take what she says at face value? Why not?

It's not the "shock effect" that concerns me, but all the people who aren't shocked because they agree. But, as you say, who knows who they are? After all, they haven't all shot somebody yet. Till then, why worry? Right? It's only cleverness.

517 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:28:41pm

re: #515 Dark_Falcon

That is a reasonable way to look at it. The thing is; So far Coulter has not apologized, and unlike Letterman I don't think she ever will.

Dark_Falcon -

Yup, in that way she reminds me of Henry (Never Explain/Never Complain) Ford II a lot.

-S-

518 Altermite  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:36:09pm

re: #514 n2stox

CAn you show me proof that it is not Tiller?

I googled "George Tiller recording debunked" and nothing came up.

Can you show me proof that there is no midget watching through your window while you sleep?


No?

Clearly you have an undersized stalker.

519 JamesWI  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:38:51pm

re: #511 jimmyk

I think it does address your points by (respectfully) disagreeing. But to elaborate, I don't think she should necessarily be held responsible for the idiot commenters you refer to in your 430. Who knows who they are? It's true that there is a shock effect from what she says, and of course she gets notoriety from that, but she's quite a bit more clever than the shock jock types who merely say outrageous things to attract attention. As I said, perhaps too clever.

"Too clever"? Oh please, her schtick has been exactly the same for years, regardless of whether she's on TV, in front of an audience, or writing in her column: Start with a couple boilerplate "conservative" lines ("Democrats are socialists who enjoy aborting babies"), throw in a few lame jokes, then slip in something shocking so she can keep her name in the press. Not even close to clever.

520 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:40:30pm

re: #518 Altermite

Can you show me proof that there is no midget watching through your window while you sleep?

No?

Clearly you have an undersized stalker.

LOL, Loves it!

521 docremulac  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:41:05pm

re: #512 ShanghaiEd

Hmm. My point was there were 14 posts that inaccurately assessed the situation before the one that gave an accurate account.

But you got me, I was really proud of reading comments 1 through 15 all on my own without moving my lips.

My comment on your comment would be: it's entirely fine to not like Ms Coulter and her product, there's really not much more to say. It really doesn't have much to do with my comment that she was being sarcastic to make her point.

But if you don't like her, fine, I don't feel any need to defend her beyond pointing out when comments she's made are being taken out of the context that's a big part of her message.

522 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:43:45pm

re: #333 jvic

IMO the pharisee 'leaders' who ran the GOP into the ground are clinging to their positions and expecting that Democrat mistakes will bail them out...

re: #472 Lynn B.

re: #351 Spare O'Lake

Some biblical Jews ran the GOP into the ground?

Thank you!

Lynn B., I think a moderately thick skin is a positive trait for a citizen of a nation of immigrants. Alas, now that a Right to Not Be Offended has been discovered in the Living Constitution, the times have passed me by.

Without explaining any problems you have with my use of 'pharisee'--my #384 quotes the dictionary definition--, you gave a down ding. As of this writing, I have not responded in kind.

523 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:43:51pm

re: #521 docremulac

The context was the murder of a doctor by a zealot terrorist. She said "I don't think of it as murder." That was both dismissive of the gravity of the crime, cruel to Tiller's widow, and at utter odds with the facts. She was just plain wrong to say that. Don't try to defend the indefensible.

524 jimmyk  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:44:08pm

re: #516 ShanghaiEd

Coulter should not be held responsible for the people in her audience who take what she says at face value? Why not?

It's not the "shock effect" that concerns me, but all the people who aren't shocked because they agree. But, as you say, who knows who they are? After all, they haven't all shot somebody yet. Till then, why worry? Right? It's only cleverness.

You added the part about "take what she says at face value." As others have pointed out, that would include her clearly referring to the killing of Tiller as "murder." In any case, I suspect those commenters include juveniles who really do say things solely for shock value, trolls, and, yes, even leftists trying to discredit Coulter, in addition to a few idiots who might actually believe what they are saying. But those idiots are still misunderstanding her, and I don't think she's to blame for that.

525 wee fury  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:44:29pm

I think Ann Coulter has a big fat ego that needs slimming down.

526 MrPaulRevere  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:46:25pm

I'm late to the party but I have a couple of observations: 1) O'Reilly is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Sorry, no dice. When it came to whipping up the murderous incitement against Dr. Tiller, he was a BIG player. 2) I could care less about Ann Coulter's rhetorical tricks, they leave me cold. 3) The center/right needs to ostracize this woman immediately. 4) SHE IS VILE.

527 The Left  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:47:33pm

re: #515 Dark_Falcon

That is a reasonable way to look at it. The thing is; So far Coulter has not apologized, and unlike Letterman I don't think she ever will.

She'll never apologise. Why would she? She's never apologised before, even when she accused 9-11 widows of enjoying their widowhood.

It continues to shock me that she is given any platform in decent society after making a statement like that.

And as for Tiller? Her defenders are minimising her statement by claiming it's 'satire' or 'rhetoric' or a joke. The difference between her and letterman is that Tiller has been murdered-- and he's been murdered by someone who took Bill O'reilly's (and others') rhetoric literally.

Sure, Coulter's a clown, she's been running this tired schtick for money for a long time, and she'll only stop when the money and attention stops-- but her words have consequences, and she helps contribute to a climate of hate where some people start thinking it really IS ok to murder clinic doctors, to blow up the NYT building, to poison SCOTUS justices. Ha, ha, it was all very funny til someone gets killed.

And for Coulter and her defenders, it's still funny after someone gets killed.

528 jvic  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:54:30pm

re: #513 Dr. Shalit

In any case, Ann, like Beck, Rush and sometimes Levin is an entertainer. ..

Maybe, but I'd trade the whole bunch in (and the leftist ones too) for a little bit of Mr. Dooley or Will Rogers.

529 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:55:07pm

re: #527 iceweasel

To be fair, iceweasel, O'Reilly never called for anyone to do anything outside the law. As for Coulter, you are course right on the money. Hopefully, this time she is made to suffer for her vicious words. I hope her book sales crater, and her speaking engagements dry up until she sincerely repents of her vile statement.

530 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:55:36pm

re: #528 jvic

Maybe, but I'd trade the whole bunch in (and the leftist ones too) for a little bit of Mr. Dooley or Will Rogers.

Quite concur.

531 legalpad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:56:28pm

re: #421 ShanghaiEd

What Coulter does is not satire, but a cheap rhetorical trick. Say offensive things with a straight face. The part of her audience who agree with those offensive things get their money's worth, and she gets a paycheck.

And when someone who is offended by those comments criticizes her or questions her truthfulness, she can say "Hey, can't you take a joke?"

The "rubes" get the raw red meat, and the "upstanding" fans get to pretend there's no meat at all. Both groups give her money.

Coulter is not the first or only bigot to use this cowardly approach, but with the approval of the MSM she has polished the trick to a healthy glow.

OK. I understand your view here. As as I have no dog in this hunt personally, I can tell you, in Tevia-like fashion, that I think you are also right. I think this is on a gradient, a scale, and whether it is "satire" or veiled offensive insults cloaked in humor, as I believe Letterman was, depends on one's values and the intensity of them.

I think the key to Coulter's decision to present it like this is based on the feelings of a certain percentage of pro-lifers. She, and they, believe, with all their heart, that the life of a fetus is exactly as valuable and worthy as the murdered doctors'. Every bit of horror felt about doctor Tiller, they feel about the unborn. So they agree with the sentiments of pro-abortionists on Tiller, and in one view Ann was genuinely trying to illustrate how his death is absolutely identical to the death of each fetus in every way.

Overlayed with that, in a mixed and variable fashion, is Ann, and a certain percentage of pro-lifers reacting to each abortion, emotionally, as if it were their own child. It is akin to the sympathy felt by all of us regarding an abused child. Needless to say, we are all quite angry with the child abuser. If we were in some country where the child abuse had been legalized, our feelings would not change. Obviously, there is a conflict within all of them as to exactly how to react to an event like this.

My overall reaction is that I understand how everyone feels. I do not believe simple condemnation of the feelings of others, however intense, and however terribly they manifest themselves will solve this problem anymore than western condemnation of Muslim-based "terrorism" solves that. The small percentage of "Muslims" and the small of percentage of "Christians" that decide to kill are out there. It is interesting to me how part of the solution for many is to try not to aggravate the Muslims. Obviously, "in-your-face" abortion of third-trimester babies is not an attempt not to aggravate pro-lifers.

This is a complex issue, so I do not think my comments are comprehensive.

532 Kozak  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:57:22pm

Sarcasm. It's SARCASM.

Christ, most of the folks around here should look it up.
SARCASM

533 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:57:47pm

re: #493 Abu Bin Squid

Abu, if you're still here...sorry I got distracted from our exchange on the subject of abortion. It's been enlightening for me. In fact, I think you and I and American Sabra are dangerously near a meeting of the minds, here. :) If you have time and care to respond to my #469, I think we'll be at a natural quitting point and will have done a pretty good night's work. Take care.

534 docremulac  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:59:17pm

re: #523 Dark_Falcon

Wow. I'll try one more time then let it go.

Her statement may be totally indefensible, but taking an indefensible sarcastic comment and trying to get more mileage out of it by implying that it WASN'T a sarcastic statement is silly.

535 The Left  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 9:59:52pm

re: #529 Dark_Falcon

To be fair, iceweasel, O'Reilly never called for anyone to do anything outside the law. As for Coulter, you are course right on the money. Hopefully, this time she is made to suffer for her vicious words. I hope her book sales crater, and her speaking engagements dry up until she sincerely repents of her vile statement.

You're absolutely right that O"Reilly never called for him to be killed, but he did call him a murderer and babykiller, often.

However one feels about abortion, he was calling Tiller a murderer and babykiller for performing a legal medical procedure.

536 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:01:59pm

re: #527 iceweasel
Blaming anyone but the gunman is folly. 300 million people in this country (280 million legally) just waiting for a voice to guide them. Whether the voice is Ann Coulter or the late Winston Churchill is not the point. Loony is as loony does. For us (you, in this case) to assign blame to O'Reilly or Coulter or Hannity or Savage or Maddow or Olberdouche is beyond words. Get over your ability to solve these pathetic actions. Killers kill, not commentators.

537 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:02:02pm

re: #534 docremulac

Wow. I'll try one more time then let it go.

Her statement may be totally indefensible, but taking an indefensible sarcastic comment and trying to get more mileage out of it by implying that it WASN'T a sarcastic statement is silly.

OK, that I understand and can agree with. Coulter is still a tool, but you are not.

538 bluejudad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:04:42pm

re: #444 Charles

I'm supposed to read the entire thread before I make a comment? I'm responding to your "header" on this posting, which is as misleading (though, not with same consequences and evil intent) as one of those fauxtography scams you so correctly expose. I shouldn't have to be made out as an idiot.

539 The Left  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:05:08pm

re: #536 Abu Bin Squid

Roeder is the murderer, and he is the one who deserves the blame and punishment. There is no denying that.

There is also no denying that he was influenced by many people, including the homicidal rhetoric of organisations like Operation Rescue.

Coulter and O'Reilly are just two voices among many. No lunatic is going to pick up a gun one day solely because of either of them, no matter what they say.

But speech has consequences.

540 docremulac  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:05:16pm

re: #537 Dark_Falcon

Fair enough.

Cheers.

541 wee fury  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:06:53pm

re: #532 Kozak

Sarcasm. It's SARCASM.

Christ, most of the folks around here should look it up.
SARCASM

Thank you very much, but I know the meaning of sarcasm.

542 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:08:00pm

re: #535 iceweasel

You're absolutely right that O"Reilly never called for him to be killed, but he did call him a murderer and babykiller, often.

However one feels about abortion, he was calling Tiller a murderer and babykiller for performing a legal medical procedure.

True, but it was well within the limits of free speech. You can make out a reasonable case that, legal or not, Tiller was a blood-money mercenary who killed fetuses that otherwise would have been born and lived productive lives. All that however, would never justify his murder. Murder is always a grave wrong, and you are right to say that Tiller was never found to have broken any laws.

543 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:13:01pm

A big part of my reaction to this is that I think she's saying it for effect in cold blood. I don't actually believe that Ann Coulter gives a damn about children, unborn or born. If she were truly distraught about abortion, I might give her the benefit of the doubt. But I don't buy it. I just see this as another chance to bash strawman 'liberals' and get her fans het up.

Perhaps I misjudge her. I don't think so.

544 doubter4444  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:14:08pm

re: #122 clgood

Not so over the top. A good case can be made for it.

It is where most of the support for abortion is, after all.

No. No. No.
Thirty or forty or fifty millions times, no.
Calling the vast majority of AMERICANS, those who don't agree with you on a topic that has been settled by the highest court in the land, and that has been discussed over and over countless times, in blogs, by doctors and ethicists, in newspapers and amongst those that are affected personally by the subject a "party of death" is the first step in de-humanizing those on the other side.
It is simply, evil to believe.
I don't give a rats ass if some pseudo-intellectual wrote a book that simply reinforced your belief system, it is wrong.
It is exactly like agreeing with Coulter and condoning murder.

And frankly, for all those up dinging the "it's only satire, she's only turning liberals words on them", you know what, that's a hypocritical bunch of crap.
What Anti-abortion zealots don't wan to admit is that for the vast, vast majority of abort ons the decision is gut-wrenching and terrible.
There is an understandable difference between the sides, but as Americans we can't demonize the more that 60% of the country who believes there should be access to abortions. That way leads to freeperism, and worse.

545 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:15:31pm

re: #21 A Kiwi Infidel

Dead right PJ, if the left want ammunition to carte blanche introduce legislation that paints all conservatives as criminals, she giving them all they need.

I don't think anyone is 'introducing legislation' to paint conservatives as criminals. But if you mean, make conservatives look crazy and evil: She knows that. She doesn't care. This is how she makes her money.

546 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:16:43pm

re: #543 SanFranciscoZionist

A big part of my reaction to this is that I think she's saying it for effect in cold blood. I don't actually believe that Ann Coulter gives a damn about children, unborn or born. If she were truly distraught about abortion, I might give her the benefit of the doubt. But I don't buy it. I just see this as another chance to bash strawman 'liberals' and get her fans het up.

Perhaps I misjudge her. I don't think so.

I don't think do either. She attacks people for money. In that she has shown herself to be a mercenary at heart, attacking cruelly simply to sell more books.

547 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:18:21pm

re: #533 ShanghaiEd
Still here.
From your #469:
Abu: Personally, I believe that abortion is a matter to be decided by "a woman, her doctors, and God," as Hoosier Hoops put it cogently here, a little while ago.
What about the father? Really, has he no say?
So, you're saying your position is a personal, i.e. arbitrary, choice for you because you "can't empathize" with a victim of rape or incest? Nothing wrong with that if, I presume, you're willing to extend that choice to others who disagree.
Can't empathize, but I can sympathize. I try to extend my understanding to those with whom I disagree.
What about someone who becomes pregnant in spite of meticulously using birth control? They weren't "trying" to get pregnant either.
Intercourse is designed for birth, not pleasure, though it's quite both.
My bottom line is: if someone honestly believes "abortion is murder," and some people do, how can they justify that "murder" because of the circumstances of the pregnancy? I maintain you can't have it both ways. It's a total contradiction in logic.
Agreed. Life is full of contradictions. Decisions and choices are all we're left with. We should strive to make the best, be it our response to being horny or deciding on a house to purchase.
Thanks for the exchange ShanghaiEd! Much respect for all I've seen you wrote this evening, not just to me but to others.

548 Arthur McGowan  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:18:24pm

I am shocked to see how many commenters here fail to recognize that Coulter is merely employing an argument of the form reductio ad absurdum, a standard, classic, valid form of argumentation. All of her statements were precisely of the same form as stock "pro-choice" slogans, merely substituting the shooting of Tiller for the killing of babies in the womb. If you don't like the shooting of abortionists, don't shoot one. I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my morality on others. Such statements of Coulter's are perfectly standard, perfectly valid ways to demonstrate the absurdity of the same arguments in the mouths of "pro-choice" people.

Anyone who objects to calling Tiller a "baby-killer," on the grounds that Tiller's activities were "legal," is logically committed to the proposition that the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to proscribe all speech that dissents from the Court's majority opinions. On the contrary, in America, people have the right to say out loud that a man who kills babies is a "baby-killer."

549 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:19:31pm

re: #46 A Kiwi Infidel

Exactly! When I tell someone I am a Christian they think I am like that unhinged bigoted lot from Westboro. And when the UN gets their way and gets countries to outlaw Christianity and the Bible because of the hate spewed by Phelps and his crowd, and the trucks start rolling up in the dead of night, I get rounded up with them, and Coulter.

Thanks buddies!
/

OK, can we let the UN take Coulter and Phelps, but leave Christians in their right minds?

550 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:22:31pm

re: #531 legalpad


...I think the key to Coulter's decision to present it like this is based on the feelings of a certain percentage of pro-lifers. She, and they, believe, with all their heart, that the life of a fetus is exactly as valuable and worthy as the murdered doctors'. Every bit of horror felt about doctor Tiller, they feel about the unborn. So they agree with the sentiments of pro-abortionists on Tiller, and in one view Ann was genuinely trying to illustrate how his death is absolutely identical to the death of each fetus in every way.

Overlayed with that, in a mixed and variable fashion, is Ann, and a certain percentage of pro-lifers reacting to each abortion, emotionally, as if it were their own child. It is akin to the sympathy felt by all of us regarding an abused child. Needless to say, we are all quite angry with the child abuser. If we were in some country where the child abuse had been legalized, our feelings would not change. Obviously, there is a conflict within all of them as to exactly how to react to an event like this.

My overall reaction is that I understand how everyone feels. I do not believe simple condemnation of the feelings of others, however intense, and however terribly they manifest themselves will solve this problem anymore than western condemnation of Muslim-based "terrorism" solves that. The small percentage of "Muslims" and the small of percentage of "Christians" that decide to kill are out there. It is interesting to me how part of the solution for many is to try not to aggravate the Muslims. Obviously, "in-your-face" abortion of third-trimester babies is not an attempt not to aggravate pro-lifers...

I really appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned comments on a divisive subject. I definitely hear what you're saying.

I would only add that if Ann Coulter had gone on TV and said exactly what you say above, I would have a newfound respect for her. Because, opinions aside, what you say is honest. What she says is not honest. An issue this close to the heart is only cheapened by her lame attempts at sarcasm and humor.

My only other quibble would be with your reference to "aggravating" pro-lifers. I feel pretty sure that for a woman undergoing a third-trimester abortion in Tiller's clinic, or a similar one, "aggravating pro-lifers" is way down the list of her motivations for being there.

But you've given me some food for thought, and I thank you.

551 The Left  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:24:38pm

re: #546 Dark_Falcon

I don't think do either. She attacks people for money. In that she has shown herself to be a mercenary at heart, attacking cruelly simply to sell more books.

That's what I've always thought about her too. I'm not sure she has any genuine convictions, apart from the principle that "If it will make money, say it!"

I think she could have just as easily taken a radical fringe left position on everything.

If she'd been coming to prominence now, in the era of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, I could see her being a leftie for money. But she entered the discourse at a time when people like Rush were where the money was at, that's all.

(I think in general the right still is where the real money is at for pundits though, right? Beck, Hannity, Rush, Coulter....)

552 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:25:52pm

re: #539 iceweasel

What about the dude who attacked Dan Rather and asked, "What's you frequency, Kenneth?"

Some things are not so cut and dry. Whom can we blame for that douche's behavior (although I could never convict because Rather's a vile creature). That's all I'm sayin', iceweasel. (Are you a hockey nut like me?)

It's 12:20 here in IL and I must water my vast tomatoe* garden.
hat tip: D Quayle

I'll check back in 30 min before I go to sleep.

553 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:28:27pm

re: #548 Arthur McGowan

I am shocked to see how many commenters here fail to recognize
We've done this over a dozen times. Have you read all 550+ comments? We get it. Some don't approve. No lack of humor/insight here.

Tomatoes. Gotta go.

554 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:29:13pm

re: #552 Abu Bin Squid

What about the dude who attacked Dan Rather and asked, "What's you frequency, Kenneth?"

Some things are not so cut and dry. Whom can we blame for that douche's behavior (although I could never convict because Rather's a vile creature). That's all I'm sayin', iceweasel. (Are you a hockey nut like me?)

It's 12:20 here in IL and I must water my vast tomatoe* garden.
hat tip: D Quayle

I'll check back in 30 min before I go to sleep.

The man who attack Rather was bark-at-the-moon crazy. Scott Roeder appears to have been quite sane. He did not murder George Tiller in the grips of psychosis, but out of religious convictions.

555 doubter4444  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:29:54pm

re: #543 SanFranciscoZionist

A big part of my reaction to this is that I think she's saying it for effect in cold blood. I don't actually believe that Ann Coulter gives a damn about children, unborn or born. If she were truly distraught about abortion, I might give her the benefit of the doubt. But I don't buy it. I just see this as another chance to bash strawman 'liberals' and get her fans het up.

Perhaps I misjudge her. I don't think so.

EXACTLY, which is why the "sarcasm" excuses ring very hollow.

556 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:32:44pm

re: #547 Abu Bin Squid

Thanks, Abu. Now I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I respect you and wish you well. I also very much appreciate the kind words.

557 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:34:09pm

re: #447 Abu Bin Squid

If someone raped you would you want to care for that child for the rest of your life? As a man it's impossible for me to emphasize with a raped pregnant woman. But since I can only sympathize it seems to me that would be an exception to my stance against abortion. The violation of being raped would push me to the brink of wanting to end my own existence.

My main point is adults wanting children should be the only ones "trying" to get pregnant. Far fetched, yes. Moral, indeed.

Moral? Moral to say that a child should be aborted because its father was a criminal? How is that moral?

Or is 'moral' here only a term that applies to women's sexual behavior?

558 legalpad  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:42:27pm

re: #550 ShanghaiEd

Some of us should be asleep, but I'll say just a couple more things: Sometimes the knee-jerk reaction to people that anger us and "reason" more emotionally than we do is to view them as dishonest. I have done this way too much in my life.

On the woman's decision to have a third trimester abortion: her motives certainly do not include interest in aggravating; Not the individual woman. But how such laws and consequent clinics structure the event is the issue. The point is not that someone is thinking about aggravating pro-lifers. They don't think about them at all. I was contrasting this with the fact that they think about Muslims, because they are afraid that the Muslims will kill people, and they do not believe they can stop them.

559 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:54:20pm

re: #557 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, let me expand that last, since I posted with anger and without a lot of thought.

I understand the desire to avoid abortion as much as possible, but yet to leave possibilities for situations when there may be no better solution.

What I cannot understand is the implication that rape or incest are somehow justifications for abortion when nothing else is. My perception, and I may be wrong, is that when such an 'exception' is made, the point is that the mother is innocent of 'wrongdoing', 'wrongdoing' here being defined as consensual intercourse.

Rape is horrible. So are a lot of other things that drive women to have abortions.

I also want to understand what people who envision rape as being a legal exception to a ban on abortion are envisioning. How does a woman prove her right to that abortion? Is physical harm necessary, as it was in the old days, when you'd better be beat up pretty good to convince a jury? What if the rapist is never found? What if he's aquitted? Can you still abort? These are not idle questions--under what circumstances does a woman get to decide whether to abort or not?

I sometimes misquote Churchill--letting a woman decide by herself, with what help she accepts, whether or not to have an abortion is the worst possible way to decide such a thing--except for all the other ways.

560 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 10:58:02pm

re: #559 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, let me expand that last, since I posted with anger and without a lot of thought.

I understand the desire to avoid abortion as much as possible, but yet to leave possibilities for situations when there may be no better solution.

What I cannot understand is the implication that rape or incest are somehow justifications for abortion when nothing else is. My perception, and I may be wrong, is that when such an 'exception' is made, the point is that the mother is innocent of 'wrongdoing', 'wrongdoing' here being defined as consensual intercourse.

Rape is horrible. So are a lot of other things that drive women to have abortions.

I also want to understand what people who envision rape as being a legal exception to a ban on abortion are envisioning. How does a woman prove her right to that abortion? Is physical harm necessary, as it was in the old days, when you'd better be beat up pretty good to convince a jury? What if the rapist is never found? What if he's aquitted? Can you still abort? These are not idle questions--under what circumstances does a woman get to decide whether to abort or not?

I sometimes misquote Churchill--letting a woman decide by herself, with what help she accepts, whether or not to have an abortion is the worst possible way to decide such a thing--except for all the other ways.

I do have answer to this but I ask the favor of posting it in the morning. I am tired and would like to answer after I have rested. I will remember to answer, since your point is very well made. Goodnight, all.

561 ShanghaiEd  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:14:42pm

re: #558 legalpad

Some of us should be asleep, but I'll say just a couple more things: Sometimes the knee-jerk reaction to people that anger us and "reason" more emotionally than we do is to view them as dishonest. I have done this way too much in my life...

For me, actually, the opposite is the case. Correctly or not, I tend to give people I don't know personally a lot of sincerity points for openly displaying emotion.

Which is something I've never seen Coulter do. Display anger, yes, at being questioned or criticized. But on all other subjects, including the 9/11 widows and abortion, there's an almost eerie matter-of-factness about her, even a hint of a smile at inappropriate times. The word "clinical" comes to mind, for some reason. If I ever saw her get emotional about unborn children, or any other topic supposedly close to her heart, I think I'd respect her a bit more than I do.

562 Abu Bin Squid  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 11:35:04pm

re: #554 Dark_Falcon
Roeder appears to be quite sane except for the fact he shot someone, anyone. What's the next meal after offing someone in cold blood without the law's consent?

This thread seemed to start on abortion. I'm against it. Roeder on the other hand should have an air bubble injected into his vein - on TV for all to witness.

The law is an ass. Yet it's the law.

563 Abu Bin Squid  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:02:32am

re: #559 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm impressed with the follow up. Few of us get it right for everyone the first time. I don't.

I envision honest women requesting abortions for real reasons. Apparently that's too much to ask from society. Any reason is "choice". (Ain't that Obama's word?)

I'm not trained to answer your legal questions, although abortion is federal law due to judicial fiat, not the result of state's ballots.

I believe caring people can resolve the destruction of the innocent among us. It wouldn't be easy. Safe to say $$$$$ would flow to rip their efforts to shreds. Planned Parenthood (what a b.s. name!) has massive resources and would hold any proposed change in court for decades.

564 amrafel  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:06:31am

Though I agree Coulter was being sarcastic, she did a lousy job of ensuring that all her listeners would catch the sarcasm. I almost missed it at first. Charles, I think that people who read the title of your post ("I don't think of it as a murder") but fail to click on the video will believe she truly meant what you implied. May I suggest adding an "update"?

565 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:22:09am

re: #327 spudly

BTW, if you can't take the painkilling drugs or anaesthesia, you're not up for the abortion, either (one of my wife's points).

Wrong; dilation and evacuation can be painlessly accomplished with a mild relaxation agent.

The 900lb gorilla of course remains the baby, regardless. At a certain point (albeit somewhat arbitrary) the baby matters. So the life of the mother might be at risk, but if one of the treatment modalities is killing the baby, the baby is certainly at risk. If you want to argue which life matters more, that strikes me as something you ask a judge, right? It's not objective, but subjective. Any medical argument might reasonably have to include both people, right? Say my brother needed a transplant from me or he might die. Unfortunately, the transplant is my heart, and if I give him mine, I WILL die. It is one thing for me to volunteer, it is another entirely for him to commandeer my heart.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled upon this matter, and affirmed its decision many times in the past 36 years. Babies are BORN; we're talking about, depending upon development, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus. But what we're NOT talking about is a present person, like we are when we're talking about the woman. And when the rights of an already present person come into conflict with the rights of a possible future person (and only possible, not potential, because fully a third of pregnancies are miscarried, or spontaneously aborted), the rights of the actual present person must take moral precedence in any just and sane universe.

Any answer to this question that is simplistic is almost certainly wrong, IMO. In either partisan direction.

The moderate sensible center position is to increase restrictions as the gestation procveeds, and this is indeed what Roe vs. Wade does.

I'm willing to be bitch-slapped into a different opinion by some lizard-physician of an appropriate (ie: surgical) specialty, too. As I said, I don't hold dogmatic positions, just those I consider reasonable with data at hand. :)

For instance, I'm sure you know what the different late term abortion procedures are, right?

566 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:54:51am

re: #542 Dark_Falcon

True, but it was well within the limits of free speech. You can make out a reasonable case that, legal or not, Tiller was a blood-money mercenary who killed fetuses that otherwise would have been born and lived productive lives. All that however, would never justify his murder. Murder is always a grave wrong, and you are right to say that Tiller was never found to have broken any laws.

Maybe some of the fetuses that Dr. Tiller aborted could have been born and lived productive lives. But at the cost of the death or permanent maiming of many of the women who carried them.

No one should have the right to demand that of those women. No one.

567 spiderx  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:05:49am

re: #131 patrickafir

I turn off O'Reilly when Ann Coulter is on. She's a joke, and I can't stand having people like her, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh putatively speaking for me. O'Reilly hasn't been cold-blooded about the murder of Tiller, though. He simply hasn't engaged in the hero worship – as opposed to sober factual analysis – that most other media commentators have defaulted to in their coverage of this crime. I respect him for that (even as I find him hypocritical vis-à-vis Hot Air blog comments) given how many liberal mouthpieces have blamed him personally for this act of cowardice by an anti-abortion loon.

O'reilly called Tiller, Tiller the baby killer over and over again and said Tiller was operating a death mill and warned of a judgement day.

O'reilly said of Tiller " he destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."..... "He's guilty of "Nazi stuff"......."This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union,"......"And if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius."

I'm curious why anyone would think that O'reilly is the victim here.

568 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:18:34am

re: #279 spudly

It was my understanding that the Kansas law allowed for the "health" which included mental health.

Nope. It's about severe and permanent damage to a woman's physical health.

I'm not a religious pro-lifer, but I think there is a point at which it is abhorrent. Lethal birth defects are obviously a special case, but the incidence of that (particularly those that only present after viability) has got to be exceedingly rare.

Yep, which is why, out of 6 million pregnancies a year, only a thousand late term abortions a year are necessary.

Gestational diabetes is a risk, but they screen for that, and even the few severe cases are mostly treatable. So while it might be legitimate, again, we're talking a fraction of 1% of pregnancies at most, and then the procedure to deliver is not particularly more invasive than the abortion.

That depends upon which procedure is employed, and the least intrusive one would be.

I'm fine with a medical panel as long as the docs are not "related" to the primary physician. That or things like the medical-legal panel we have here in NM that vets malpractice cases.

In the vast majority of cases referred to Dr. Tiller (or Dr. Reems or Dr. Carhart), the referring physician doesn't even live or practice in the same state.

I'm not dogmatic about it, but I think that being dogmatic that it is just fine until a nanosecond before birth is equally wrong-headed. In fact, I think that rules to severely limit late term abortions (defined as viability, plus some slop factor for late screening tests like gestational diabetes out to 28 weeks or so), but keep all before that would be approved of by the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation (I'm an Independent, in case you care ;) )

Late term abortions already ARE severely limited. Only one out of 6000 abortions is third trimester. And they're not being done just to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy; women who carry pregnancies that late into term rather than abort it in the 1st trimester when it would be cheaper and easier do so because they want a child, and they are almost always emotionally devastated that they can't have the one they're pregnant with and still preserve their lives or physical health.

569 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:30:16am

re: #286 Abu Bin Squid

Assholes have abortions. Self-absorbed vermin only do this to their children. Loving women would gladly give their lives to allow their babies to live. (rape/incest disclaimer understood, but that's 1/1,000,000%)

Assholes make comments like yours.

It takes tyrannical and dictatorial vermin to demand the power to tell women what they can and cannot decide concerning what happens with and within their own bodies.

Loving women, and their husbands, want the wife and mother to be around for her other children, both past and future. Only a coercive ghoul would endeavor to arrogate to himself the right to make such decisions for them.

And in response to another of your posts, sex can be about procreation and/or recreation, both within and without the bonds of matrimony. That's what contraception is for. But contraception sometimes fails, and when that happens, a woman should not be forced to carry to term a pregnancy she never intended, and took reasonable precautions to prevent.

570 EE  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:39:48am

Murdering people because you don't like their lawful activity is still murder. If your purpose is to change the law, then engage in political activity. Murder to change the law is still murder.

Ann Coulter appears to be whitewashing murder, and thereby supporting it. Coulter is encouraging murder to change the law and Coulter is encouraging murder because the murderer doesn't like someone's lawful activity.

571 JEA62  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:30:14am

And then conservatives wonder why people consider them angry, narrow-minded raging lunatics...

Just when I think my opinion of her can't get any lower, she opens her mouth and spouts something like this.

572 jamie  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:47:03am

re: #570 EE

Murdering people because you don't like their lawful activity is still murder. If your purpose is to change the law, then engage in political activity. Murder to change the law is still murder.

Ann Coulter appears to be whitewashing murder, and thereby supporting it. Coulter is encouraging murder to change the law and Coulter is encouraging murder because the murderer doesn't like someone's lawful activity.

You're right, of course, but Coulter's no dummy: she's keenly aware that no matter how repugnant and irresponsible her rhetoric, as long as she's an outrageous bomb thrower, she sells books. And Fox News is also aware that the epic confluence of douchebaggery that is Coulter and O'Reilly brings in viewers--not just the loyalists of these two oxygen thieves, but the morbidly curious, and the left who would ordinarily avoid Fox News, but would tune in to see to people they despise.

573 [deleted]  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 5:40:14am
574 krkrawiec  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:04:05am

Forgive me; late joiner and only scanned the 500 comments.

Unless I missed it, it was not pointed out that she was specifically applying Mario Cuomo's justification for supporting abortion despite his professed Catholicism. While the application can be justifiably deemed crude and over-the-top, I contend that the demonstation that a principle does not universally apply is a legitimate method to refute it's validity as a principle. This has been a standard arrow in her quiver (albeit with a barbed head), and should be a tool for anyone who seeks to rationally analyze an argument.

575 charpete67  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:08:26am

re: #568 Salamantis

Salamantis...you've got your talking points down pat...

you're really smart and pro-life people must be really stupid...I think I'm changing my mind...

576 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:35:56am

re: #479 ShanghaiEd

I don't disagree at all. Very natural, to be empathetic to anyone who is the victim of a crime. But it's an emotional reaction, not a logical one. And to me, it has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.

My sore spot is people who maintain that (a) abortion is murder, unless (b) the mother is a crime victim, and would legislate that idea of "morality" for all people to follow, under penalty of law. Because that's nowhere near reasonable or logical. Do you agree?

Sorry I was passing out at the keyboard last night and it was kinda slow. Looks like things picked up a bit!

Yes, I agree. I didn't see your point before and now I'm with ya.

577 legalpad  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:40:55am

re: #561 ShanghaiEd

For me, actually, the opposite is the case. Correctly or not, I tend to give people I don't know personally a lot of sincerity points for openly displaying emotion.

Which is something I've never seen Coulter do. Display anger, yes, at being questioned or criticized. But on all other subjects, including the 9/11 widows and abortion, there's an almost eerie matter-of-factness about her, even a hint of a smile at inappropriate times. The word "clinical" comes to mind, for some reason. If I ever saw her get emotional about unborn children, or any other topic supposedly close to her heart, I think I'd respect her a bit more than I do.


Some of us should be asleep, but I'll say just a couple more things: Sometimes the knee-jerk reaction to people that anger us and "reason" more emotionally than we do is to view them as dishonest. I have done this way too much in my life...

Maybe that's simpler. I think your assessment of Ann Coulter as dishonest is unqualified. You may be looking for some way to condemn her because you don't like her. And evaluating emotions is tough. More disciplined or even more inhibited people get hung easier because they don't "display" their emotions. It's no more a valid way to assess honesty/dishonesty than evaluating someone's IQ by watching them be interviewed by Katy Couric. Ann Coulter can be wrong or right in spite of her style, just like Michael Moore, or Perez Hilton.

What I don't agree with is this apparent tendency to sort of bandwagon varying degrees of dislike for an individual and substitute it for making a specific point. This may not be what someone intends, but it may have that effect. The extreme case is what the left did with George W. Bush. Many would categorize people they meet by whether they liked George W. Bush or not. I see the same thing done with many "controversial" personalities. I think Ann does have a deliberate style. I wouldn't pick her if I wanted to persuade somebody. I think her methods are ultimately counterproductive. I am no where near thinking I can judge her as honest or dishonest. I just think some of her ideas are silly, a result of her emotions; her views on evolution for example. I have lived many years with people with her views and "matter of fact" style. They do have emotions, the primary of which is fear, and a desperate need to have the universe be a certain way. Of course, you are free to respect or disrespect anyone you want, as am I.

578 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:18:47am

re: #575 charpete67

GAZE

579 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:26:43am

re: #200 Salamantis

re: #200 Salamantis

Your examples are the usual vacuities, that ignore the point of the anti-abortion point of view, in favor of making them seem like simple authoritarians. To an anti-abortioni9st, a fetus is a person, who is forced to die. So one can answer your vacuities in kind:

e.g.

"Don't like gay sex? Don't have it!" But don't demand that gays stop having it.

This ignores the point that gay sex is betwen consenting adults. Abortion is not between consenting adults. Perhaps that is a revelation to you, but its true. One could as easily (and as inappropriately) say that the equivalent parallel is: Don't like pedophilia? Don't have it! But just don't demand that kids not be forced into it! see? Pretty vacuous, no?

See, the point is that with abortion, it isn't just one garden that is being tended: to many people it is it is two, and there is no objective way of declaring that it is only one. You really need to grow up and realise this: it is a fact.

580 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:29:04am

Dang. PIMF.

re: #200 Salamantis

Your examples are the usual vacuities, that ignore the point of the anti-abortion point of view, in favor of making them seem like simple authoritarians. To an anti-abortioni9st, a fetus is a person, who is forced to die. So one can answer your vacuities in kind:

e.g.

"Don't like gay sex? Don't have it!" But don't demand that gays stop having it.

This ignores the point that gay sex is betwen consenting adults. Abortion is not between consenting adults. Perhaps that is a revelation to you, but its true. One could as easily (and as inappropriately) say that the equivalent parallel is: Don't like pedophilia? Don't have it! But just don't demand that kids not be forced into it! see? Pretty vacuous, no?

See, the point is that with abortion, it isn't just one garden that is being tended: to many people it is it is two, and there is no objective way of declaring that it is only one. You really need to grow up and realise this: it is a fact.

581 Land Shark  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:33:41am

Sadly, there are people on my side, the pro-life side, agree with Coulter and don't think of the murder of an abortion provider as murder. An absurd notion, IMHO. Given some of Coulter's recent whacko comments, I'm not surprised she's of that ilk.

It is interesting though to read through threads like this and see how they become a debate on abortion. Having gone through more than my share of them in "real life", I've come to the conclusion they are mostly futile. Minds will rarely be changed. That's why I don't get into them. Those who believe in abortion don't believe a fetus is a human being deserving of rights, those of us on the opposing side believe it is. That seems to the basic "fault line" of the argument to me.

582 noahsatellite  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:35:52am

re: #459 keithgabryelski

I don't disagree with what you're saying. In fact, I could probably be called a murderer by some on the far right for my beliefs which, being Jewish, are that the mother's life comes before the fetus'. I certainly don't believe in any moral equivalency garbage.

Anne Coulter's words remind me of the people who wore dying-from-a-stingray-sting costumes on the Halloween after Steve Irwin's death: very bad taste. However, I still believe that they were said in jest. I think Charles' analysis was a bit overboard because he seems to imply that she's perfectly serious.

583 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:37:05am

While her comments will be taken out of context to beat on all Pro-Unborn Life, Republicans and Conservatives, Coulter was clearly being sarcastic when she said "Tiller was terminated in the 209th trimester" and "While I personally oppose shooting abortionists, I don't want to impose my personal beliefs on anyone. If you don't want to shoot an abortionist, don't shoot an abortionist."

Yes, I understand she's giving ammunition to the Pro-Abortion Choice folks. And her comments will be used by the left to demonize the right. But, I respect her boldness. She's expecting outrage over her comments. She's clearly equating Tiller to the unborn children he aborted and sarcastically using Pro-Abortion Choice rhetoric to "justify" his murder. She even explained her point right after she made her comments.

That is Coulter's standard operating procedure and, yes, why she sells books. Her excessive lack of political correctness strikes a chord with a lot of people. I realize that defending Coulter is unpopular around here, but I think we're being a little too reactionary when we rush to condemn her well-known schtick.

584 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:43:49am

re: #580 Hhar

To answer your insulting post, let me first say that you have not been paying attention to what Salamantis has been saying on these forums. He has acknowledged at all times that the fetus is more than nothing and he has repeatedly articulated a policy that would limit abortion to progressing degrees during then 2nd and 3rd trimesters. His words on this topic have always been mature and considered. The same cannot be said of your words.

585 Charpete67  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:50:07am

re: #581 Land Shark

exactly

those who don't believe a fetus is a life will make arguments about rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.

those who believe it is a life are portrayed as cold, uncaring and "sharia like" because they draw analogies between humans before they are born and after.

pro-life is not PC...the left tends to use Coulter and the idiot who murdered Tiller as a way to demonize anyone who is pro-life. They need to understand that the vast majority of pro-life people are non violent whacko's...they simply believe that the fetus is a person and we shouldn't kill that person. I also believe the same is true for the vast majority of pro-choice people...there are many polls that say that the majority of people would not have an abortion themselves, but do not want to make that decision for someone else...thus, not pro-abortion, but pro-choice.

586 Charpete67  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:55:33am

re: #584 Dark_Falcon

as long as you agree with Salamantis...his views are measured...

arguing about abortion is pointless. still pointless...

587 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:56:25am

re: #584 Dark_Falcon

If Salamantis' views are all that you say, then he would not vacuously compare abortion to gay sex. If that is a mature and considered opinion, I leave you to it. I consider it is a viscious slander.

Some people hide behind masks of apparent reason: they speak the words of reason, and trumpet it as their highest goal, but in the end, reason is only a servant to their prejudices, no matter how pleasing their prejudices may seem.

588 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:00:20am

re: #587 Hhar

If Salamantis' views are all that you say, then he would not vacuously compare abortion to gay sex. If that is a mature and considered opinion, I leave you to it. I consider it is a viscious slander.

Some people hide behind masks of apparent reason: they speak the words of reason, and trumpet it as their highest goal, but in the end, reason is only a servant to their prejudices, no matter how pleasing their prejudices may seem.

There are people like that but Sal is not one them.

589 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:04:09am

re: #580 Hhar

I think there's something terribly wrong with ascribing human rights of a living, breathing child who is being sexually violated by an adult (pedophila) as EQUAL to the rights of a fetus in 3 months gestation. The law, in fact, does not ascribe them equally and it's just as sensationalistic to do so as Coulter is doing so.

590 bobbuck  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:05:08am

re: #308 sngnsgt

Thanks, I didn't even get a chuckle at the NOW meeting.

591 horse  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:10:04am

re: #573 Dudley Earnest

Ann Coulter is brilliant. She never fails to awaken the "moderate" slugs who drowse in their comfortable world of incremental, non-reversible compromise. These are the same slugs who are starting to think that "...maybe some of Obama's ideas are ok..." and "abortion should be free and legal, but not encouraged".

For all you poor slobs desperately trying to find the middle of the road; there ain't any. Sorry.

Best Regards,

e

.::.

I am against abortion and the proactive killing of adults. I think I'll stay in the middle of this road rather than advocate for any group that would proactively support destroying life. The only awakening moderates heard was the chilling message it is sometimes ok to proactively kill adults, a Pandora's box if there ever was one. The "moderate" masses will not be siding with Coulter, thankfully.

592 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:18:47am

re: #588 Dark_Falcon

That's your judgement. It isn't mine.

Lets focus on his words. Do you think it is reasonable to compare gay sex to abortion? Do you think "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" is anything other than a vacuous, horrible slogan? Lets go further: do you think that such slogans do any good, or serve any constructive purpose outside echo-chambers, quasi cults and group hugs?

re: #589 American Sabra

think there's something terribly wrong with ascribing human rights of a living, breathing child who is being sexually violated by an adult (pedophila) as EQUAL to the rights of a fetus in 3 months gestation. The law, in fact, does not ascribe them equally and it's just as sensationalistic to do so as Coulter is doing so.

I agree, but it is also inappropriate to firstly compare consensual sex to abortion (from just about anyone's POV) , and second of all inappropriate to say that sex and murder are morally comparable (from an antiabortionists viewpoint). Conflating evils is vacuous and dangerous. That's what Salamantis did. I'm calling him on it.

593 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:20:21am

I guess I didn't kill this thread after all.

594 horse  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:24:21am

re: #593 medaura18586

I guess I didn't kill this thread after all.

Perhaps you should have tried murdering it instead. :)

595 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:25:19am

re: #594 horse

Perhaps you should have tried murdering it instead. :)

I tried aborting it... same thing to some people.

596 princetrumpet  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:26:28am

Just saw this, so, not wishing to slog through 523 comments, forgive me if this is covered ground... how is it possible to miss the intentional irony and sarcasm in her statement? She's trying to sound like a pro-abortion type defending Tiller's profession. Is Coulter really such an intellectual giant that the crew from this site missed that?

597 leereyno  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:29:19am

I'm pretty sure she is being sarcastic.

The is parroting the "moral relativism" of the nihilistic multiculturalists, and may even be doing this in the hope that the lefties will have themselves a hissy-fit over it, at which point she can point out their duplicity.

598 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:29:56am

re: #597 leereyno

Ain't she clever...

599 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:30:30am

re: #559 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, let me expand that last, since I posted with anger and without a lot of thought.

I understand the desire to avoid abortion as much as possible, but yet to leave possibilities for situations when there may be no better solution.

What I cannot understand is the implication that rape or incest are somehow justifications for abortion when nothing else is. My perception, and I may be wrong, is that when such an 'exception' is made, the point is that the mother is innocent of 'wrongdoing', 'wrongdoing' here being defined as consensual intercourse.

Rape is horrible. So are a lot of other things that drive women to have abortions.

I also want to understand what people who envision rape as being a legal exception to a ban on abortion are envisioning. How does a woman prove her right to that abortion? Is physical harm necessary, as it was in the old days, when you'd better be beat up pretty good to convince a jury? What if the rapist is never found? What if he's aquitted? Can you still abort? These are not idle questions--under what circumstances does a woman get to decide whether to abort or not?

I sometimes misquote Churchill--letting a woman decide by herself, with what help she accepts, whether or not to have an abortion is the worst possible way to decide such a thing--except for all the other ways.

I remembered that I still owned you an answer to this post.

The Rape or Incest Exception serves three purposes:

1. It does not force a woman to go through the devastating trauma of carrying to term a child she was forced to conceive. Such a trauma could well ruin her for life and it should be her decision on whether to endure it.

2. If the past is a guide, many women facing that circumstance will get an abortion, whatever the law says. In this case, I find it wise to keep abortion legal to prevent deaths and injuries from illegal abortions.

3. It prevents men from forcing a woman to bear their child. Salamantis has told us of a case where a man impregnated his own daughter and then tried to force her to carry the fetus to term. The exception helps prevent vile men like him from imposing their designs on others.

600 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:31:53am

Satire, hyperbole, rhetorical or offensive comments. Call Coulter's comments what you want.
Imagine if someone had put this on a bumper sticker...

"I am morally opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't impose my morality on someone else"

or

"If you're against abortion, don't have one"

Would these comments have the same measure of satire, hyperbole, rhetoric, or offense as Coulter's? Just asking.

601 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:35:35am

and one more thing...

I think Coulter won this one. She got people talking and debating about her comments on this thread for two days now.

602 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:36:36am

re: #592 Hhar

re: #592 Hhar

That's your judgement. It isn't mine.

Lets focus on his words. Do you think it is reasonable to compare gay sex to abortion? Do you think "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" is anything other than a vacuous, horrible slogan? Lets go further: do you think that such slogans do any good, or serve any constructive purpose outside echo-chambers, quasi cults and group hugs?

re: #589 American Sabra

I agree, but it is also inappropriate to firstly compare consensual sex to abortion (from just about anyone's POV) , and second of all inappropriate to say that sex and murder are morally comparable (from an antiabortionists viewpoint). Conflating evils is vacuous and dangerous. That's what Salamantis did. I'm calling him on it.

Well, I happen to agree with him and his analogies AND the statement, “You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” Abortion is more than a POV. It's a legal right. If you would rather give your child up for adoption, that’s legal also. That is what that statement means. I don’t see any other meaning.

Gay sex is also legal in this country if you want to have it. Well in most states I think LOL I don’t think there’s any gay people in Alabama, however :p

Salamantis is trying to make the analogies that these are legal, adult decisions and they are. Since a 3 month fetus in gestation does not have the same rights as a living child, they make absolute sense.

603 winemaker  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:40:16am

Charles,

Arab apologists photoshop pictures to make a political point. It is not credible, as you often point out.

You sorta did a faux-to-shop on Ann's quote. "This random nut who shot Tiller, I don't really like to think of it as murder, it was terminating someone in the 203rd trimester."

C'mon, Charles. Humor attempt. You can trash Ann for deigning to use a murder as the pivot for a political satire regarding the vocabularly used by those in the abortion debate, but don't faux-to-shop here quote. You have big credibility for calling out these sorts of visual misrepresentations; don't ride the slippery slope on promoting it as to selective quote-hatcheting of your foes (like Ann).

That is all.


-Winemaker

604 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:42:50am

re: #598 medaura18586

Based strictly on the down-ding you gave me and your comment #136 and nothing else, I'd have to say you're a pretty dense person.

605 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:47:44am

I have had the pleasure of witnessing a great many internet forum trolls who are funnier, more subtle, more offensive, and more skilled at intentionally using every logical fallacy in the book to turn their every troll attempt up to 11 and keep it there. Yet somehow, only she has managed to turn 2nd rate trolling into a million-dollar career. I contend that her success says a lot more about her audience than about her.

606 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:48:30am

re: #604 happycamper

Based strictly on the down-ding you gave me and your comment #136 and nothing else, I'd have to say you're a pretty dense person.

And I would say that you are wrong. There is a large moral and legal gap between preforming an abortion, and committing cold-blooded murder. Leave out the insults and arguments ad hominum.

607 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:49:16am

re: #605 negativ

I have had the pleasure of witnessing a great many internet forum trolls who are funnier, more subtle, more offensive, and more skilled at intentionally using every logical fallacy in the book to turn their every troll attempt up to 11 and keep it there. Yet somehow, only she has managed to turn 2nd rate trolling into a million-dollar career. I contend that her success says a lot more about her audience than about her.

It says a lot about both, and what it says is not good.

608 Enkidu90046  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:59:09am

I have yet to hear a response from those who think of abortion as murder that should be outlawed as to why they would permit an exception in the case of rape or incest.

If a fetus is a human being and to kill that fetus is murder, why is it any less a human being or not murder because the fetus was the product of rape or incest?

If a baby is born who was the product of rape or incest would it be okay to kill that baby? Obviously the answer is no, once the baby is born. So why is it any different before the baby is born? Obviously it must be because there is some difference between a fetus and a baby in your minds that makes it murder to kill in one instance, but not in the other.

As I have said before (and has been mentioned by others here), if you call abortion "murder" but think that an exception should be made for rape or incest, your position is internally inconsistent.

609 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:59:54am

re: #602 American Sabra

re: #602 American Sabra

re: #592 Hhar


Well, I happen to agree with him and his analogies AND the statement, “You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” Abortion is more than a POV. It's a legal right. If you would rather give your child up for adoption, that’s legal also. That is what that statement means. I don’t see any other meaning.

And that is precisely the problem:you can't see any other meaning. But a signal that means something to you means something to other people that is different: you may agree that the only party whose consent or lack of consent matters is the mother, but that is not how opponents of abortion view it, nor even how people who are willing to live with abortion simply because it is the least unhealthy alternative see it. Its simply a slogan. If you think abortion is an evil, even if you think it is a necessary one, simply saying "don't have one!" does nothing to address the evil. It reduces it to a single actor affair (the mother) where in reality, it is a four part affair (mother, father, fetus, and whoever erforms the abortion). It trivialises what is usually a trauma. If you are comfortable with all that, well, that's your privilege.

Now, most gays I know do nt view consensual sex as a trauma. Most do not view it as as sad event. They seem to enjoy it.


Gay sex is also legal in this country if you want to have it. Well in most states I think LOL I don’t think there’s any gay people in Alabama, however :p

I agree its legal. I agree the state has no business outlawing it. I do not agree that its participants generally regard it as a process to be avoided. Do you?

Salamantis is trying to make the analogies that these are legal, adult decisions and they are. Since a 3 month fetus in gestation does not have the same rights as a living child, they make absolute sense.

They are legal adult decisions, except (in the case of abortion) they are about a non-consenting party. These comparisons do not take into account the fundamental power inmbalances between the parties involved that are at the heart of any sane discussion of the topic. One might as well say "Don't like Sharia' family law? Don't be a Muslim!"

610 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:01:17am

re: #604 happycamper

Based strictly on the down-ding you gave me and your comment #136 and nothing else, I'd have to say you're a pretty dense person.

Anyone would have to be a drooling babbling moron to disagree with your inane moral equivocation of murder with abortion (# 600), and your view that Coulter has done herself any good by her disgusting remarks.

Oh, and I would have to say that strictly based on your missing my catching of Coulter's botched attempt at "sarcasm" via "turning the tables," from reading my #136, you're a pretty dense person.

It was very clear to me what she was trying to do. It was also crystal clear that she failed at it, miserably, thus my doubting of her motivation for even trying.

611 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:12:35am

re: #610 medaura18586

It was very clear to me what she was trying to do. It was also crystal clear that she failed at it...

Logical fallacy. If you clearly understand her message, then she did not fail to send it.

612 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:13:12am

re: #606 Dark_Falcon

And I would say that you are wrong. There is a large moral and legal gap between preforming an abortion, and committing cold-blooded murder. Leave out the insults and arguments ad hominum.

I agree with you on that. But I thought this thread was about Coulter's comments and the responses from it, and it was in that context that my comments were intended.

"Large moral and legal gap" is true, but I'm not even arguing any of these. Legally speaking, there is no room for argument. The courts have decided that issue. Morally speaking however, Coulter's comments and the quotes I used in my post #600 are the EXACT moral equivalent. That's the only point I was making.

If people are going to feign "offense" to what Coulter said (whether you dislike her or not), then at least be consistent an admit that the slogan "If you're against abortion don't have one" is equally offensive.

Down-ding for #600 was unfair in my opinion. Down-ding for #604 was fair and I apologize to medaura for what I said and take it back. I'm sorry.

613 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:15:57am

re: #608 Enkidu90046

re: #608 Enkidu90046

I have yet to hear a response from those who think of abortion as murder that should be outlawed as to why they would permit an exception in the case of rape or incest.

If a fetus is a human being and to kill that fetus is murder, why is it any less a human being or not murder because the fetus was the product of rape or incest?

If a baby is born who was the product of rape or incest would it be okay to kill that baby? Obviously the answer is no, once the baby is born. So why is it any different before the baby is born? Obviously it must be because there is some difference between a fetus and a baby in your minds that makes it murder to kill in one instance, but not in the other.

As I have said before (and has been mentioned by others here), if you call abortion "murder" but think that an exception should be made for rape or incest, your position is internally inconsistent.


This is not entirely true. In cases of rape and incest, there is a real and substantial danger of permanent harm or death (via suicide, or attempted self induced abortion) to the mother, even without pregnancy. From a strictly medical point of view, pregnancy consequent to either elevates the risk substantially, and is viewed by some ethicists as equivalent to abortion for maternal medical reasons (e.g. cardiovascular disease). In other words: in routuine medical practice, it is viewed as acceptable if a pregnancy is interrupted to save the life of the mother, and such a procedure is done with the consent of the mother only (IOW, a maother may not view herself as in sufficient danger, or may not agree that her danger is sufficient to justify the termination).

Note that this has nothing to do with the morality of the father, or the mother, or anything. It is an (in principle) striaghtforward, albeit subjective, weighing of relevant physical risks.

614 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:20:15am

re: #610 medaura18586

I'm sorry for my comment about you and take it back.

However, I am in no way equating murder with abortion in #600. That wasn't my intent and apologize if it came off that way. I was only equating Coulter's comments with those made from the other side. Strictly speaking, the hyperbole of both sides are exactly morally equivalent. That's all.

615 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:21:01am

The excuse that she was being "humorous" has been dealt with over and over and over in this thread, and still we have people popping in to tell us how stupid we are for "not getting it."

I "get it." Coulter was doing her usual "turning the tables" schtick. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

But I do not buy it.

616 tveitskog  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:26:01am

re: #7 Big Steve

Coulter gets death threats all the time.

617 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:27:07am

re: #609 Hhar

Let's get down to brass tacks. A women's body, a woman's choice. Whomever's input she considers, still her choice. When men start having babies, it will be their choice. In fact, I've mentioned that before too. If men had babies, abortion would be legal for a full 9 month gestation. Someone else commented that if men had babies, the human race would have died out long ago. At any rate...

If abortion is abhorant to you, than make another decision for your unwanted pregnancy. Maybe said a little nicer? Meanwhile, it's legal if you want it.

As to gays:

I agree its legal. I agree the state has no business outlawing it. I do not agree that its participants generally regard it as a process to be avoided. Do you?

I have a lesbian friend who says that you're not gay until you've had gay sex. I had to chew on that awhile, but I've come to agree with her. The sex defines the gayness. Otherwise, I think you're just friends. So yes, you have to have gay sex to be gay. If, on the other hand, you're having a problem coming out of the closet for whatever reason, marry an opposite sex gender, have children and try to live a happy life. This is also a scenario that happens often (maybe less often as the years go on). But the choice is yours.

Not all Muslim adhere to Sharia law, btw. Not all Christians think the same, nor Jews think the same either.

No, the fetus is not a consenting party in the matter, but that's ok. The fetus is not yet human and does not have the rights the same as a human, which is the point of the pro-abortion folks. Children of varying ages have various rights. Younger than 18, over 18 and over 21. It's not an unusual thing.

618 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:27:11am

re: #611 NukeAtomrod

Logical fallacy. If you clearly understand her message, then she did not fail to send it.

She rhetorically failed to deliver. I understood what she was shooting for, but she fell abysmally short. When bad comedians make poor attempts at humor or sarcasm, the effect is cringe inducing, although almost anyone can see what they are aiming for. It doesn't make their attempts successful. In Coulter's case, she verged on the grotesque.

619 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:30:28am

re: #612 happycamper

I agree with you on that. But I thought this thread was about Coulter's comments and the responses from it, and it was in that context that my comments were intended.

"Large moral and legal gap" is true, but I'm not even arguing any of these. Legally speaking, there is no room for argument. The courts have decided that issue. Morally speaking however, Coulter's comments and the quotes I used in my post #600 are the EXACT moral equivalent. That's the only point I was making.

If people are going to feign "offense" to what Coulter said (whether you dislike her or not), then at least be consistent an admit that the slogan "If you're against abortion don't have one" is equally offensive.

Down-ding for #600 was unfair in my opinion. Down-ding for #604 was fair and I apologize to medaura for what I said and take it back. I'm sorry.

Sorry but I cannot concur. There is no moral equivalence between the two slogans. Both miss the point but that is all the pro-choice slogan does. What Coulter said diminishes the gravity of what Scott Roeder did. He decided to usurp the powers granted to people through the representatives and courts and end George Tiller's performance of abortions himself. In so doing he also violated Tiller's right to life, which per the Constitution is not to be done without due process. Scott Roeder did not just murder George Tiller, he also tried to take away the rights of us all. Ann Coulter's words showed a shocking callousness to those facts and I condemned her on that basis.

620 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:36:36am

re: #618 medaura18586

She rhetorically failed to deliver. I understood what she was shooting for, but she fell abysmally short. When bad comedians make poor attempts at humor or sarcasm, the effect is cringe inducing, although almost anyone can see what they are aiming for. It doesn't make their attempts successful. In Coulter's case, she verged on the grotesque.

It's grotesque because she's asking us to laugh about making excuses for walking up to a doctor, in a church, and shooting him in the head.

When she says "it was an abortion very late in the 3rd trimester," you'll have to excuse me when I don't see the humor.

621 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:39:32am

re: #620 Charles

It's grotesque because she's asking us to laugh about making excuses for walking up to a doctor, in a church, and shooting him in the head.

When she says "it was an abortion very late in the 3rd trimester," you'll have to excuse me when I don't see the humor.

Quite concur.

622 enoughalready  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:40:10am

Hmmm. As far as rethoric goes that was some really weak shit if you ask me.

And for the record

If you don't want to perform [legal act], then don't

is NOT equal to

If you don't want to perform [illegal act], then don't

On the other hand Ann Coulter is an asshat. Far too many conservative pundits are and pander to a demographic that really isn't core conservative voters. That needs to stop.

623 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:44:01am

re: #618 medaura18586

Michael Richards failed when he was attempting to deal with hecklers. Even if he wasn't trying to be racist, there was no way to determine it from what he was saying.

Ann Coulter succeeded in making her point. The very fact that we would all be horribly offended if we believed her statements were not disingenuous continues to drive home her point. You are supposed to be offended. And you are then supposed to make the connection to abortion.

If you can't or won't make the connection, then your only recourse is to assume that Coulter is serious. She understands this and is willing to take the criticism, because she thinks you're an idiot if you don't get it and because it's good for book sales.

624 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:49:10am

re: #622 enoughalready

Hmmm. As far as rethoric goes that was some really weak shit if you ask me.

And for the record

If you don't want to perform [legal act], then don't

is NOT equal to

If you don't want to perform [illegal act], then don't

On the other hand Ann Coulter is an asshat. Far too many conservative pundits are and pander to a demographic that really isn't core conservative voters. That needs to stop.

If your morality is based on what is currently legal, then how do you make new laws?

625 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:50:33am

re: #620 Charles

Charles, I respectfully disagree.
I really don't think Coulter was trying to be funny at all as much as she was trying to get "in their face" by being provacative (and provacative she was). I personally didn't think her comments were funny. But she did piss-off a lot of people who she believes to be her critics and/or opposition, and I think that's what she was trying to do, and succeeded in doing so.

626 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 9:51:57am

re: #617 American Sabra

Let's get down to brass tacks. A women's body, a woman's choice. Whomever's input she considers, still her choice. When men start having babies, it will be their choice. In fact, I've mentioned that before too. If men had babies, abortion would be legal for a full 9 month gestation. Someone else commented that if men had babies, the human race would have died out long ago. At any rate...

If abortion is abhorant to you, than make another decision for your unwanted pregnancy. Maybe said a little nicer? Meanwhile, it's legal if you want it.

As to gays:


I have a lesbian friend who says that you're not gay until you've had gay sex. I had to chew on that awhile, but I've come to agree with her. The sex defines the gayness. Otherwise, I think you're just friends. So yes, you have to have gay sex to be gay. If, on the other hand, you're having a problem coming out of the closet for whatever reason, marry an opposite sex gender, have children and try to live a happy life. This is also a scenario that happens often (maybe less often as the years go on). But the choice is yours.

Not all Muslim adhere to Sharia law, btw. Not all Christians think the same, nor Jews think the same either.

No, the fetus is not a consenting party in the matter, but that's ok. The fetus is not yet human and does not have the rights the same as a human, which is the point of the pro-abortion folks. Children of varying ages have various rights. Younger than 18, over 18 and over 21. It's not an unusual thing.


Can't see the brass tacks until your last paragraph, so I'll deal with that. Saying the fetus is not human is a straightforward empirical error. Of course it is human. I think you likely meant person. That aside, where a child's health is in danger, the state will often intervene against its parents. If you are trying to say that a fetus is like a child with fewer rights, you have defeated your own argument, because if its rights are limited in the same way that a child's are, then the state should intervene against the mother to prevent the mother from harming its health.

Clearly you are not trying to argue that. At the heart of any discussion of abortion are two opposing interests: the mother and the unborn child. Simply saying that the unborn child has no rights at all is both arguing by simple assertion and simply wrong in some jurisdictions. Courts have intervened many times against mothers who refuse appropriate care for unborn children. So simply saying that it is "ok" that a fetus has no part in consent is not really presenting an argunment.

627 Enkidu90046  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 10:15:01am

re: #613 Hhar

re: #608 Enkidu90046


This is not entirely true. In cases of rape and incest, there is a real and substantial danger of permanent harm or death (via suicide, or attempted self induced abortion) to the mother, even without pregnancy. From a strictly medical point of view, pregnancy consequent to either elevates the risk substantially, and is viewed by some ethicists as equivalent to abortion for maternal medical reasons (e.g. cardiovascular disease). In other words: in routuine medical practice, it is viewed as acceptable if a pregnancy is interrupted to save the life of the mother, and such a procedure is done with the consent of the mother only (IOW, a maother may not view herself as in sufficient danger, or may not agree that her danger is sufficient to justify the termination).

Note that this has nothing to do with the morality of the father, or the mother, or anything. It is an (in principle) striaghtforward, albeit subjective, weighing of relevant physical risks.

Sorry, I am not buying this argument. If becoming pregnant due to rape or incest creates depression and a risk of suicide or significantly increases other health risks to the mother, then imagine what caring for a baby that has been born would do. So why is it okay to "murder" the fetus in but not okay to "murder" the baby after it is born?

Also, the stress of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term that is not the product of rape or incest might also create a huge negative impact on the health of the mother, including increased risk of suicide, risk of back-alley abortions, etc. Basically, all the "medical" risk factors that you use to support the notion that an exception should be made in the case of rape or incest also exist with an unwanted pregnancy.

And all of this ignores the basic inconsistency in the position: the fetus is either a baby or not, vested with the same rights as a baby that has been born or not. If killing a fetus is "murder," it is no less "murder" simply because the fetus was the product of rape -- it is just as much a human being as the fetus that was not.

The real reason I think has to do with a recognition (albeit unexpressed) that a fetus does not have the same rights as a baby that has been born. There is a balancing of competing interests, and a fetus carries less weight than a baby. Those that are against abortion but support an exception in the case of rape or incest really are saying this although they don't admit it, because to admit it means that they have to give more credence to the pro-abortion rights groups because both groups are balancing competing interests (and in both cases weighing the rights of a fetus to be less than a baby), they just use different relative weights of the competing interests.

The bottom line is that I think it is impossible to claim that abortion is murder but that there should be an exception in the cases of rape or incest without creating an inconsistent position.

628 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 10:26:16am

re: #617 American Sabra

Okay. Brass Tacks.

If men had babies, abortion would be legal for a full 9 month gestation.

This is a ridiculous canard. First, if men had babies, they would be women. Second, there are lots of negative consequences for a man if he gets a woman pregnant and she bears a child he does not want. The man, apparently, is the only one who is expected to live with the consequences of irresponsible actions. A pregnancy is created by two people, so why is only one of the two allowed to end it? If the other wants to end the pregnancy, why should that person be responsible for the results of not ending it?

The fetus is not yet human and does not have the rights the same as a human...

That is epic self-deception. When you start saying a fetus isn't alive, human, a person, a child you are just looking for some way to justify abortions. If you don't want an abortion, it's your baby in that belly. It's only a non-human fetus when you want it gone.

If those of you that are for abortions could just accept that the act kills a child, then I would be perfectly happy to allow you to go ahead and do it. It's the lies that I hate.

Let's face it. Condoms are completely effective, as long as they are used properly and don't have holes in them. If you aren't willing to have children, but you decide to have sex without a condom anyway, then get pregnant and decide to kill your child, you are very irresponsible. You aren't going to be a good parent anyway.

629 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 10:30:03am

re: #603 winemaker

Charles,

Arab apologists photoshop pictures to make a political point. It is not credible, as you often point out.

You sorta did a faux-to-shop on Ann's quote. "This random nut who shot Tiller, I don't really like to think of it as murder, it was terminating someone in the 203rd trimester."

C'mon, Charles. Humor attempt. You can trash Ann for deigning to use a murder as the pivot for a political satire regarding the vocabularly used by those in the abortion debate, but don't faux-to-shop here quote. You have big credibility for calling out these sorts of visual misrepresentations; don't ride the slippery slope on promoting it as to selective quote-hatcheting of your foes (like Ann).

That is all.

-Winemaker

The full video clip is right there in my post -- it's a little hard to accuse me of misrepresenting anything when anyone can watch it and see the full quotes. In any case, the full quotes don't change these ugly "jokes" at all.

630 Enkidu90046  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 10:39:56am

re: #628 NukeAtomrod

Let's face it. Condoms are completely effective, as long as they are used properly and don't have holes in them. If you aren't willing to have children, but you decide to have sex without a condom anyway, then get pregnant and decide to kill your child, you are very irresponsible. You aren't going to be a good parent anyway.

Yes, condoms NEVER break and other birth control methods NEVER fail.

631 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 10:54:33am

re: #630 Enkidu90046

Yes, condoms NEVER break and other birth control methods NEVER fail.

Yep. Condoms are pretty much completely effective. If the woman is on the pill too, an unwanted pregnancy is pretty much inconceivable. (Ha ha! A little conception joke there!)

632 enoughalready  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:12:40am

re: #624 NukeAtomrod

Weirdly enough by NOT KILLING PEOPLE.

633 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:18:20am

re: #563 Abu Bin Squid

I'm impressed with the follow up. Few of us get it right for everyone the first time. I don't.

I envision honest women requesting abortions for real reasons. Apparently that's too much to ask from society. Any reason is "choice". (Ain't that Obama's word?)

I'm not trained to answer your legal questions, although abortion is federal law due to judicial fiat, not the result of state's ballots.

I believe caring people can resolve the destruction of the innocent among us. It wouldn't be easy. Safe to say $$$$$ would flow to rip their efforts to shreds. Planned Parenthood (what a b.s. name!) has massive resources and would hold any proposed change in court for decades.

I don't think anything about PP is BS. I have used their services, and am impressed with their work and caring.

I'm not sure how to respond to you. I believe that most women choose abortion honestly, and for the reasons they believe are good. I may disagree with some of them. But I can't see my moral way to clear to seeing giving that choice to any other person.

634 Hhar  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:18:48am

re: #627 Enkidu90046

Something I should have addressed right off: "murder" is extrajudicial deliberate killing of people. It is by definition illegal. So if someone says abortion is murder, they are empirically in error in your country, whether or not they agree with the morality of abortion, simply because first trimester abortion is legal, in fact. So I am not trying to support the idea that most abortion is "murder": it is logically impossible to do so, and I apologise for not making that bit clear: that's my fault and I hope I haven't wasted your time. However, Lets put that aside, and I will simply try to present an arguable point of view that defines most abortion as immoral, and wrong, and SHOULD be illegal, but yet can sanction early abortion in rape or incest.


Sorry, I am not buying this argument. If becoming pregnant due to rape or incest creates depression and a risk of suicide or significantly increases other health risks to the mother, then imagine what caring for a baby that has been born would do.

It increases such risk substantially. That's the point.

So why is it okay to "murder" the fetus in but not okay to "murder" the baby after it is born?

Because, in general, if you have two lives, and one is assured and the other is not, and you have to make a choice, you pick the one that is assured.

Also, the stress of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term that is not the product of rape or incest might also create a huge negative impact on the health of the mother, including increased risk of suicide, risk of back-alley abortions, etc. Basically, all the "medical" risk factors that you use to support the notion that an exception should be made in the case of rape or incest also exist with an unwanted pregnancy.

Well, no, that's the point. Its an empirical fact that the risk of suicidal depression folowing rape or incest is higher than your general unwanted preganancy. Furthermore, abortions after rape or incest are not automatic: if the woman is suffering, and if the risk is substatial, then clearly that is different from the preganancy being unwanted in the usual sense. It is true that an unwanted preganancy can produce suicidal ideation (any pregnancy can), and in such a case, I agree that the preganancy termination could be supported using the argument I gave.

And all of this ignores the basic inconsistency in the position: the fetus is either a baby or not, vested with the same rights as a baby that has been born or not. If killing a fetus is "murder," it is no less "murder" simply because the fetus was the product of rape -- it is just as much a human being as the fetus that was not.


Now, the fetus may be seen to have rights, but that does not mean that it has equal rights with the mother. When you have two competing interests, rights and interests must be weighed relative to each other. Simply saying that the fetus has human rights does not mean that its interests will always ethically prevail, because its bond with the mother is too physiologically intimate to disregard the mother's rights.

The real reason I think has to do with a recognition (albeit unexpressed) that a fetus does not have the same rights as a baby that has been born.

But this position is implicit amoung some people who think elective first trimester abortions for social reasons are immoral killing of human beings. I agree it is not the position of (say) the Catholic Church, for example, but the Catholic Church does not (so far as I know) make an exception for rape or incest. (Catholics out there, correct me if I am wrong), but it is the position of many who think elective abortion should be restricted.

635 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:27:52am

re: #599 Dark_Falcon

I remembered that I still owned you an answer to this post.

The Rape or Incest Exception serves three purposes:

1. It does not force a woman to go through the devastating trauma of carrying to term a child she was forced to conceive. Such a trauma could well ruin her for life and it should be her decision on whether to endure it.

2. If the past is a guide, many women facing that circumstance will get an abortion, whatever the law says. In this case, I find it wise to keep abortion legal to prevent deaths and injuries from illegal abortions.

3. It prevents men from forcing a woman to bear their child. Salamantis has told us of a case where a man impregnated his own daughter and then tried to force her to carry the fetus to term. The exception helps prevent vile men like him from imposing their designs on others.

Thanks for answering. I understand the points you've made, and agree with them entirely. However, I don't think the points made are unique to rape or incest.

I suppose my confusion comes from the idea that rape or incest should be the sole non-medical reason to permit abortion, when abortion is considered wrong because it destroys a life. A life is a life.

I think this is probably what puts Ann and I on opposite sides of the fence. I am opposed to abortion in most cases, personally. But I can't imagine restricting abortion further than it currently is without enormous damage being done. So I remain pro-choice, and pray that we all choose wisely.

636 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:29:25am

re: #632 enoughalready

Killing people is already generally illegal, so I understand why you believe it is morally wrong. My question is: How do you decide to make something new illegal?

637 wkeller  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:39:28am

Perhaps a different perspective on abortionists:

364 day a year, 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour = 525,600 minutes per year.

1 MILLION abortions performed in the US per year

1.9 babies are killed per minute.

1.9 murders PER MINUTE.

Perhaps her snarkie turn of the words pro "choice" advocates use is justified?

Is killing a baby in the womb murder or is it simply "pro-choice".

Things that make you say hummmmmmmmmmmmm.

638 odorlesspaintthinner  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:49:02am

re: #48 nikis-knight

She's simply showing the inanity that some pro-choice arguements evidence if one would grant that human fetuses deserve some protection.
In other words, it's irony.


This is pretty much exactly the Obama & Clinton position, when the human being in question is still in utero.

Exactly. I got that on first reading.

When did folks here get so worried about policing the right and excusing the most leftist President ever?

"It's a madhouse! A mad---house!" -Taylor

639 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:50:29am

That bastard Johnathan Swift. He said we should EAT BABIES!

640 TheHardHat  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:12:32pm

Ann says a trillion-zillion mean things about the left and this is the best they can come up with? Please, millions of Americans think about killing abortionists every day. We don't say it out loud and we damn sure don't do it, but we fantasize about it.

So Ann is doing her job. Love her and hate you. Suck it abolitionists! Burn in hell!

641 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:42:43pm

re: #640 TheHardHat

I'm sure you'll be able to find a website that will let you "think about killing abortionists every day" to your heart's content. Try Free Republic.

But not here.

Bye now!

642 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 12:49:14pm

Ladies and gentlemen, Ann Coulter's audience.

643 Rev. Jim Sutter  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:01:46pm

No matter what you think about abortion, what part of "Thou shalt not kill" does Coulter not get?

Personally, I'm against elective abortion, (at least when used as birth control) but I recognize that it's the law, and we're required to obey the law. You won't find me demonstrating at clinics, threatening doctors, blocking sidewalks, or any of that stuff. Of course, I'm also against the death penalty (because it makes no sense and our current death penalty cases violate the biblical requirements for the DP.)

OMG! A centrist got on the list! Run for cover!

Personally, Charles, I rather like your direction over the past year or so, and I've given you props for it on my site. We don't agree on everything (how boring would that be?) but you're showing more common sense than any conservative I know.

644 medaura18586  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:02:18pm

re: #642 Charles

Nauseating!

645 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:04:34pm

I don't like Ann Coulter. I don't have any patience for shrill hypervenilating pundits regardless of their positions. Like Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh, I generally find it better to just ignore them rather than give them the publicity and attention they're after by disucssing their latest antics.

I only felt the need to comment on this one because it was immediately apparent to me what Coulter was getting at as soon as I read them, and I actually think it was kind of clever. (There's a first time for everything, I guess.) The fact that so many people on here clearly didn't is just embarassing.

646 ShanghaiEd  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:08:13pm

re: #640 TheHardHat

"Suck it, abolitionists"...abolitionists of what? You've lost me, here.

647 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:11:31pm

re: #646 ShanghaiEd

Hard Hat was a nut. Now he's gone. Good riddance.

648 Tully  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:43:41pm

re: #605 negativ

Yet somehow, only she has managed to turn 2nd rate trolling into a million-dollar career.

Al Franken's going to the Senate. Oh wait, he's 3rd rate...

649 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 1:47:21pm

re: #626 Hhar

Well the first part is my argument. It's a woman's choice. Period end of story. Legislate your ass away. She'll go into a back alley if she has to and risk her life.

I guess the words I was looking for is "not yet viable" instead of saying "not yet human." Sorry about that.

Neither did I mean to say that a non-viable fetus is a child with fewer rights either. It's not a child. It's tissue with potential to be a child. I'm really speaking about first trimester. I don't know my feelings beyond that because certainly if they child or mother is at risk, than abortion should be legal at any point. Secondly if the child is beyond the first trimester and is found to be severely disabled and the mother and/or father cannot afford or otherwise take care of such a child, they should also have the option of abortion. Which are the kind of abortions Tiller performed, I understand.

The fetus is not a consenting party and that's "ok" meaning that the mother speaks/makes decisions for her unborn child. I don't know the specific laws set forth in Roe v. Wade concerning the fetuses rights. Lynn B and Salamantis do. Both are very bright on this topic. Much more so than I.

650 American Sabra  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 2:06:51pm

re: #628 NukeAtomrod

Sorry to break it to ya darlin, but since we have the babies, we make the decision. We may consult you, whether you want it or don't want it, it really doesn't matter at the end of it all. Is that harsh? I could be kind and say we take your thoughts into consideration and certainly a woman has a moral obligation, not just to herself, but specifically to the child, to let the man know and be a part of the decisionmaking process. But in the end of it all, it's in her body and it's her decision.

I have little sympathy with men in this regard. Now, I've been a happily married woman for 10 years (no children, a few miscarriages). I married late in life and was single for many years. I dated more men than I could possibly remember and I'd say oh... maybe 95% of them wanted sex within the first 3 dates. If not, they were out of there. When I was in my 20's it was pretty much a mutual thing, but as I seriously started to consider a mate, they still could care less and really wanted one thing. Any number of those encounters could have landed me pregnant and my guess is that they would have left skid marks at the door. So I have very little sympathy for a man when it comes to such things.

I don't hate men. I may be bitter, but I don't hate men!

651 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 2:23:43pm

re: #649 American Sabra

Well the first part is my argument. It's a woman's choice. Period end of story. Legislate your ass away. She'll go into a back alley if she has to and risk her life.

"People will do it anyway" is a ridiculous basis for an argument.

If it was something that people wouldn't do, you wouldn't need a law to specify the punishment for doing it.

Theft has been illegal for centuries in this country. Theft still happens. I don't think anyone would agree that we should therefore make it legal.

652 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 2:53:40pm

re: #650 American Sabra

Sorry to break it to ya darlin, but since we have the babies, we make the decision. We may consult you, whether you want it or don't want it, it really doesn't matter at the end of it all.

I doubt that anyone is arguing against this, from a practical standpoint.

At risk of using another metaphor, no one can stop me from getting drunk and going for a drive. I own the car and the alcohol, and I don't have to consult anyone else as to wether I should. But I would be breaking the law doing so - and rightly so, because it's generally accepted that me making the choice to drive drunk would affect other people, not just me.

653 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:11:00pm

And hey, if you don't agree with something I say, you could always respond with a reasoned arguement, instead of just clicking the minus button.

654 charpete67  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:15:40pm

re: #653 Genosaurer

If you're pro-life, you get a minus click on your post...if you're pro-choice, you get a plus no matter how you make your argument.

655 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:19:55pm

re: #580 Hhar

Dang. PIMF.

Your examples are the usual vacuities, that ignore the point of the anti-abortion point of view, in favor of making them seem like simple authoritarians. To an anti-abortionist, a fetus is a person, who is forced to die. So one can answer your vacuities in kind:

In the US, according to the Supreme Court, a fetus, zygote or embryo is not a person. Murder is the illegal killing of a person (legal killings of persons include in wartime or self-defence). You want an example of murder? Check out what Scott Roeder did to Dr. Tiller in his church in front of his wife.

e.g.

This ignores the point that gay sex is betwen consenting adults. Abortion is not between consenting adults. Perhaps that is a revelation to you, but its true. One could as easily (and as inappropriately) say that the equivalent parallel is: Don't like pedophilia? Don't have it! But just don't demand that kids not be forced into it! see? Pretty vacuous, no?

Abortion is also not between two people; only one person is involved - the woman. And she can decide for herself what happens with and within her own body, and should be able to. Pedophilia, otoh, is between an adult person and a born child person, who lacks the capacity for informed consent; hence, all instances of pedophilia are instances of statutory rape.

See, the point is that with abortion, it isn't just one garden that is being tended: to many people it is it is two, and there is no objective way of declaring that it is only one. You really need to grow up and realise this: it is a fact.

Actually, YOU need to grow up and accept the legal reality that the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue 36 years ago, and has affirmed that decision many times. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons. Thus, a woman who decides to terminate her pre-viability pregnancy is fully within her constitutional rights to do so, and those who interfere with her free exercise of those rights are acting in a criminal manner.

Individual morality does not trump a nation's laws, and when people trangress a nation's laws while acting in accordance with their individual moralities, they must bear the legal consequences of their crimes.

656 charpete67  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:29:39pm

re: #655 Salamantis

In the US, according to the Supreme Court, a fetus, zygote or embryo is not a person. Murder is the illegal killing of a person (legal killings of persons include in wartime or self-defence).

Actually, YOU need to grow up and accept the legal reality that the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue 36 years ago, and has affirmed that decision many times. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons.

not sure anyone was questioning the law, but there have been many people in our country's history that were not considered people, but good minded people stood up and changed the law. If Roe were over turned tomorrow, would you just lay down and accept it?

99% of pro-life people are just as outraged by Dr. Tiller's murder as they are by the murder of the unborn....it doesn't take the Supreme Court to tell me what's right and wrong.

657 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:34:18pm

re: #655 Salamantis

Actually, YOU need to grow up and accept the legal reality that the US Supreme Court ruled on this issue 36 years ago, and has affirmed that decision many times. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons. Thus, a woman who decides to terminate her pre-viability pregnancy is fully within her constitutional rights to do so, and those who interfere with her free exercise of those rights are acting in a criminal manner.

I wonder how that argument would look in, say, 1860.

"Slaves are not citizens. Thus, a man who chooses to treat other human beings as property is fully within his constitutional rights to do so, and those who interfere with his free exercise of those rights are acting in a criminal manner."

Huh, it sounds bad when it's put like that though.


re: #655 SalamantisIndividual morality does not trump a nation's laws, and when people trangress a nation's laws while acting in accordance with their individual moralities, they must bear the legal consequences of their crimes.

What are a nation's laws determined by, if not the individual morality of the legislators in accordance with the collective individual morality of their constituents?

658 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:35:30pm

re: #587 Hhar

If Salamantis' views are all that you say, then he would not vacuously compare abortion to gay sex. If that is a mature and considered opinion, I leave you to it. I consider it is a viscious slander.

Some people hide behind masks of apparent reason: they speak the words of reason, and trumpet it as their highest goal, but in the end, reason is only a servant to their prejudices, no matter how pleasing their prejudices may seem.

I mentioned gay sex and teaching creationism in public schools because they, in addition to abortion, are the three hot button religious right socon issues.

And the answer in all cases is the same: no one is forcing you to do it (engage in gay sex, have an abortion, teach evolution to your kids), and neither should you be forcing someone else not to do it.

It's called CHOICE. You have yours, they have theirs, and when your choices and their choices don't agree, that's what the fuck choice is all about; capiche?

Instead, you seem to be mounting some sort of (mean) spirited defence of the 'right' to coerce others into abiding by some folks' moral convictions, as if the intensity of those convictions, or the fact that many share them, grant them carte blanche to dictate their adherence by unwilling others. What's next; convert, submit, or die?

Good luck with that in a constitutional democracy./

659 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:42:33pm

re: #656 charpete67

not sure anyone was questioning the law, but there have been many people in our country's history that were not considered people, but good minded people stood up and changed the law. If Roe were over turned tomorrow, would you just lay down and accept it?

You have your civil rights direction confused. In both the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and Brown vs. Board of Education, and in the 19th Amendment and Roe vs. Wade, civil rights were expanded - in the first instance for noncaucasians, in the second cases for nonmales. To recriminalize abortion would be the equivalent of reinstating the Dred Scott decision.

99% of pro-life people are just as outraged by Dr. Tiller's murder as they are by the murder of the unborn....it doesn't take the Supreme Court to tell me what's right and wrong.

But apparently even the Supreme Court isn't enough for Scott Roeder. Or John Salvi. Or Paul Hill. Or Eric Robert Rudolph. Or James Kopp. Or Michael Griffin.

660 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:43:45pm

re: #657 Genosaurer

Check my post # 659.

661 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 3:53:16pm

re: #592 Hhar

That's your judgement. It isn't mine.

Lets focus on his words. Do you think it is reasonable to compare gay sex to abortion? Do you think "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" is anything other than a vacuous, horrible slogan? Lets go further: do you think that such slogans do any good, or serve any constructive purpose outside echo-chambers, quasi cults and group hugs?

Actually, it is quite reasonable; you make your legal choices, and I'll make mine, but don't tell me what legal choices I can and cannot make, and I won't tell you what legal choices YOU can and cannot make. But rationality and reason have long been outside your scope and grasp.

re: #589 American Sabra

I agree, but it is also inappropriate to firstly compare consensual sex to abortion (from just about anyone's POV) , and second of all inappropriate to say that sex and murder are morally comparable (from an antiabortionists viewpoint). Conflating evils is vacuous and dangerous. That's what Salamantis did. I'm calling him on it.

From the nation's constitutional viewpoint, one exercise of one's legal rights is indeed comparable to another exercise of one's legal rights, in that in each case, legal rights are being exercised, and those who interfere with the free exercise of such legal rights are committing crimes. From Fred Phelps' viewpoint, homosexuality should be a capital crime; from Zawahiri's viewpoint, rejecting Islam should be a capital crime, and from Michael Bray's viewpoint, abortion should be a capital crime. I think I'll stick with what's legally permitted under our constitution, thankyouverymuch.

662 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:10:30pm

re: #609 Hhar

And that is precisely the problem:you can't see any other meaning. But a signal that means something to you means something to other people that is different: you may agree that the only party whose consent or lack of consent matters is the mother, but that is not how opponents of abortion view it, nor even how people who are willing to live with abortion simply because it is the least unhealthy alternative see it. Its simply a slogan. If you think abortion is an evil, even if you think it is a necessary one, simply saying "don't have one!" does nothing to address the evil. It reduces it to a single actor affair (the mother) where in reality, it is a four part affair (mother, father, fetus, and whoever erforms the abortion). It trivialises what is usually a trauma. If you are comfortable with all that, well, that's your privilege.

The father is not always around, nor, in some cases (rape comes to mind), would a sane woman want him to be. The fetus is not a legal person. And the doctor is contracted to perform a legal service. The decision belongs with the woman.

Now, most gays I know do nt view consensual sex as a trauma. Most do not view it as as sad event. They seem to enjoy it.

I agree its legal. I agree the state has no business outlawing it. I do not agree that its participants generally regard it as a process to be avoided. Do you?

A right isn't always about doing what you really like doing; sometimes it can be about doing something you don't like doing, in order to avoid something that would absolutely devastate you. People don't like killing other people in self-defence, for instance, but it is far preferable to the alternative.

They are legal adult decisions, except (in the case of abortion) they are about a non-consenting party. These comparisons do not take into account the fundamental power inmbalances between the parties involved that are at the heart of any sane discussion of the topic. One might as well say "Don't like Sharia' family law? Don't be a Muslim!"

Unlike born human beings, fetuses, zygotes and embryos lack the capacity to register either consent or its opposite to anything whatsoever. I find your comparison of fetuses with born persons who have indeed on many occasions chosen to reject sharia at great personal cost to be a vapid, vacuous, and offensive nonanalogy.

663 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:17:08pm

re: #659 Salamantis

You have your civil rights direction confused. In both the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and Brown vs. Board of Education, and in the 19th Amendment and Roe vs. Wade, civil rights were expanded - in the first instance for noncaucasians, in the second cases for nonmales. To recriminalize abortion would be the equivalent of reinstating the Dred Scott decision.

Pure semantics - you're using a definition of civil rights tailored to fit your arguement. I could, using the same definition-stretching, say that the 13th and 14th Amendments took away the civil rights of slaveholders to keep other human beings as property, which had previously been granted by Dred Scott v. Sanford, and that the 13th and 14th amendments were thus regressive, not progressive.

Progress doesn't always go forward.

664 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:20:02pm

re: #613 Hhar

re: #608 Enkidu90046


This is not entirely true. In cases of rape and incest, there is a real and substantial danger of permanent harm or death (via suicide, or attempted self induced abortion) to the mother, even without pregnancy. From a strictly medical point of view, pregnancy consequent to either elevates the risk substantially, and is viewed by some ethicists as equivalent to abortion for maternal medical reasons (e.g. cardiovascular disease). In other words: in routuine medical practice, it is viewed as acceptable if a pregnancy is interrupted to save the life of the mother, and such a procedure is done with the consent of the mother only (IOW, a maother may not view herself as in sufficient danger, or may not agree that her danger is sufficient to justify the termination).

Note that this has nothing to do with the morality of the father, or the mother, or anything. It is an (in principle) striaghtforward, albeit subjective, weighing of relevant physical risks.

This seems suspiciously like the mental health exception that so many antiabortionists deplore, decry, denigrate and abhor. But of course I agree with it, which is why I stated in previous threads that although I believe that elective abortions should be restricted to the 1st trimester, I also believe that abortions in cases of rape or incest should be permitted up until fetal viability (mid 2nd trimester), to give minor victims whose parents would deny them permission for the procedure on religious grounds time to obtain a child advocate and receive court permission to proceed, and to raise funds to pay for the procedure, should their parents refuse to do so.

Hhar agrees with my pro-choice stance on abortion, and might even be more permissive than I would be concerning it; he only attacks me out of an unreasoning personal visceral animus, and does so regardless of the thread topic. Because that's how assholes like him (t)roll.

665 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:25:36pm

re: #663 Genosaurer

Pure semantics - you're using a definition of civil rights tailored to fit your arguement. I could, using the same definition-stretching, say that the 13th and 14th Amendments took away the civil rights of slaveholders to keep other human beings as property, which had previously been granted by Dred Scott v. Sanford, and that the 13th and 14th amendments were thus regressive, not progressive.

Progress doesn't always go forward.

No, you couldn't, because in the case of slaves you are talking about born human persons, who can express their desire for freedom, and who can survive independent of the bodily support of a particular human being, a category that does not apply to zygotes, embryos and fetuses, which lack the capacity to express themselves about anything whatsoever, and who are dependent upon the bodies of the woman who carry them for their survival.

Notice that you also can't confuse them with babies, who can let us know when they need to be fed or changed, and who can be cared for by any competent adult.

666 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:34:59pm

re: #626 Hhar

Can't see the brass tacks until your last paragraph, so I'll deal with that. Saying the fetus is not human is a straightforward empirical error. Of course it is human. I think you likely meant person. That aside, where a child's health is in danger, the state will often intervene against its parents. If you are trying to say that a fetus is like a child with fewer rights, you have defeated your own argument, because if its rights are limited in the same way that a child's are, then the state should intervene against the mother to prevent the mother from harming its health.

Clearly you are not trying to argue that. At the heart of any discussion of abortion are two opposing interests: the mother and the unborn child. Simply saying that the unborn child has no rights at all is both arguing by simple assertion and simply wrong in some jurisdictions. Courts have intervened many times against mothers who refuse appropriate care for unborn children. So simply saying that it is "ok" that a fetus has no part in consent is not really presenting an argunment.

Actually, Roe vs. Wade takes an evolving, development-dependent position, gradually ceding the zygote/embryo/fetus more consideration as gestation proceeds. This is why, in Roe vs. Wade, there are no restrictions upon 1st trimester abortions, some restrictions upon 2nd trimester abortions, and severe restrictions upon 3rd trimester abortions.

667 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:39:22pm

At the time the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott ruling was written, that wasn't the case though - clearly, otherwise how could they have made the ruling they did? How can you say for certain that in 140 years your views on the humanity of zygotes, embryos and fetuses will still hold?

How about this: the earliest baby recorded to survive a preterm birth I know of was born after 21 weeks of pregnancy. That's within the second trimester by my math. At that stage of development, obviously, the baby couldn't survive on its own - it would be entirely dependent on machines that mimic the functions of the mother, and it couldn't express itself or meet any of your other criteria for being a person.

So, was Amillia (the baby from the article) a person? If so, what makes her different from a 21-month fetus in utero? Is it just geographical location that would have determined her person-hood?

668 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:56:23pm

re: #667 Genosaurer

At the time the majority opinion in the Dredd Scott ruling was written, that wasn't the case though - clearly, otherwise how could they have made the ruling they did? How can you say for certain that in 140 years your views on the humanity of zygotes, embryos and fetuses will still hold?

Because we are beyond denying people their basic humanity (or quickly getting there) on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion.

None of these apply with zygotes, embryos, and pre-viability fetuses. They are living, they are human, but they are not persons. In fact, they are not even potential future persons, as the term 'potential' implies the inevitability of the realization of that potential, and fully a third of pregnancies are miscarried (spontaneously aborted). So they are possible future persons. And where the rights of an actual present person (the woman) and those of a possible future person come into conflict, the rights of the actual present person must take moral precedence in any just and sane universe.

How about this: the earliest baby recorded to survive a preterm birth I know of was born after 21 weeks of pregnancy. That's within the second trimester by my math. At that stage of development, obviously, the baby couldn't survive on its own - it would be entirely dependent on machines that mimic the functions of the mother, and it couldn't express itself or meet any of your other criteria for being a person.

So, was Amillia (the baby from the article) a person? If so, what makes her different from a 21-month fetus in utero? Is it just geographical location that would have determined her person-hood?

Fetal viability begins about mid-2nd trimester. Before then, no machines on the horizon can sustain the life of a fetus, because its physical systems have not sufficiently developed to allow it to survive even with massive assistance. I do not support post-viability abortion unless the life or the physical health of the woman are severely endangered by denying her the procedure, or unless the fetus is either already dead or so massively deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

669 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 5:00:09pm

re: #652 Genosaurer

I doubt that anyone is arguing against this, from a practical standpoint.

At risk of using another metaphor, no one can stop me from getting drunk and going for a drive. I own the car and the alcohol, and I don't have to consult anyone else as to wether I should. But I would be breaking the law doing so - and rightly so, because it's generally accepted that me making the choice to drive drunk would affect other people, not just me.

Bad analogy. Abortion is legal, the fetus is not a person, and the man will not end up maimed or dead should the woman choose to have an abortion, as someone sharing the road with a drunken driver might.

670 Salamantis  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 5:08:19pm

re: #651 Genosaurer

"People will do it anyway" is a ridiculous basis for an argument.

If it was something that people wouldn't do, you wouldn't need a law to specify the punishment for doing it.

Theft has been illegal for centuries in this country. Theft still happens. I don't think anyone would agree that we should therefore make it legal.

And what exactly is a woman stealing from someone else when she chooses to have an abortion? Nothing. She is only exercising her legal rights in the service of her free reproductive choice as a US citizen. No one else's life, liberty, or property are involved. The fetus is not a person under US law.

But if you want to go back to the days of coathangers, knitting needles, and back alley butchers, when septic and bled-out women swamped hospital ERs and morgues, I guess there's no accounting for the moral sensibilities of some people.

But who besides a ghastly ghoul could pine for a return to this?

Image: abortion-death.jpg

671 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:20:34pm

re: #668 Salamantis

None of these apply with zygotes, embryos, and pre-viability fetuses. They are living, they are human, but they are not persons. In fact, they are not even potential future persons, as the term 'potential' implies the inevitability of the realization of that potential, and fully a third of pregnancies are miscarried (spontaneously aborted). So they are possible future persons.
...
Fetal viability begins about mid-2nd trimester. Before then, no machines on the horizon can sustain the life of a fetus, because its physical systems have not sufficiently developed to allow it to survive even with massive assistance. I do not support post-viability abortion unless the life or the physical health of the woman are severely endangered by denying her the procedure, or unless the fetus is either already dead or so massively deformed that it could not long survive childbirth.

If you don't belive that a fetus in utero is a person (or even a "potential person"), what reason(s) do you have for being opposed to abortions performed after the point where it is currently viable, since at that point it's still legal to perform them? I'm honestly curious how you could reach those two views because they seem to me to be inherently in conflict with one another.

And you also kind of sidestepped the question about the premature baby. Was she a person when she was born after 21 months of pregnancy?

672 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:50:58pm

re: #670 Salamantis

The fetus is not a person under US law.

The fetus is not a person under current US law.

But, as I alluded to before, a slave was not a citizen under US law prior to 1860. My point was that the law is not immutable, and that ethical and legal are not necessarily the same thing.

Besides that, though, the arguement you've presented is classic circular logic. You're using the law to justify itself.

"The law does not consider a fetus a person." -> "Therefore, abortion affects no person other than the mother." -> "Therefore, abortion is a personal decision should remain legal."

673 Genosaurer  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 6:59:21pm

I guess the bottom line for me is this.

Does an abortion end a human life? I don't know. I have seen no indisputable evidence, scientific or philosophical, that can pinpoint the exact time when a clump of cells becomes a human being.

None of the arguments in favor of abortion, among all those I have been presented with, can for me outweigh the risk that it could be ending a human life each time one is performed.

674 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:04:30pm

I apologize in advance for this post. It's isn't meant as a personal attack. I'm just trying to respond to the personal experiences you've had in an honest way. It's bound to sound harsh.

re: #650 American Sabra

Sorry to break it to ya darlin, but since we have the babies, we make the decision. We may consult you, whether you want it or don't want it, it really doesn't matter at the end of it all. Is that harsh?

A bit condescending perhaps. You would probably feel differently if the situation were reversed and the only the man had the right to make reproductive decisions. Maybe there are even some tyrannical countries where this is the case.

I could be kind and say we take your thoughts into consideration and certainly a woman has a moral obligation, not just to herself, but specifically to the child, to let the man know and be a part of the decision making process. But in the end of it all, it's in her body and it's her decision.

But, would you expect the man in this situation to financially support you and your child? Certainly the law does. And popular opinion agrees. But since you have the sole right to decide whether or not the child is born, is it fair - in your opinion - to hold the man responsible for your decision?

I have little sympathy with men in this regard.

I have little sympathy for either the man or the woman in this regard. Irresponsible people should have to live with the consequences of their decisions. That really the only way they have a chance of learning how to be responsible.

Now, I've been a happily married woman for 10 years (no children, a few miscarriages). I married late in life and was single for many years. I dated more men than I could possibly remember and I'd say oh... maybe 95% of them wanted sex within the first 3 dates. If not, they were out of there. When I was in my 20's it was pretty much a mutual thing,

Would you describe your 20 year old self as responsible?

but as I seriously started to consider a mate, they still could care less and really wanted one thing.

So you were dating men that didn't respect you as a person. And you knew it. And you still had sex with them.

Any number of those encounters could have landed me pregnant and my guess is that they would have left skid marks at the door.

You don't really know. So you assume the worst.

So I have very little sympathy for a man when it comes to such things.

So you've said...

I don't hate men. I may be bitter, but I don't hate men!

I hope this is true, but I wonder why you made a point to bring it up since I never suggested it.

675 happycamper  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:07:56pm

re: #654 charpete67

You are correct (now waiting for down ding).

676 NukeAtomrod  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 7:12:47pm

re: #654 charpete67

If you're pro-life, you get a minus click on your post...if you're pro-choice, you get a plus no matter how you make your argument.

Yep. You just have to stand tough and take it. That's the price you pay for speaking your mind around here.

677 Lynn B.  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:03:10pm

re: #676 NukeAtomrod

Yep. You just have to stand tough and take it. That's the price you pay for speaking your mind around here.

Yep. It's tough. You might actually have to suffer the utter indignity of a (gasp) down-ding for speaking your narrow bigoted mind around here. Well, (heave a huge sigh) someone's gotta suffer for the cause. Wear your martyr points with pride.

678 wdarty  Wed, Jun 24, 2009 11:12:35pm

I saw Coulter's comments on O'Reilly, and you've got to be pretty dense not to see the intent was sarcasm directed at the moral relativists and pro-choicers who want to tar those who criticized Dr. Tiller's abortion practice with causing the actions of the moral relativist who murdered him.

679 princetrumpet  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 6:03:26am

re: #676 NukeAtomrod

Yep. You just have to stand tough and take it. That's the price you pay for speaking your mind around here.

Copy that. This has been rather eye-opening. For folks that stand behind "science" and "getting a sense of humor" it seems to be more selective than I ever realized. But like you say, we just have to suck it up and that's that.

And I'm not asking or intending to "leave", so, save the "here's the door" commentary but it's what I've inferred from what I and others have seen recently.

680 NukeAtomrod  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 7:49:36am

re: #677 Lynn B.

Yep. It's tough. You might actually have to suffer the utter indignity of a (gasp) down-ding for speaking your narrow bigoted mind around here. Well, (heave a huge sigh) someone's gotta suffer for the cause. Wear your martyr points with pride.

Oh Pul-Leez! Narrow and bigoted? Just for suggesting that an unborn child is a living human person (according to the science of biology) deserving of some rights in a civilized society?

I even said you could keep abortion legal and have all the abortions you want for any reason. But that doesn't satisfy you. You want me to like that you're having abortions. Well, I don't. Having an abortion is killing your child. If you don't have a very compelling reason to do so, it is a monstrous barbarous act.

In the future, people will look back at this moment in history and wonder how we could be so cruel and stupid as to devalue the lives of our own unborn children by claiming they aren't even people. Just as today we wonder how people could simultaneously own slaves and demand freedom and liberty for themselves. Or believe that women were too weak and emotional to deserve the right to vote.

681 Korla Pundit  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 8:35:15am

Obviously, she's just throwing the pro-choice's arguments back in their faces. Saying this in the context of a shooting, as opposed to an abortion, may reveal to non-prolifers how callous it might sound to their opponents when such things are said about a fetus, which they truly feel is just as human as a doctor.

I'm sure Coulter isn't sad about the guy's assassination, but her goal is to change laws, not to advocate murder.

This is straight-faced satire of the other side's viewpoint.

682 Korla Pundit  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 8:55:11am
...zygotes, embryos and fetuses, which lack the capacity to express themselves about anything whatsoever, and who are dependent upon the bodies of the woman who carry them for their survival.

Yes, they are dependent. As are infants and even children. As are very old or sick people. They are dependent on others to survive. Because somebody or something depends on you doesn't always give you the moral or even legal right to neglect them or hurt them. But I know some people feel they also have that right as well, as any child protective service or elder abuse prevention center could tell you. Such power over the powerless doesn't give you any special rights over them.

What I really wonder is why do any women wait until the last trimester to get an abortion? Do they really want to go through nine months of that, just to end it with such a traumatic event? Why not do it when it's just a clump of cells?

Note, I am not a pro-lifer. But I am annoyed and sickened by the lame arguments made on behalf of the pro-choicers. Their logic is circular and closed. They take their viewpoint to the extreme, to even advocate killing a "fetus" even after it is breathing outside the womb in a botched abortion. And their rhetoric is callous and unsympathetic to women. I've read their literature. They dismiss the notion of sadness or regret after having an abortion as "mental illness" that can be abated with drugs.

They can't conceive (no pun) even the possibility that maybe the other side is so fanatic about it because they really think these are "babies" being killed. Heck, I'd be carrying a pitchfork, too, if I thought there were centers set up for the killing of actual babies. Wouldn't you?

Well, that is why they are the way they are.

683 American Sabra  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 10:54:23am

re: #471 Egregious Philbin

Ann Coulter, .... hmm, what is that word that rhymes with the smallest dog in the litter?

Media whore, nutjob creationist, and pro life, provided she gets to choose which life....

15 minutes are up Ann, go find a man who can stand you and get some steamy monkey love, you really need it.

They downdinged you for that, probably because it was horribly sexist, but still wayyyy funny.

684 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 12:42:01pm

re: #678 wdarty

I saw Coulter's comments on O'Reilly, and you've got to be pretty dense not to see the intent was sarcasm directed at the moral relativists and pro-choicers who want to tar those who criticized Dr. Tiller's abortion practice with causing the actions of the moral relativist who murdered him.

You have to be even denser to post a comment like that after your point has been dealt with again and again in this thread.

685 American Sabra  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 2:17:06pm

re: #682 Korla Pundit

People may chose to terminate late term pregnancies when there is something wrong with the baby, serious complications or deformaties that the parents are unable to deal with. Sometimes the birth of the child alone will kill the mother and then the baby is aborted. Things like this don't always come to light until the 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

686 korla pundit  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 2:48:19pm
Instead, you seem to be mounting some sort of (mean) spirited defence of the 'right' to coerce others into abiding by some folks' moral convictions, as if the intensity of those convictions, or the fact that many share them, grant them carte blanche to dictate their adherence by unwilling others.

I think that's called "passing laws." Lots of countries have them.

687 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 4:04:18pm

re: #671 Genosaurer

If you don't belive that a fetus in utero is a person (or even a "potential person"), what reason(s) do you have for being opposed to abortions performed after the point where it is currently viable, since at that point it's still legal to perform them? I'm honestly curious how you could reach those two views because they seem to me to be inherently in conflict with one another.

After viability, the fetus is not dependent upon the body of a particular woman for its survival; it can be separated, cared for by others, and survive. That fact justifies granting viable fetuses greater consideration, although still not as much consideration as the life or the physical health of the woman carrying them.

And you also kind of sidestepped the question about the premature baby. Was she a person when she was born after 21 months of pregnancy?

Legally, yes. Development is gradual, and not all fetuses develop at the same rate, just as not all teens hit puberty at the same time. But still, general threshholds must be legally established. Thus, fetal viability is one (where greater considertation is given a fetus), birth is another (where personhood is assigned, and this birth can be either natural or via c section), and there are still other threshholds for informed sexual consent, issuance of a driver's license, permission to smoke and drink, permission to enter into legal contracts, voting, and joining the military (just as pre-viability fetuses aren't granted the same consideration that post-viability fetuses are, and they aren't granted the same consideration that born infants are, minors aren't granted the same rights as are adults).

688 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 4:05:16pm

re: #686 korla pundit

I think that's called "passing laws." Lots of countries have them.

Yeah; but I don't want some version of sharia law holding sway in this country.

689 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 4:18:54pm

re: #672 Genosaurer

The fetus is not a person under current US law.

But, as I alluded to before, a slave was not a citizen under US law prior to 1860. My point was that the law is not immutable, and that ethical and legal are not necessarily the same thing.

Besides that, though, the arguement you've presented is classic circular logic. You're using the law to justify itself.

"The law does not consider a fetus a person." -> "Therefore, abortion affects no person other than the mother." -> "Therefore, abortion is a personal decision should remain legal."

How absurd and nonsensical does one have to be to equate something that lacks and has always lacked conscious self-awareness, responsiveness, desire, will, communication, reciprocal interactions, human relationships, and any personal history whatsoever with a living, breathing, willing, desiring, reciprocally interacting, self-consciously aware adult human person with a personal history and social relationships, or one who has had these capacities and could resume them? How can one possibly justify calling it a person? Quite simply, one cannot, in any rational and reasonable sense. The very notion is beyond ridiculous, it is ludicrous. And that is why the US Supreme Court has found it to be so.

And notice that such a definition includes blacks and women and gays and any other oppressed or formerly oppressed group you might illegitimately endeavor to piggyback on. You cannot chalk up the very real and genuine essential differences I enumerated to the simple bigotry that has occasioned past discrimination against authentic human persons. It ain't prejudice when the facts of the matter have been comprehensively considered and fairly judged - and they have been.

690 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 4:44:38pm

re: #682 Korla Pundit

Yes, they are dependent. As are infants and even children. As are very old or sick people. They are dependent on others to survive. Because somebody or something depends on you doesn't always give you the moral or even legal right to neglect them or hurt them. But I know some people feel they also have that right as well, as any child protective service or elder abuse prevention center could tell you. Such power over the powerless doesn't give you any special rights over them.

There is an essential difference; zygotes, embryos and pre-viability fetuses are totally dependent, 24/7, upon the bodies of specific persons for their existence; any competent adults can care for infants and the elderly, and they can even switch shifts.

What I really wonder is why do any women wait until the last trimester to get an abortion? Do they really want to go through nine months of that, just to end it with such a traumatic event? Why not do it when it's just a clump of cells?

They wait because problems with the pregnancy either do not manifest or do not become severe enough to be life or physical health threatening until late in the term, and because they actually want children, and are devastated when circumstances dictate that they can't safely carry their pregnancies to term.

Note, I am not a pro-lifer. But I am annoyed and sickened by the lame arguments made on behalf of the pro-choicers. Their logic is circular and closed. They take their viewpoint to the extreme, to even advocate killing a "fetus" even after it is breathing outside the womb in a botched abortion. And their rhetoric is callous and unsympathetic to women. I've read their literature. They dismiss the notion of sadness or regret after having an abortion as "mental illness" that can be abated with drugs.

If you think that the arguments are lame, perhaps it is your cognitive comprehension capacities that are challenged instead. The logic is simple and incontrovertible; when the rights of a possible future person come into conflict with the rights of an actual present person, the rights of the latter must take moral precedence in any just and sane universe. NO ONE advocates allowing aborted fetuses to die when they can be saved; that is a sick, twisted, and demonizing antiabortion propaganda canard similar to the claim that Jews make matzoh balls with the blood of children.

Where have YOU read "their literature"? I have read clinic patient literature while serving as a clinic escort, and you LIE when you characterize it as callous and uncaring.

Postpartum depression can also happen after childbirth. In fact, my ex-wife was arm-twisted into having a child she didn't want, and 30 years later, curses the bastard who coerced her into it, and has nightmares about running into the child she gave up for adoption. But antiabortionists don't wanna talk about that kind of regret.

They can't conceive (no pun) even the possibility that maybe the other side is so fanatic about it because they really think these are "babies" being killed. Heck, I'd be carrying a pitchfork, too, if I thought there were centers set up for the killing of actual babies. Wouldn't you?

Well, that is why they are the way they are.

Many of them are the way they are because they are sexists, and look right through the woman and only see the pregnancy as a person (mainly because it might be male), when it is the other way around. They consider the life of a zygote or embryo to be worth more than a woman's choice, and the life of a fetus to be worth more than a woman's life or physical health. And yes, women can be that way, too; just look at who is typically in charge of genitally mutilating Muslim girls.

691 Salamantis  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 5:01:07pm

re: #680 NukeAtomrod

Oh Pul-Leez! Narrow and bigoted? Just for suggesting that an unborn child is a living human person (according to the science of biology) deserving of some rights in a civilized society?

Okay; show me where the science of biology grants personhood to a zygote, embryo, or fetus; I dodecatuple dog dare you.

But you can't; and you know you can't; you just gratuitously lied. A zygote, a fetus, or an embryo is alive and human, but not a person, any more than you can build a tree house in an acorn.

I even said you could keep abortion legal and have all the abortions you want for any reason. But that doesn't satisfy you. You want me to like that you're having abortions. Well, I don't. Having an abortion is killing your child. If you don't have a very compelling reason to do so, it is a monstrous barbarous act.

The women that are having abortions don't like the fact that they must resort to them, either, but your attempt to demonize them for choosing a legal and what to them seems a regrettably necessary course of action reveals a monstrous aspect within yourself, not them. And children are born; youn are once again employing emotional language in an attempt to override intellection. What are being aborted are zygotes, embryos and fetuses.

In the future, people will look back at this moment in history and wonder how we could be so cruel and stupid as to devalue the lives of our own unborn children by claiming they aren't even people. Just as today we wonder how people could simultaneously own slaves and demand freedom and liberty for themselves. Or believe that women were too weak and emotional to deserve the right to vote.

In the future, people will look back and wonder how antiabortionists could have been so racist and sexist that they could have equated fetuses with born black people and valued them over adult women. They will also wonder how someone could be so dense and obtuse as to even begin to consider contemplating assigning personhood to a gestating pregnancy.

692 NukeAtomrod  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 5:34:21pm

re: #691 Salamantis

Biology tells us that an unborn child is alive and human. There is no scientific test for "person-hood." But being alive and human are very strong qualifications in my book. I think the burden is upon you to explain why a living human organism is not a person.

Answer that and stay fashionable, Mr. Clever-Trousers. Oh and the opinion of the US Supreme Court doesn't count. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, not define reality. No government body has the right to legislate which humans are and are not persons.

693 NukeAtomrod  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 5:38:22pm

re: #691 Salamantis

In the future, people will look back and wonder how antiabortionists could have been so racist and sexist that they could have equated fetuses with born black people and valued them over adult women. They will also wonder how someone could be so dense and obtuse as to even begin to consider contemplating assigning personhood to a gestating pregnancy.

I've had enough of your baseless accusations. If I'm racist and sexist, then you hate babies.

694 happycamper  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 6:51:46pm

re: #692 NukeAtomrod

A pro-choice advocate would never admit the un-born is a person for obvious reasons. This is how they can feel good about calling it a "choice".

695 Genosaurer  Thu, Jun 25, 2009 6:53:46pm

re: #687 Salamantis

Legally, yes.

Again, this is a dodge. The legal definition is irrelevant, because as we have already established through several examples, the law is not always ethical and is certainly not immutable. I was asking for your personal answer, and I know exactly why you're avoiding giving it.

re: #687 Salamantis

Development is gradual, and not all fetuses develop at the same rate, just as not all teens hit puberty at the same time. But still, general threshholds must be legally established. Thus, fetal viability is one (where greater considertation is given a fetus), birth is another (where personhood is assigned, and this birth can be either natural or via c section), and there are still other threshholds for informed sexual consent, issuance of a driver's license, permission to smoke and drink, permission to enter into legal contracts, voting, and joining the military (just as pre-viability fetuses aren't granted the same consideration that post-viability fetuses are, and they aren't granted the same consideration that born infants are, minors aren't granted the same rights as are adults).

Do you really think that's a relevant comparison?

Every other example you gave of "thresholds" are things that are temporary.

Death is not something you grow out of. It is a permanent, irrevokable change. When ending a life, I can't understand anything other than erring on the side of caution. (This is, incidentally, why I am also opposed to the death penalty.)

696 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 11:26:30am

re: #692 NukeAtomrod

Biology tells us that an unborn child is alive and human. There is no scientific test for "person-hood." But being alive and human are very strong qualifications in my book. I think the burden is upon you to explain why a living human organism is not a person.

Answer that and stay fashionable, Mr. Clever-Trousers. Oh and the opinion of the US Supreme Court doesn't count. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, not define reality. No government body has the right to legislate which humans are and are not persons.

re: #692 NukeAtomrod

Biology tells us that an unborn child is alive and human. There is no scientific test for "person-hood." But being alive and human are very strong qualifications in my book. I think the burden is upon you to explain why a living human organism is not a person.

Answer that and stay fashionable, Mr. Clever-Trousers. Oh and the opinion of the US Supreme Court doesn't count. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, not define reality. No government body has the right to legislate which humans are and are not persons.

Allow me to quote post # 689 to you:

How absurd and nonsensical does one have to be to equate something that lacks and has always lacked conscious self-awareness, responsiveness, desire, will, communication, reciprocal interactions, human relationships, and any personal history whatsoever with a living, breathing, willing, desiring, reciprocally interacting, self-consciously aware adult human person with a personal history and social relationships, or one who has had these capacities and could resume them? How can one possibly justify calling it a person? Quite simply, one cannot, in any rational and reasonable sense. The very notion is beyond ridiculous, it is ludicrous. And that is why the US Supreme Court has found it to be so.

And notice that such a definition includes blacks and women and gays and any other oppressed or formerly oppressed group you might illegitimately endeavor to piggyback on. You cannot chalk up the very real and genuine essential differences I enumerated to the simple bigotry that has occasioned past discrimination against authentic human persons. It ain't prejudice when the facts of the matter have been comprehensively considered and fairly judged - and they have been.

697 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 11:27:30am

re: #693 NukeAtomrod

I've had enough of your baseless accusations. If I'm racist and sexist, then you hate babies.

No, I just don't prefer fetuses to adult women, as you do.

698 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 11:28:53am

re: #694 happycamper

A pro-choice advocate would never admit the un-born is a person for obvious reasons. This is how they can feel good about calling it a "choice".

Actually, for the same reason that I will not 'admit' an acorn is an oak tree. Because it isn't.

699 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 11:39:23am

re: #695 Genosaurer

Again, this is a dodge. The legal definition is irrelevant, because as we have already established through several examples, the law is not always ethical and is certainly not immutable. I was asking for your personal answer, and I know exactly why you're avoiding giving it.

I have already given it. Fetal viability is a bright line for me, because at that point, the fetus no longer has to be dependent upon the body of a particular woman for its survival. However, it is not as bright a line as is birth, because sometimes the delivery of a viable fetus can endanger the life or physical health of the woman carrying it, and her life and physical health must in any just and sane world take moral precedence. No such conflict needs to be taken into consideration after birth, when the woman and the delivered infant are truly independent of each other, in the sense thast any competent adult can care for the infant (or any competent neonatal ICU, with mixed success, in the case of preemies, with less and less success the more premature they are).

Do you really think that's a relevant comparison?

Every other example you gave of "thresholds" are things that are temporary.

Death is not something you grow out of. It is a permanent, irrevokable change. When ending a life, I can't understand anything other than erring on the side of caution. (This is, incidentally, why I am also opposed to the death penalty.)

When the life or physical health of the woman are concerned, I will always err, if err I must, in her favor, and not in favor of the fetus, because the fetus is a possible future person, while the woman is an actual present person, and, as I said before, in any just and sane world, the rights of the actual present person must take moral precedence.

700 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 12:28:49pm

re: #697 Salamantis

No, I just don't prefer fetuses to adult women, as you do.

I never said that, nor did I ever imply it. I dodecadog dare you to prove otherwise.

You still hate babies, the profoundly retarded and the comatose. You think that they are not people because they do not contribute to society and, therefore, can be disposed of on a whim.

701 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 1:28:46pm

re: #696 Salamantis

that lacks and has always lacked conscious self-awareness, responsiveness, desire, will, communication, reciprocal interactions, human relationships, and any personal history whatsoever with a living, breathing, willing, desiring, reciprocally interacting, self-consciously aware adult human person with a personal history and social relationships, or one who has had these capacities and could resume them?

Did you really just list Adult as one of your criteria for person-hood?

Prove that you are self-consciously aware and not just a complicated biological machine reacting to stimuli with an instinct or a mimicking response of behavior that you have observed from the other complicated biological machines around you.


Unborn Children:

Desire - Can suck fingers or thumbs. Kick when hungry or uncomfortable.

Reciprocally interacting - Move in response to food. Especially high calorie desserts.

Communication, Will - Kick in response to loud noises.

Breathe - Respire the oxygen in their blood on a metabolic level. Expel waste from cellular oxidation of sugars back into blood stream.

Alive, Personal History - Absorb nutrients and grow. Cause physical changes in the mother in in order to grow. Has a conception date and calculable age.

Human relationships, Social relationships - Has a mother and father. May have a name. Kicks innumerable people through the mother's belly. Cause interest about when he/she will exit the womb.

That's your list. Care to try again?

702 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 2:40:31pm

re: #700 NukeAtomrod

I never said that, nor did I ever imply it. I dodecadog dare you to prove otherwise.

You still hate babies, the profoundly retarded and the comatose. You think that they are not people because they do not contribute to society and, therefore, can be disposed of on a whim.

You arer, of course, a fucking liar, and a self-serving propagandistic one, at that. Babies are BORN, asshole! And I have NEVER said that the profoundly retarded or the comatose should be given anything other than the best of care; you just repeat that egregious T4 canard that that other antiabortion extremist propagandist slandering fuckwad was pushing. Ande for doing so, I consider you to be one helluva dishonest and disgusting human being.

Btw: I cared for my Alzheimer's afflicted, invalid, incontinent mother for 4 1/2 years by myself in my home, lifting her from the bed to the lift chair to the toilet to the car for her doctors' appointments, hand-feeding and and hand-changing and hand-washing her, so you, who don't know jack shit about wehat I have done and been through, can go fuck yourself sideways.

703 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 3:02:11pm

re: #701 NukeAtomrod

Did you really just list Adult as one of your criteria for person-hood?

Nope; just mentioning that those who can reproduce are themselves biologially adult.

Prove that you are self-consciously aware and not just a complicated biological machine reacting to stimuli with an instinct or a mimicking response of behavior that you have observed from the other complicated biological machines around you.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Prove that you are actually intending your argument and have not been just deterministically fated from the beginning of time to type it out.

Unborn Children:

Desire - Can suck fingers or thumbs. Kick when hungry or uncomfortable.

Fetal movements are as unconscious as the is rolling of one's bowels or the autonomous response to a hammer patella tap, and fetuses are continuously umbilically fed, so such categories as hungry don't fucking apply. Are you really that stupid, or are you just faking it?

Reciprocally interacting - Move in response to food. Especially high calorie desserts.

Communication, Will - Kick in response to loud noises.

Where are you getting this crap; from some antiabortion propaganda site? Cite your sources, and we'll see how credible they are.

Breathe - Respire the oxygen in their blood on a metabolic level. Expel waste from cellular oxidation of sugars back into blood stream.

Actually, it is the woman carrying the fetus whose cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems oxygenate fetal blood and cleanse it of carbon dioxide, and whose kidneys cleanse it of waste. And of course you know that. or should.

Alive, Personal History - Absorb nutrients and grow. Cause physical changes in the mother in in order to grow. Has a conception date and calculable age.

You could say the same of a tumor. It begins at a particular and retroactively calculable time, absorbs nutrients, grows, and causes physical changes in the host it parasitizes. I guess tumors are persons now - at least as far as you are concerned.

Human relationships, Social relationships - Has a mother and father. May have a name. Kicks innumerable people through the mother's belly. Cause interest about when he/she will exit the womb.

Communicates nothing. An as yet unconceived prospective offspring can have been given a name by its prospective mother and father, and it doesn't even exist, much less possess personhood. There is no intentional reciprocal interaction. And I can be intensely intersted in when my constipation will break, but that doesn't confer personhood on my turd.

That's your list. Care to try again?

When you've done worth a shit challenging it - which you haven't yet.

[Link: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...]

704 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 3:17:56pm

re: #702 Salamantis

You arer, of course, a fucking liar, and a self-serving propagandistic one, at that. Babies are BORN, asshole! And I have NEVER said that the profoundly retarded or the comatose should be given anything other than the best of care; you just repeat that egregious T4 canard that that other antiabortion extremist propagandist slandering fuckwad was pushing. Ande for doing so, I consider you to be one helluva dishonest and disgusting human being.

Btw: I cared for my Alzheimer's afflicted, invalid, incontinent mother for 4 1/2 years by myself in my home, lifting her from the bed to the lift chair to the toilet to the car for her doctors' appointments, hand-feeding and and hand-changing and hand-washing her, so you, who don't know jack shit about wehat I have done and been through, can go fuck yourself sideways.

I misspoke; I took care of my mother by myself for 5 1/2, years. I had taken care of my emphysemic father for the previous 2 1/2 years, and on his deathbed he asked me to keep my mother in my home rather than place her in a nursing facility. Even though she seemed all right to me at that time, he must have known something was wrong.

As soon as he died, her mental and physical condition rapidly deteriorated (I suspect she had been hanging on for my dying father's sake), so in all, I took care of one parent or another for eight straight years with barely a break in between. I only had one living sibling, and she lived 700 miles away, and was divorced and caring for her own two children, so it was all up to me.

I never dreamed how hard it woul be on me to keep my promise. Years later, I am still emotionally recovering from the ordeal. But you can't take back a promise made to your dead father, and I can look back without regrets, knowing that I fulfilled my duties as a son. But you can perhaps understand why your vicious, callous, and ignorant accusation so incandescently incensed me.

705 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 4:11:38pm

re: #702 Salamantis

You arer, of course, a fucking liar, and a self-serving propagandistic one, at that. Babies are BORN, asshole! And I have NEVER said that the profoundly retarded or the comatose should be given anything other than the best of care; you just repeat that egregious T4 canard that that other antiabortion extremist propagandist slandering fuckwad was pushing. Ande for doing so, I consider you to be one helluva dishonest and disgusting human being.

Btw: I cared for my Alzheimer's afflicted, invalid, incontinent mother for 4 1/2 years by myself in my home, lifting her from the bed to the lift chair to the toilet to the car for her doctors' appointments, hand-feeding and and hand-changing and hand-washing her, so you, who don't know jack shit about wehat I have done and been through, can go fuck yourself sideways.


From #728 of Tiller's Clinic is Closing

Salamantis:

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.

NukeAtomrod:

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?

Salamantis:

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.

Terri Schiavo was neither paralyzed or in a coma. She was brain-damaged, but awake and alert. She was profoundly mentally retarded as a result. I worked with the profoundly mentally retarded for several years, so I have experience dealing with people in her situation. Even though she was extremely low functioning, she could move parts of her body and track moving objects with her eyes. She could not swallow food and needed a feeding tube, but was otherwise free of life support devices.

But you casually proclaim that she was no longer a person. And obviously had no qualms about starving her to death.

Is that how you define "the best of care?"

You owe me an apology. I won't hold my breath though.

If you hadn't been so free with your false accusations of sexism and racism, we wouldn't be going down this road.

And I have no idea what a T4 is. I suppose I'll have to google it now.

706 NukeAtomrod  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 4:38:49pm

re: #703 Salamantis

Do you have children? Did you observe your wife during pregnancy? My wife and I went to the movies a lot during her pregnancy. We saw the Star Wars Episode 3 trailer several times. Each time, the baby kicked after every deep base boom. I also made or picked up all my wife's meals. It was obvious that each time she ate chocolate or ice cream that the baby reacted with a flurry of kicks.

So, you argue that an unborn child is no different than a tumor or a bowel movement? You really do hate babies, don't you? And you must have a strange life if people put their hand on your ass and ask when your shit is due. And what you've named it. And who's the feces mother?

707 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 8:29:19pm

re: #705 NukeAtomrod

Terri Schiavo was neither paralyzed or in a coma. She was brain-damaged, but awake and alert. She was profoundly mentally retarded as a result. I worked with the profoundly mentally retarded for several years, so I have experience dealing with people in her situation. Even though she was extremely low functioning, she could move parts of her body and track moving objects with her eyes. She could not swallow food and needed a feeding tube, but was otherwise free of life support devices.

But you casually proclaim that she was no longer a person. And obviously had no qualms about starving her to death.

Is that how you define "the best of care?"

You owe me an apology. I won't hold my breath though.

If you hadn't been so free with your false accusations of sexism and racism, we wouldn't be going down this road.

And I have no idea what a T4 is. I suppose I'll have to google it now.

Bullshit on stilts. Terri Schiavo's brain had been horribly atrophied for years. Her cognitive function was entirely absent. Her condition was irreversible. The consensus of credible neurologists on these facts is overwhelming. She was also blind.

[Link: www.slate.com...]

excerpt:

According to Terri Schiavo's autopsy report, her "lateral geniculate nucleus (visual) demonstrated transneuronal degeneration with gliosis." Or, as the medical examiner put it in plainer English, "Her vision centers of her brain were dead. Therefore, Mrs. Schiavo had what's called cortical blindness. She was blind, could not see."

Charles has blogged on this several times, actually linking scans of her brain.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

excerpt:

The brain itself weighed only 615 g, only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive amount of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain. The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.

I am reporting this post so maybe Charles will deign to educate you further in this matter.

708 happycamper  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 8:49:28pm

re: #707 Salamantis

You stated Terri's condition very eloquently, yet the medical "experts" had to starve her to death because to actually kill her wouldn't be "ethical". But I think you're still OK with that.

709 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 8:50:16pm

re: #706 NukeAtomrod

Do you have children? Did you observe your wife during pregnancy? My wife and I went to the movies a lot during her pregnancy. We saw the Star Wars Episode 3 trailer several times. Each time, the baby kicked after every deep base boom. I also made or picked up all my wife's meals. It was obvious that each time she ate chocolate or ice cream that the baby reacted with a flurry of kicks.

Emotionally biased anecdotal nonevidence. I notice you quote no credible medical sources to back up your subjective impressions.

So, you argue that an unborn child is no different than a tumor or a bowel movement? You really do hate babies, don't you? And you must have a strange life if people put their hand on your ass and ask when your shit is due. And what you've named it. And who's the feces mother?

No, I'm arguing that the criteria you employed to assign personhood to a fetus could be just as logically assigned to tumors and bowel movements in the particulars you cited.

I don't hate babies; in fact, I'm quite fond of them (several babies are related to me, for instance), but you apparently love women a helluva lot less than the fetuses they carry. If multiple physicians told you that a particular childbirth or c section would very likely kill or seriously and permanently maim your wife, would you try to pressure and coerce her into going through with it anyway? I hope you had this talk with her before the two of you got married. Of course, if she was sane, you might still be a bachelor.

I have in the past told family members that I was constipated, and they have subsequently asked me whether I had been able to 'go' yet, aznd when I do, of course what I pass is mine, since people don't use other people's bowels and anuses to crap, but whether or not some external party grabs your wife's belly and inquires as to her due date, or whether you have chosen a name for a prospective offspring, has fuck-all to do with whether the fetus is a person; as I mentioned before, many people choose names for their offspring prior to conception, and people have asked the same questions concerning miscarriages. Would you argue that a randy gleam in the eye is a separate person? We're entering "Every Sperm Is Sacred" territory here.

Your basic problem is that you futilely try to portray everybody who disagrees with you on abortion remaining legal as a moral monster, when in fact to deny women the option of legal first trimester abortions so that they resort to coathangers, knitting needles, stomach punches and back-alley butchers, and their internally hemorrhaged or septic or bled out bodies flood ERs and morgues, or to force women who discover late in their pregnancies that something is horribly wrong to endure lethal or permanently maiming childbirths is what is truly monstrous. And you're just the moral monster to demand it.

710 Salamantis  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 8:57:58pm

re: #708 happycamper

You stated Terri's condition very eloquently, yet the medical "experts" had to starve her to death because to actually kill her wouldn't be "ethical". But I think you're still OK with that.

Terri's body was still alive, but Terri was dead, and had been for a long, long time. There was no 'there' there any longer, and no chance of it ever returning. The massively degenerated and atrophied material substrate brain could no longer support the existence of a person, and never would have been able to again - not even close. Nerve and brain cells do not regenerate. We never make new ones.

I I consider it a repulsive desecration to keep a body alive on tubes and IV lines when the person who once inhabited it has long since left it, never to ever return. Smacks too much of some sick sort of zombie fetish to me. Kind of like the fetus fetish that would value a pregnancy more than the human woman carrying it.

711 happycamper  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 10:20:49pm

re: #710 Salamantis

The only "life support" Terri was on was a feeding tube. She was deprived of food and water until she died. But what the hell, she probably didn't feel it, right? Do you really think it was a "repulsive desecration" to keep her fed?

712 happycamper  Fri, Jun 26, 2009 10:27:40pm

re: #710 Salamantis

In case it didn't sink in yet, Terri was not on IV or intubation. The only "tube" was for delivery of food and hydration. The courts ordered a person starved to death, despite the mother's choice.

713 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 27, 2009 7:31:07am

re: #707 Salamantis

Yes. Schiavo was severely brain damaged. Her cognition was greatly limited. Her IQ was, most likely, in the 0-20 range. Which is the medical criteria for a diagnosis of profound retardation. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that we still don't know a great deal about the human brain and it is quite impossible to verify what a brain damaged person is capable of. We do know her brain was working well enough to regulate almost all of her body's physiological functions.

And we know, without a doubt, that Schiavo was alive. But, none of this bothers you, because you've decided she's not a person. Having worked in the mental health field, I ran across your type of prejudice often. You did not see the value in her life, so you think it is your right to squelch it. But, in fact, what you believe doesn't matter. It was her right to live whatever life, no matter how limited, she had available to her.

If you saw many of the patients I worked with (some blind, with feeding tubes and 0-20 IQ's), you would conclude the same thing you did with Schiavo. That they were no longer people, and therefore should die. But you would still be wrong.

re: #709 Salamantis

I am a scientist and my observations are valid. Your insistence that first hand observation is worthless suggests you have been educated to the point of idiocy. You have made the extraordinary claim that a one second old baby is human, but a nine month old fetus is not. The burden is upon you to back up that claim.

As far as your other claim about my preferring fetal life to an adult woman's life, the painfully warm sensation you are feeling in your lower extremities is being caused by your pants, which are on fire. A direct result of you being a liar. Once again I twelve-sided-dog dare you to back up your statement or apologize.

714 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 27, 2009 12:59:04pm

re: #711 happycamper

The only "life support" Terri was on was a feeding tube. She was deprived of food and water until she died. But what the hell, she probably didn't feel it, right? Do you really think it was a "repulsive desecration" to keep her fed?

re: #712 happycamper

In case it didn't sink in yet, Terri was not on IV or intubation. The only "tube" was for delivery of food and hydration. The courts ordered a person starved to death, despite the mother's choice.

Terri Schiavo was already dead; only her cored husk remained. She was no longer there to feel anything, and never would have been again. And her husband had the ultimate choice to make, as the courts ruled - and they ruled rightly, and he chose properly.

715 Salamantis  Sat, Jun 27, 2009 1:15:06pm

re: #713 NukeAtomrod

Yes. Schiavo was severely brain damaged. Her cognition was greatly limited. Her IQ was, most likely, in the 0-20 range. Which is the medical criteria for a diagnosis of profound retardation. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that we still don't know a great deal about the human brain and it is quite impossible to verify what a brain damaged person is capable of. We do know her brain was working well enough to regulate almost all of her body's physiological functions.

All that meant is that her brainstem retained the ability to regulate respiration and heartbeat. She was gone, and the body that remained possessed no IQ whatsoever. Cortically, she was more than merely brain damaged; she was brain dead.

And we know, without a doubt, that Schiavo was alive. But, none of this bothers you, because you've decided she's not a person. Having worked in the mental health field, I ran across your type of prejudice often. You did not see the value in her life, so you think it is your right to squelch it. But, in fact, what you believe doesn't matter. It was her right to live whatever life, no matter how limited, she had available to her.

We're not talking limited, we're talking non-existent, cognitively speaking. Her body was alive, but her persona was irretrieveably dead. You can't have a person in the permanent absence of a persona.

If you saw many of the patients I worked with (some blind, with feeding tubes and 0-20 IQ's), you would conclude the same thing you did with Schiavo. That they were no longer people, and therefore should die. But you would still be wrong.

You would have to have independent experts medically demonstrate that they were as cognitively destroyed as was Terri Schiavo, complete with brain scans and comprehensive tests. I doubt that you could. And in any cases where the damagemight have been equally massive and comprehensive, keeping their empty shells alive to me seems equally ghoulish.

re: #709 Salamantis

I am a scientist and my observations are valid. Your insistence that first hand observation is worthless suggests you have been educated to the point of idiocy. You have made the extraordinary claim that a one second old baby is human, but a nine month old fetus is not. The burden is upon you to back up that claim.

Your observations are subjective, emotionally biased, and not peer reviewed. I have never claimed that a fetus is not human, or that it is not alive; I have claimed that it is not a person. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that it is. I have also asserted that the lives of viable fetuses should be given great consideration, only to be outweighed by the life or physical health of the undeniable person carrying it.

As far as your other claim about my preferring fetal life to an adult woman's life, the painfully warm sensation you are feeling in your lower extremities is being caused by your pants, which are on fire. A direct result of you being a liar. Once again I twelve-sided-dog dare you to back up your statement or apologize.

Then you would presumably have no problem with late term abortions in cases where the life or the physical health of the woman are severely endangered by c section or childbirth. But that is not how you come off.

Fish or cut bait. Put up or shut up. Shit or get off the pot. Do you or do you not support late term abortion under such conditions?

It's a simple question, amenable to a simple yes or no answer. Not that I expect one from the likes of you.

716 NukeAtomrod  Sat, Jun 27, 2009 2:53:03pm

re: #715 Salamantis

Then you would presumably have no problem with late term abortions in cases where the life or the physical health of the woman are severely endangered by c section or childbirth. But that is not how you come off.

Fish or cut bait. Put up or shut up. Shit or get off the pot. Do you or do you not support late term abortion under such conditions?

It's a simple question, amenable to a simple yes or no answer. Not that I expect one from the likes of you.

Yes. For God's sake. I have already stated this several times in our discussions. In my opinion, abortion is justified in cases when the woman's life is in grave and immediate peril that cannot be solved by a c-section. It is also justified in cases of rape, child molestation and non-consensual incest.

Those are very compelling reasons to have an abortion. But make no mistake, you are still killing your child. That is why having an abortion for any other reason is barbarous and monstrous.

So, now it's time for you to put up or shut up. Either prove me a liar or apologize.

Your observations are subjective, emotionally biased, and not peer reviewed. I have never claimed that a fetus is not human, or that it is not alive; I have claimed that it is not a person. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that it is. I have also asserted that the lives of viable fetuses should be given great consideration, only to be outweighed by the life or physical health of the undeniable person carrying it.

Observations are the keystone of science. No one is free of emotion in their observations, but with practice you can learn how to be very objective. Peer review is a way of verifying the experimental methodology used in a published scientific paper. It does not certify the results. If you have not had the opportunity to closely observe a woman's pregnancy from conception to birth, you are really missing a big part of the picture.

So you admit an unborn child is both human and alive? Good. So we just have to tackle the concept of person-hood.

From your earlier assertions, I've noticed you set a very high bar to grant someone status as a person. In contrast, I would define person-hood by these three criteria:
1. Human
2. Alive
3. Individual organism (as opposed to a part, such as a severed arm)

Any other stipulations (such as dependence, responsibilities, personal history, social interaction, etc.) are unduly and potentially dangerously subjective.

All that meant is that her brainstem retained the ability to regulate respiration and heartbeat. She was gone, and the body that remained possessed no IQ whatsoever. Cortically, she was more than merely brain damaged; she was brain dead.

We're not talking limited, we're talking non-existent, cognitively speaking. Her body was alive, but her persona was irretrieveably dead. You can't have a person in the permanent absence of a persona.

You speak with great certainty about a subject that is anything but certain. Donald Herbert is a good example of how little we know about the brain's ability to heal. Here's a quote from the linked article:

Dr Rose Lynn Sherr of New York University Medical Centre said most people recovering from brain injuries do so within two or three years. "It's almost unheard of after 10 years" she said. "But sometimes things do happen and people suddenly improve and we don't understand why."

717 happycamper  Sat, Jun 27, 2009 4:20:54pm

re: #714 Salamantis

So, starve her to death? Do that to your dog and see what happens. Convicted muderers facing execution are granted more mercy than Terri was. Hell, a dog being put down is shown more mercy. But as you said, Terri isn't a person, so no big deal.

718 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 1:04:54am

re: #716 NukeAtomrod

Yes. For God's sake. I have already stated this several times in our discussions. In my opinion, abortion is justified in cases when the woman's life is in grave and immediate peril that cannot be solved by a c-section. It is also justified in cases of rape, child molestation and non-consensual incest.

Those are very compelling reasons to have an abortion. But make no mistake, you are still killing your child. That is why having an abortion for any other reason is barbarous and monstrous.

So, now it's time for you to put up or shut up. Either prove me a liar or apologize.

Would you then ban elective 1st trimester abortions, and have hemmorhaged, septic and bled out women once again flooding ERs and morgues like they did before? Or do you consider tadpole-sized embryos to be equivalent to born human persons?

Observations are the keystone of science. No one is free of emotion in their observations, but with practice you can learn how to be very objective. Peer review is a way of verifying the experimental methodology used in a published scientific paper. It does not certify the results. If you have not had the opportunity to closely observe a woman's pregnancy from conception to birth, you are really missing a big part of the picture.

That's right; they have to be repeatable by independent, dispassionate, objective investigators under controlled conditions. Which your observations were not - at least not repeat>i?ed by independent, dispassionate observers under controlled conditions.

So you admit an unborn child is both human and alive? Good. So we just have to tackle the concept of person-hood.

From your earlier assertions, I've noticed you set a very high bar to grant someone status as a person. In contrast, I would define person-hood by these three criteria:
1. Human
2. Alive
3. Individual organism (as opposed to a part, such as a severed arm)

Any other stipulations (such as dependence, responsibilities, personal history, social interaction, etc.) are unduly and potentially dangerously subjective.

That's a very self-serving pseudodefinition, which entails that a single celled zygote is a person the moment the sperm enters the egg. Basically what you do is to remove all defining characteristics from personhood that you cannot fulfill, and thus mire yourself in irretrievable absurdity as a consequence. You actually think that a zygote or embryo has a persona, that is, an individual personality? Might I suggest thorazine...;~)

And if you bring up sleeping people, or people in comas, they have had personalities. And so do profoundly retarded people, although to a diminished extent. Terri Schiavo, however, would never have one again; she lacked the material substrate brain necessary for its emergence, and brain cells do not regenerate; once gone, they are lost forever.

I watched my mother's personality gradually disappear from her body over a period of 5 1/2 years as her Alzheimer's progressed; it was an agonizing experience to witness, and must have been hellish to endure. For the last couple of months, it was like caring for an automaton; no communication, no visual tracking, nothing. It was barely a month after she lost the ability to reflexively swallow pureed food placed in her mouth that her medulla oblongata finally lost the ability to tell her heart to keep beating and her lungs to keep breathing, and she died as I held her hand. She received IV fluids, calories and nutrients during this time, but no feeding tube was installed; both she and my father had no feeding tube stipulations in their living wills, as do I. I come from a family of nurses, and they have a name for feeding tubes, just like helmetless bikers are called brain donors; they call them The Living Death. I wrote my living will in poem form, and had it filed in my records; I'll post it next.

719 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 1:06:29am

Living Will

Not You-thanasia: I expire!
So I take this statement - personally.
Thus I must be careful, clear, precise
And shape well this first draft of heart's desire
For fickle future guarantees
Not one revision ere demise.

I love my life, and can't conceive
What it could be like to lack for it.
I plan to spend my last breath's force
Struggling to draw just one breath more
And my last heartbeat loving leave;
But one can't love life unaware of it.

I require not movement, nor pain excised
Nor sex, nor peace of sanity
But consciousness. If paralyzed,
I can still read and watch TV
Listen to music and feel the sea
Or taste an apple, or smell bread bake
Remember, imagine, communicate
Know, think, experience, learn, create.

If I'm in pain, do what you can
To dull what you can without addling my brain;
Permit me to bear the rest of it
And if I'm brain-damaged or deranged -
Even if living is dim or strange -
Please help me to make the best of it.

But if rendered vegetal, ne'er to wake
That's death, as I define the term.
So don't feed a zombie on a tape
Or respirate just to stymie worms.
Just let my shell wither when it's cored
For it's of no further use to me.
What others need, to them afford
And powder the dross for sun or sea.

720 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 1:15:15am

re: #717 happycamper

So, starve her to death? Do that to your dog and see what happens. Convicted muderers facing execution are granted more mercy than Terri was. Hell, a dog being put down is shown more mercy. But as you said, Terri isn't a person, so no big deal.

Strangely enough, I wrote a poem about that, too:

You’d Do It For A Dog

Old Bull had been a mighty dog:
Hunting farm-raiding varmints,
Guarding the homestead and barn,
And grabbing penned cattle by their noses
And twisting them down to be branded.
But his fiery vigorous days were long ago gone.
Arthritic, thin of limb, with ribs showing like slats,
And with a growth distending his belly,
He laid quivering and whimpering on the porch most of the time
Like a desiccated, grey-muzzled Buddha.
When the day finally came
That he could no longer rise to feed or drink
Or even go shit or piss in the yard,
My grandfather got his pistol and a throwaway quilt,
Lovingly bundled soiled and swollen Bull up,
And, placing him not in the bed but in the cab beside him,
Drove him away, one hand on the wheel,
The other one fondling Bull’s old grizzled head.

Grandfather wore pieces of white sheet tied from his ears
That he changed often when they became soaked and yellowed.
Years earlier, he had shaved through a bump on his face,
And the cancer from it spread and ate.
Towards the last, he had no nose,
Nor lips, nor cheeks, nor flesh on his jaw
And his throat was eaten part way down.
He became a wavering skeleton
Gingerly creeping through the house
Dizzied by the morphine he took for the pain.
Finally, he took abed and could no longer rise.
My teenaged mother bathed and changed him,
Washed his soiled bedclothes,
And helped him to eat and drink as well as she was able.

One evening, when she brought his pills to him,
He took the one he was given and motioned for more.
After my mother told him
That was all he could take for a while,
He picked up the pencil and paper
That he used now that he could no longer mouth words
And wrote: “Leave the bottle, Avie. Let me do for myself
What I did for old Bull.”

With tears streaming down both their eyes,
She kissed him on the forehead,
The only part of his face left unscathed,
Sat the bottle by the carafe within his reach,
And left his room for the night.

The next morning he was dead.
My mother fell to pieces,
And was taken to a girlfriend’s house to spend a few days away.
She awakened in the middle of the night
To see Grandfather leaning over the foot of her bed,
One hand propped on each bedpost knob,
Gazing down at her.
He was wearing his white sheet,
And although no face could be seen,
His crinkled eyes seemed to be smiling.
Mother went into hysterics.
She screamed like a scorched panther, flew from the house,
And ran all the way home through the wintry air,
Wearing only her nightgown.

When she got back she beat upon the door,
Then stammered to my grandmother what she had seen.
Mama Hamm whipped her unmercifully,
Crying that Daddy had come back to tell her something;
Something that might never be known,
And that, dead or alive,
You NEVER run from your parents.

In fact, he never did appear again,
But I think I know what he wanted to tell my mother.
He wanted to thank her and tell her that it was all right,
That he was at last free from weakness and pain,
That she had been a good and dutiful daughter,
And to please end her guilty grieving.

721 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 1:17:10am

Here's one more poem about death, for good measure:

For Minnie Lee

The registered letter came wednesday.
Dad was off having the car fixed. We called the garage.
"Open it and read it to me", he said.
It was Minnie Lee.

We drove over Thursday.
Her niece met us at the rest home.
"She's been this way a week now;
I couldn't find your number." We went in.

My grandmother was tied down on the bed, moaning, trying to rise.
Her hair was a thin pale halo wafting around her head,
Her skin a sheet of warm wax sunken into it,
Dark holes for eyes. Maamamaamamaama she moaned.
Mother patted her hands. She didn't notice.
The mass in her stomach had grown more rapidly
The past few months, we were told.
There was never talk of surgery. She was ninety-three.
There were no tubes, no machines. No Heroic measures.
"We're giving her what we can for the pain,
Every three hours." It was not often enough.
She would sleep two hours, then suffer one.

When my turn at the bedside came, I held those frail fingers
between my palms, and tride to get through to her,
And to thank her, by talking of childhood memories.
"Meemaw, it's me. Do you remember how I used to climb
All over the old magnolia tree? How we'd sit out
Underneath the porch of that big pillared white antebellum home?
And then you'd lead us across the street to the general store
You and Granddad owned, and five us candy for free."
She squeezed my hand - so hard! - seemed to look at me
And called my long dead grandfather's name.
"Hold me!", she pled. My father, his face crumpling
Stumbled out of the room. Releasing my hand
Minnie Lee began calling for her mama again;
A desperate child begging for deliverance
>From a pain that could neither be stood nor fled.

I left to see to my father. He was in the hall
head bowed and shoulders slumped, leaning against the wall.
"Promise me son youi'll never let it go this far
With me", he begged. My father is emphysemic
from thirty years of Winstons, undergoes daily lung therapy
And must sleep on oxygen.
My mother and I got him out of there.
There was nothing more we could do for my grandmother
But pray for her to die. And she did, next day.

The graveside service was Sunday.
We drove over in the rain.
The full gospel minister made use of the opportunity
To proselytize. He had not witnessed her passing.

I bit my lip and held my tongue, but I
So wanted to tell him
That funerals are for the living, not the dead
And for the mourners, not the preachers.
And that it was unjust beyond redemption for my Minnie Lee
To be forced to pass through the gates of Hell
To enter Heaven.

722 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 1:37:22am

re: #718 Salamantis

...just like helmetless bikers are called brain donors...

Of course, I meant to say "...just like helmetless bikers are called organ donors..."

PIMF

723 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 8:36:37am

re: #718 Salamantis

It demonstrates a real lack of character on your part that you refuse to acknowledge a challenge to your repeated and casual accusations of dishonesty, sexism and racism. Without further input from you, I have to conclude that you use these accusations as bludgeons in an attempt to silence the arguments of those you are unable to refute in an intellectual manner.

Would you then ban elective 1st trimester abortions, and have hemmorhaged, septic and bled out women once again flooding ERs and morgues like they did before?

I think I've been pretty clear on this point already. I'm not calling for a ban on anything. Legality isn't the issue I'm concerned about. If people want to kill their unborn children, so be it. I just will not accept that it is a noble act. If you have no qualms about killing your own unborn child without a very compelling reason, then you are a shallow, irresponsible, uncivilized excuse for a human being. (In case you are wondering, that goes for the father, too.)

That's a very self-serving pseudodefinition

No. It is a simple definition that is broad enough to cover everyone that is likely to be a person, yet strict enough to exclude anything that is unlikely to be a person. (Technically, I've left out any possible intelligent alien life. But that is irrelevant to our discussion.) Since personness isn't a quantifiable quality, it's appropriate to use caution when in doubt. Merriam-Webster agrees with my definition as well. And, yes, I well aware that you only believe medical dictionaries. And then only if the support your preconceptions.

You actually think that a zygote or embryo has a persona, that is, an individual personality? Might I suggest thorazine...;~)

You are confusing personality with person. While both words have the same root and are related, a personality is not a prerequisite for being a person. And it could even be argued that animals, which are not persons, display personalities.

That's right; they have to be repeatable by independent, dispassionate, objective investigators under controlled conditions. Which your observations were not - at least not repeated by independent, dispassionate observers under controlled conditions.

So, in your view, the observations of an individual scientist have no merit. I'm glad that individual scientists and inventors tend to work around your limitations. Otherwise, we'd still be living in the stone-age.

If I haven't said so before, my condolences on the loss of your parents.

724 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 11:35:06am

re: #723 NukeAtomrod

It demonstrates a real lack of character on your part that you refuse to acknowledge a challenge to your repeated and casual accusations of dishonesty, sexism and racism. Without further input from you, I have to conclude that you use these accusations as bludgeons in an attempt to silence the arguments of those you are unable to refute in an intellectual manner.

You started that trend in your post #680, where you posted:

"In the future, people will look back at this moment in history and wonder how we could be so cruel and stupid as to devalue the lives of our own unborn children by claiming they aren't even people. Just as today we wonder how people could simultaneously own slaves and demand freedom and liberty for themselves. Or believe that women were too weak and emotional to deserve the right to vote."

To whuich I replied in kind in post # 691:

"In the future, people will look back and wonder how antiabortionists could have been so racist and sexist that they could have equated fetuses with born black people and valued them over adult women. They will also wonder how someone could be so dense and obtuse as to even begin to consider contemplating assigning personhood to a gestating pregnancy."

Apparently, you're real good at dishing out demonization, but piss poor at reciprocally taking it. This fact exposes you as a double-standarded nimrod. You'd be well advised to remove the slandering beam from your own rhetorical eye before decrying tdenigrating mote I deployed in response and in kind.

I think I've been pretty clear on this point already. I'm not calling for a ban on anything. Legality isn't the issue I'm concerned about. If people want to kill their unborn children, so be it. I just will not accept that it is a noble act. If you have no qualms about killing your own unborn child without a very compelling reason, then you are a shallow, irresponsible, uncivilized excuse for a human being. (In case you are wondering, that goes for the father, too.)

Once again, that demonizing tone, coupled with the gratuitously emotive language (try embryos for 1st trimester). Elective early abortion is neither noble nor odious; it is just upon occasion judged to be by the people personally involved - the people who are best equipped to know their own situation and circumstances, and the consequences and ramifications of various options - to be a regrettable necessity. And it is their legal right to decide such matters, and if there is any decency in the world, it will remain so, because people WILL decide such matters for themselves, whether or not it is legal to do so, and a return to illegality would once again entail; a return to the female human carnage that accompanied it before.

No. It is a simple definition that is broad enough to cover everyone that is likely to be a person, yet strict enough to exclude anything that is unlikely to be a person. (Technically, I've left out any possible intelligent alien life. But that is irrelevant to our discussion.) Since personness isn't a quantifiable quality, it's appropriate to use caution when in doubt. Merriam-Webster agrees with my definition as well. And, yes, I well aware that you only believe medical dictionaries. And then only if the support your preconceptions.

Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG! A just-fertilized egg is NOT likely to be a person; in fact, the entire notion is iretriveably ludicrous on its irretrivably obtuse face. As the WordNet definition shows:

[Link: wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]

Of course, now you will insist that the children in 'men, women and children' includes zygotes and embryos; that's just you attempt to alter one definition by selfservingly defining a term in it. But lands are populated with people, the plural of person, and censuses don't count pregnacies as citizens.

725 Salamantis  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 12:02:52pm

re: #723 NukeAtomrod

You are confusing personality with person. While both words have the same root and are related, a personality is not a prerequisite for being a person. And it could even be argued that animals, which are not persons, display personalities.

So, let me get this straight; you agree that zygotes and embryos don't possess personalities, but argue that chimps and apes and dolphins and dogs might have them (btw; I agree that they might). So if you're willing to roundly, vehemently and vociferously condemn women for deciding not to carry their 1st trimester pregnancies to term, you would apparently be eager to gun down the employees of animal shelters on sight, for committing the much more heinous act of routinely euthanizing unwanted pets, who, after all, have personalities, are independent of any particular owner, and can communicate their affections and desires after a fashion. I can't believe that a person who seemingly considers himself to be moderately intelligent would actually endeavor to straight-facedly argue that a single cell is a fucking person. Have you ever met a personalityless person - one who NEVER HAD a personality - outside your self-serving zygote-embryo definition? And by met, I don't mean held a hand on the belly of the real person carrying it.

So, in your view, the observations of an individual scientist have no merit. I'm glad that individual scientists and inventors tend to work around your limitations. Otherwise, we'd still be living in the stone-age.

Umm, I haven't known any inventions or innovations to occur due to obviously biased individual 'scientists' claiming their emotionally involved impressions are gospel truth without an iota or whit of subsequent independent, objective, dispassionate peer review and repetition under controlled conditions.

If I haven't said so before, my condolences on the loss of your parents.

Caring for them as they died was far and away the hardest thing, emotionally, that I have ever undergone. But it is also an experience that I wouldn't trade for anything I can conceive of. I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have been there with both of them, holding their hands, for their passing.

Besides, they cared for me and raised me from infancy to adulthood; it was my turn to reciprocate the consideration that they, out of love, showed me. It was an honor and a blessing to be able to do so. But, as I said before, an emotionally harrowing one.

726 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 7:55:21pm

re: #724 Salamantis

You started that trend in your post #680...
...exposes you as a double-standarded nimrod. You'd be well advised to remove the slandering beam from your own rhetorical eye before decrying tdenigrating mote I deployed in response and in kind.

So, you challenge me to back up my assertions and I quote your previous posts as proof (which you then deny.) I challenge you and you provide nothing, then make more accusations. Sadly, I must stand by my assessment of your debate tactics, because you give me no alternative.

Once again, that demonizing tone, coupled with the gratuitously emotive language...

My tone? I was attempting to be clear and precise. I do not like the practice of elective abortion without very compelling reasons. Killing a human being for your convenience is a very uncivilized act. Having sexual intercourse with a person you would not be willing to bear a child with is an irresponsible act. As is not using birth control when you do not want to be a parent. As is using poor quality, improperly stored or expired birth control. As is failing to acquire and take the morning after pill after unprotected sex or a condom breaks. Denying that a pregnant woman has a living human organism in her womb, then taking action to terminate the life of that organism, demonstrates a lack of intellectual depth.

Gratuitously emotive language? We went through this already. My language is correct and straight-forward. I am using the commonly accepted definitions of the words, which I verified for you by quoting and linking to several dictionaries of the English language and Medical dictionaries (where available.) Your unwillingness to accept the commonly accepted definitions of these words is no fault of mine. I can only present the facts, I cannot believe them for you.

Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG! A just-fertilized egg is NOT likely to be a person; in fact, the entire notion is iretriveably ludicrous on its irretrivably obtuse face. As the WordNet definition shows:

[Link: wordnetweb.princeton.edu...]

It would be really helpful if you looked up the correct word.
# S: (n) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, soul (a human being) "there was too much for one person to do"

But since you bring up people, you should carefully read the definition. I've bolded the important part for your convenience.

# S: (n) people ((plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively) "old people"; "there were at least 200 people in the audience"

In post #715 you stated the following:

I have never claimed that a fetus is not human, or that it is not alive...

With careful review you will notice that if a thing is human, alive and an individual, it is a human being and, therefore, by definition a person. And a group of such things are by definition people.

I am confident that, with this carefully presented evidence, you will now understand that it was not I who was "Wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG!" and courageously admit that your own denial was "irretrievably ludicrous on its irretrievably obtuse face."

...you would apparently be eager to gun down the employees of animal shelters on sight, for committing the much more heinous act of routinely euthanizing unwanted pets...

You have a very violent imagination. I can't decide if you are ranting or raving here. Whichever is more insane is the one I'm looking for. Animals are not human, and therefore not people by definition. (FYI - I am not a member of PETA or the ALF.)

727 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 28, 2009 8:32:40pm

re: #725 Salamantis

Umm, I haven't known any inventions or innovations to occur due to obviously biased individual 'scientists' claiming their emotionally involved impressions are gospel truth without an iota or whit of subsequent independent, objective, dispassionate peer review and repetition under controlled conditions.

While you mischaracterize my position, I will happily provide some examples.

The wheel.
The plow.

I'm fairly certain those were not peer reviewed.

Plant genetics.

Research done by an individual scientist, who was subsequently dismissed as a crank for about a century. As it turns out, he was correct.

The Argand lamp.
Canned foods.
Polyphase Alternating Current.
Wireless communication.
Radio Control.
Spark plugs.

All examples of inventions by individual scientists who built their own prototypes and filed for patents before revealing their inventions to the scientific community.

I could go on, but I think my point has been sufficiently demonstrated.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 165 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1