"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[thaiboxerken]

In the meantime one of the US soldiers shot outside of Washington by a Islamic nutjob. died. No media coverage, no statement from Obama.
Nice double standard.

If there was no media coverage, how did you find out? Also, who are you saying has the double-standard?

[Fiona]

I've heard stories of people waiting for as long as a year to adopt a child.


It takes 9 months in the normal course of events. I don't think that is such a long time in the scheme of things. If this is correct then there is less of a problem than I had thought.

[Whiplash]

.
Pro-life as we know it admits no grey area.
The woman MUST bear the child.
Any other viewpoint is pro-choice, and there are many many reasons to consider the choice and counsel the woman.
But it is the only rational situation.


I'm not sure that is entirely fair. There are some people who consider themselves "pro-life" who also still consider it to be reasonable for their to be abortion in cases where the life of the mother or child are at risk, and even rape an incest.

One of the things about the entire abortion debate that really bugs me is the constant wrangling over terminology. Extreme pro-lifers will call pro-choice people "pro-abortion" (or worse). Extreme pro-choice advocates will also refuse to call people "pro-life" and insist on using the term "anti-choice" to describe them.

Both sides describe the other in the same way. In the extreme example. Pro-choice people really want to have abortions like crazy, and live sinful lives without remorse! Pro-lifers are all hardcore "no abortions, ever, I don't care if you are stinkin' dying" nazis.

It's painting too broadly. There are a huge number of opinions in between there. And existing labels are insufficient (in my opinion) to cover the spectrum anymore.

[BenBurch]

Wow Ben, that was incredibly nice of you, especially considering that I was pretty brutal towards you during the election stuff. I feel bad about that now. I let my emotions get the better of me.

Thank you very much, and to everyone else who is giving me a chance. I'm trying very hard to learn from you guys and open my mind.

Thanks Ben, that was very kind of you.

You're welcome.

Elections are SUPPOSED to be brutal. Its what we do instead of fighting succession wars, after all. ;)

[Fiona]

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. There are some people who consider themselves "pro-life" who also still consider it to be reasonable for their to be abortion in cases where the life of the mother or child are at risk, and even rape an incest.

It is entirely fair. Whether they believe that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances or none they do not believe the woman should have the choice: they think someone else should. The rest is irrelevant

[BenBurch]

If there were no abortion, and lots and lots of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome babies, babies with HIV, and worse, getting born that are not now born, especially babies "of color," I assure you that these women I argued with would NOT be standing at line for a HIV+ black baby to adopt.

[boloboffin]

George Tiller had buttons printed of his personal motto: "Trust women."

American Prospect: The Compassion of Dr. Tiller (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_compassion_of_dr_tiller)

Late-term abortion is often spoken of as the most morally dubious aspect of the abortion debate. Many people who are nominally pro-choice, particularly politicians, are quick to condemn it, to treat the work that Tiller did as repugnant even if it's legal.

Ironically, though, many of the procedures Tiller did were as far away from the much-reviled concept of "abortion on demand" as one could get. Unwanted pregnancy can, to some extent, be prevented. A pregnancy that goes horribly wrong cannot. Almost anyone of child-bearing age could end up needing Tiller's services. And now some of them will be forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will even when their fetuses can't survive outside the womb.

Bill Harrison, an abortion provider in Arkansas, referred hundreds of patients to Tiller over the years. "To do what George does is like doing major cancer surgery," he says. "It's a subspecialty all its own. It took a real organization to do it safely and effectively and cheaply like he did it." Over the years, Harrison had 20 or 30 patients who were so poor that he had to give them money for gasoline to get to Wichita. "I would call him and tell him about the patients, and he would say, 'Send them up,'" he says. "Obviously if they couldn't pay for gasoline, they couldn't pay for anything, and he did the abortions anyway."

Including the poor ones.

[Cleon]

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. There are some people who consider themselves "pro-life" who also still consider it to be reasonable for their to be abortion in cases where the life of the mother or child are at risk, and even rape an incest.

One of the things about the entire abortion debate that really bugs me is the constant wrangling over terminology. Extreme pro-lifers will call pro-choice people "pro-abortion" (or worse). Extreme pro-choice advocates will also refuse to call people "pro-life" and insist on using the term "anti-choice" to describe them.

Both sides describe the other in the same way. In the extreme example. Pro-choice people really want to have abortions like crazy, and live sinful lives without remorse! Pro-lifers are all hardcore "no abortions, ever, I don't care if you are stinkin' dying" nazis.

It's painting too broadly. There are a huge number of opinions in between there. And existing labels are insufficient (in my opinion) to cover the spectrum anymore.

I agree with you to a large extent, however, I would argue that "anti-choice" makes much more sense than "pro-abortion."

The "pro-choice" side advocates women being able to choose for themselves, whether they choose to have an abortion or not. There aren't a lot of "pro-choice" activists actively promoting abortion per se, so "pro-abortion" fails immediately.

The anti-abortion side doesn't think women should be able to make that choice. The moderate elements, which you talk about, think that maybe in some cases she should be allowed to have an abortion, but by and large they don't want women to have that particular choice available. They are "anti-choice."

Personally, I hate the term "anti-choice" because it feels contrived and (like "Islamofascist") seems designed to spread a particular message rather than be an accurate description of the movement's views.

I tend to prefer "anti-abortion;" I don't think there's any doubt that it's accurate, and relatively baggage-free. I find the term "pro-life" to be laughable, both for the reasons above and because the majority of "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with capital punishment.

For abortion rights activists, I use the term "pro-choice" because I have yet to find a better one; "pro-abortion" doesn't work, "pro-abortion-rights" is clumsy, and "pro-womens-right-to-do-with-her-body-what-she-damn-well-wants-without-old-male-politicians-telling-her-no" just doesn't fit on a placard.

[garcia<3]

I tend to prefer "anti-abortion;" I don't think there's any doubt that it's accurate, and relatively baggage-free. I find the term "pro-life" to be laughable, both for the reasons above and because the majority of "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with capital punishment.



I agree with this, to be "pro life" seems impossible. Not only would you have to be vegan but you would never be able to ejaculate or bleed every month, think of all those living cells being killed off, my goodness :rolleyes:

[Cleon]

I agree with this, to be "pro life" seems impossible. Not only would you have to be vegan but you would never be able to ejaculate or bleed every month, think of all those living cells being killed off, my goodness :rolleyes:

Being vegan wouldn't even work, as plants and fungi are, in fact, alive. (Incidentally, i you ever want to piss off a PETA member, mentioning this fact often does the trick.)

[Whiplash]

Fiona, Cleon, thanks for your comments. Good points. I'm no longer sure where I even fall in the spectrum anymore to be honest.

I am morally against the idea of abortion. But I completely recognize that things would be insanely worse should it be illegal. I'm someone who doesn't like it, but wouldn't seek to change things. I would prefer to think that one day, there will come a time when abortions will be few and far between, by choice.

So I guess as much as I have been brought up pro-life, and consider myself pro-life, perhaps I am pro-choice after all. I wouldn't force anyone to carry a child to term. I just have a little niggle with the whole thing on a moral level. And only when it's a matter of convenience. Perhaps that is religious baggage from my upbringing.

ETA: I changed "force an abortion on anyone" to "force anyone to carry a child to term" while Cleon responded, but it was only because I was saying the wrong thing by mistake, my edit is what I meant to say.

[dudalb]

If there was no media coverage, how did you find out? Also, who are you saying has the double-standard?

It is getting a little coverage on in the papers, but ALmost none on the major news networks.
BOth Obama and the News Media seem to be underplaying this so as not to "offend" Moselm sensibilities.
Of course the ability of the Left to have "Selective Outrage" while accusing the right of the same thing is of long standing.

[Cleon]

Fiona, Cleon, thanks for your comments. Good points. I'm no longer sure where I even fall in the spectrum anymore to be honest.

I am morally against the idea of abortion. But I completely recognize that things would be insanely worse should it be illegal. I'm someone who doesn't like it, but wouldn't seek to change things. I would prefer to think that one day, there will come a time when abortions will be few and far between, by choice.

So I guess as much as I have been brought up pro-life, and consider myself pro-life, perhaps I am pro-choice after all. I wouldn't force an abortion on anyone. I just have a little niggle with the whole thing on a moral level. And only when it's a matter of convenience. Perhaps that is religious baggage from my upbringing.

And that is where the term "anti-abortion" becomes problematic--because it's perfectly possible to be against abortion, but still be pro-choice. There's nothing wrong with being against abortion "morally," and opting not to have one yourself. (Though I imagine this would be unlikely in your case, no matter what your morals may be.)

Because that's what the right to choose is about; the right to make the decision for yourself, whatever the decision happens to be.

[garcia<3]

Being vegan wouldn't even work, as plants and fungi are, in fact, alive. (Incidentally, i you ever want to piss off a PETA member, mentioning this fact often does the trick.)

True, I guess what I meant to say, I'm not sure what they're called but there are people out there who only eat stuff that has fallen off of trees and plants. They must be very skinny.

[Whiplash]

(Though I imagine this would be unlikely in your case, no matter what your morals may be.)


Thank God for that (or FSM, or whoever). :D

I don't envy women and the pain and choices they have to go through.

[linusrichard]

Being vegan wouldn't even work, as plants and fungi are, in fact, alive. (Incidentally, i you ever want to piss off a PETA member, mentioning this fact often does the trick.)

Why would this piss off a PETA member?

[oldhat]

It is getting a little coverage on in the papers, but ALmost none on the major news networks.
BOth Obama and the News Media seem to be underplaying this so as not to "offend" Moselm sensibilities.
Of course the ability of the Left to have "Selective Outrage" while accusing the right of the same thing is of long standing.

There is no coherent, organized 20 year long political campaign of violence and intimidation against military recruiters, as there is against abortion providers. You're saying "the Left" has a double standard when in fact you're comparing apples to oranges.

[thaiboxerken]

It is getting a little coverage on in the papers, but ALmost none on the major news networks.

So it is getting media coverage. I see.


BOth Obama and the News Media seem to be underplaying this so as not to "offend" Moselm sensibilities.
Of course the ability of the Left to have "Selective Outrage" while accusing the right of the same thing is of long standing.

Instead of a media conspiracy carried out not to offend Muslims, ever think that maybe the media simply thinks the story won't help their ratings? There are quite enough stories of Islamic terrorism on the news already and both liberals and conservatives are "outraged."

[Whiplash]

There is no coherent, organized 20 year long political campaign of violence and intimidation against military recruiters, as there is against abortion providers. You're saying "the Left" has a double standard when in fact you're comparing apples to oranges.


You're right, there is no coherent, organized 20 year long political campaign of violence and intimidation against military recruiters.

There is however a coherent, organized 30+ year long political campaign of violence and intimidation against Isreal (to a greater degree) and the west (to a lesser degree) by Muslim extremists.

I think this killing falls rather more into the latter category, and is newsworthy in this current climate.

Instead of a media conspiracy carried out not to offend Muslims, ever think that maybe the media simply thinks the story won't help their ratings?


Goodness, I'm sure there are many things that are considered when determining "what is news" but I sincerely hope that "how will it help our ratings" is not even on the list. Naive perhaps, but that's what journalism should be about.

There are quite enough stories of Islamic terrorism on the news already and both liberals and conservatives are "outraged."


Isn't this somewhat unique? I have to confess I hadn't heard about it yet either. A mulsim extremist kills an American soldier (recruiter, whatever) here in America, and you don't think that's highly newsworthy? Is this not the first time someone was killed by one of these nutjobs, on our soil, since 9-11???

ETA: I don't know how much coverage this got, I'm just questioning the above statements. I hadn't heard about it, but I am not plugged in on the news 24/7.

[MattusMaximus]

In the meantime one of the US soldiers shot outside of Washington by a Islamic nutjob. died. No media coverage, no statement from Obama.
Nice double standard.

Uh, I saw plenty of media coverage on this yesterday. In fact, it was front page news on a lot of MSM websites.

:confused:

I've looked all over the place, and I found this article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/03/arkansas.shooting/index.html) about it. In contrast, everywhere I look I haven't found one article on the murder of Dr. George Tiller. News cycle, I suppose.

[MattusMaximus]

True, I guess what I meant to say, I'm not sure what they're called but there are people out there who only eat stuff that has fallen off of trees and plants. They must be very skinny.

They are, and it's frightening to see.

[thaiboxerken]

Uh, I saw plenty of media coverage on this yesterday. In fact, it was front page news on a lot of MSM websites.

:confused:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04recruit.html?ref=us

Is it this story of a recruiter getting shot in Arkansas? Or is dulab complaining about a different shooting that "isn't getting coverage"?

I've seen this story highlighted in my google news and yahoo news outlets.

However, I don't see any new stories about the abortion doctor shooting.

[I Ratant]

I agree with this, to be "pro life" seems impossible. Not only would you have to be vegan but you would never be able to ejaculate or bleed every month, think of all those living cells being killed off, my goodness :rolleyes:
.
I was bemused some years back when the leader of the Jain sect in India -flew- to the US for something.
He and they walk around with masks on their faces so they don't inhale insects.
I would have pointed out to him the condition of the nacelles of the engines on the 747 he was going to the US in, before the flight, and then, after the flight.
The millions of bugs smashed on the front of the nacelles and all the forward facing parts of the plane... how could he justify his trip when faced with that slaughter?
I bet he could!

[I Ratant]

Fiona, Cleon, thanks for your comments. Good points. I'm no longer sure where I even fall in the spectrum anymore to be honest.

I am morally against the idea of abortion. But I completely recognize that things would be insanely worse should it be illegal. I'm someone who doesn't like it, but wouldn't seek to change things. I would prefer to think that one day, there will come a time when abortions will be few and far between, by choice.

So I guess as much as I have been brought up pro-life, and consider myself pro-life, perhaps I am pro-choice after all. I wouldn't force anyone to carry a child to term. I just have a little niggle with the whole thing on a moral level. And only when it's a matter of convenience. Perhaps that is religious baggage from my upbringing.

ETA: I changed "force an abortion on anyone" to "force anyone to carry a child to term" while Cleon responded, but it was only because I was saying the wrong thing by mistake, my edit is what I meant to say.
.
I've participated in several abortions.
A friend who was in high school at the time "found out what that hole was for", and cheerfully invited many guys in.
She asked me to finance her first abortion (of two). I told her she had to work that out with her mother. And she did.
As she didn't like condoms, and wouldn't go on the pill,... the second abortion occurred.
Obviously not really someone that could be a parent, at that stage in her life.
Another friend, bi-polar, on meds, got pregnant. The prognosis was a seriously defective child, with a potential for serious post-partum problems for the mother. She already had 3 kids.
I helped her financially.
There MUST be a choice!

[garcia<3]

.
I've participated in several abortions.
A friend who was in high school at the time "found out what that hole was for", and cheerfully invited many guys in.
She asked me to finance her first abortion (of two). I told her she had to work that out with her mother. And she did.
As she didn't like condoms, and wouldn't go on the pill,... the second abortion occurred.
Obviously not really someone that could be a parent, at that stage in her life.
Another friend, bi-polar, on meds, got pregnant. The prognosis was a seriously defective child, with a potential for serious post-partum problems for the mother. She already had 3 kids.
I helped her financially.
There MUST be a choice!

Being an unfit parent is a good enough reason for me. In a lot of cases, including mine, not being able to provide for your child is unacceptable. I want happy, healthy, well fed, and educated children. Those are just my standards. It's all about quality of life.

[The Painter]

You assume wrong. I believe that because the fetus is not a person, it's not murder. If you want more particulars, my approach is close to that of Alonzo Fyfe's desire utilitarianism (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?s=abortion&x=0&y=0). Since a fetus before a certain point lacks the neurological structures and functions that result in having desires that may be fulfilled or thwarted, it is not murder.


So are you suffering from the delusion that abortion IS murder according to the law?



Rubbish. I'm strongly criticizing people who go around saying "Abortion is murder" and you accuse me of seeing things as black and white?!!

I'm pro-choice. I don't want to take this moral choice away from women and doctors.

So after that certian point it is murder? That's what you are saying. From your link;

But some time before birth, probably between weeks 10 and 25, a pre-born human develops desires. At that point, we have to start considering their desires in our moral equations. I think it’s a fair bet that among the desires of a late-term fetus are very strong desires not to be poisoned, stabbed in the brain, or vacuumed into a tube.

Between 10 and 25 weeks??? That is a very big amount of time. 2.5 months to 6.25 months before birth. According to you, there is desire therefore there is life. By your definition, this Doctor was a murderer. You have contributed to what you abhor.

[dudalb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04recruit.html?ref=us

Is it this story of a recruiter getting shot in Arkansas? Or is dulab complaining about a different shooting that "isn't getting coverage"?

I've seen this story highlighted in my google news and yahoo news outlets.

However, I don't see any new stories about the abortion doctor shooting.


Oh come off it.
On the News Networks, the Abortion doctor killings have been getting a LOT more coverage.
Nice attempt to evade reality.

[dudalb]

There is no coherent, organized 20 year long political campaign of violence and intimidation against military recruiters, as there is against abortion providers. You're saying "the Left" has a double standard when in fact you're comparing apples to oranges.

There has been, as mentiones, a 25 year at least campaign against Americans in general by Islamic fantatic, climaxing the slaught of 3'000 AMericans on 9/11.
Look, both are evil. But I maintain that the Islamic fanatics are more dangerous then the Christian fanatics.
A lot of people have personal issues withe Christianity they do not have with Islam, and that combined with a tendacy by some..not all..on the left to view Moselms as being "oppressed" leads to them letting Islam off the hook.

[Cleon]

Oh come off it.
On the News Networks, the Abortion doctor killings have been getting a LOT more coverage.
Nice attempt to evade reality.

You know, it's weird, but saying things like "come off it" and "nice attempt to evade reality" don't actually substantiate your point as much as you might think.

Right now, as I type, I'm looking at the front page to CNN.com. There is an article about Pvt. Long's killing (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/03/arkansas.shooting/index.html), but there's nothing about Dr. Tiller's murder anywhere on the page.

Anecdotal? Pretty much. Representative of the media coverage in general? Probably not. Does it prove anything? Hell no.

But it's still a damn site better than "oh come off it."

[thaiboxerken]

Dudalb, you don't seem to realize that you are suffering from what is known as bias. Your observations are being skewed by that bias. The extremist muslim shooting is big news on the media in the last day or two.

[BenBurch]

No, I see more about the soldier who got shot, at least today.

The only mentions of the abortion doctor shooting are from right wingers being afraid of a backlash.

Of course they forget that the American public has a memory about 3 news cycles long.

[thaiboxerken]

Apparently Dud doesn't understand about news cycles and only sees the the "liberal media agenda."

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that is where the term "anti-abortion" becomes problematic--because it's perfectly possible to be against abortion, but still be pro-choice. There's nothing wrong with being against abortion "morally," and opting not to have one yourself. (Though I imagine this would be unlikely in your case, no matter what your morals may be.)

Because that's what the right to choose is about; the right to make the decision for yourself, whatever the decision happens to be.Most people who are pro-choice are not in favor of promoting abortion. So the person you are describing is simply not in favor of attempting to use the law to force people to comply with their standards in this case. In how the term, pro-choice, is intended, you are describing someone who is pro-choice.

Most people who are anti-abortion as the term is typically used are also anti-choice.

But there is no question the terms are misused and in many cases, intended to make the other side sound bad and one's personal side not sound bad.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh come off it.
On the News Networks, the Abortion doctor killings have been getting a LOT more coverage.
Nice attempt to evade reality.Are you out of things to say that actually matter in this debate? This is such an irrelevant discussion point in this thread. There have likely been a dozen murders since Dr Tiller's that got no news coverage at all, not even local mention. So what?

As for the murdered soldiers, not only has it gotten plenty of coverage, I've even heard a couple discussions about how the terrorist involved had come to the FBI's attention yet they failed to stop the man from acquiring an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol. Just as the murderer of Dr Tiller had been brought to the FBI's attention yet he wasn't stopped either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The sick thing is the so-called "pro-life" murderers do not appear to want there to be NO abortions, because there have ALWAYS been abortions, they appear to want there to be no safe, legal abortions. This is because the life of the mother appears to means nothing whatsoever to them, and they actually appear happy that women get horribly maimed and killed in botched back-alley abortions because, well, those are the wages of sin for "loose" women.There are a number of people of religious faith who believe providing sex education and birth control to unmarried persons is the equivalent of aiding and abetting sin. I've heard more than one person argue that STDs including HIV are what you get if you "sin" and that is fine with them.

The Catholics are officially against birth control and abortion. It is unrealistic to expect people to only have sex for procreation. This is bad enough if you want to impose such a belief on people of your own faith, but to then want to impose it on people not of your faith is the same concept as Sharia law. Perhaps the extremes are different, but the bottom line is these are religious beliefs and one needs to seriously consider which is which when claiming something is a"moral" law everyone is obligated to abide by. Randi had a Swift entry (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/584-please-help.html) yesterday that reminded us prescribing birth control to unmarried adults was illegal until 1972! Birth control was illegal for everyone in the US until 1965!

The Swift entry has a link to the Pro Choice League (http://www.prochoiceleague.org/) which has the following information: March 22 is the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, his 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized birth control for all Americans (replacing the 1965 decision for married couples only). Baird v. Eisenstadt was a landmark case that became the bedrock of countless privacy cases such as Roe v. Wade and the gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Try this one on for size;
Woman charged with murder for stillbirth (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/07/woman-charged-w.html)
I also assume, that you assume an unborn child is not alive so it can't be murder. Your opinion is not law.
http://www.themonitor.com/articles/palmview-17831-degree-murder.html
http://cbs13.com/local/Stabbing.New.Year.2.474994.html
16 weeks. 7 to 8 weeks. Didn't this doctor preform late term abortions? Isn't that beyond these thresholds? By these laws, wouldn't that be murder? No, because the would be Mom said it's OK and yet they charge another "Mom" with murder for stillborn. Go figure.
It's nice that the issue is so black and white to you. Clearly it is not for the majority of people. How can anyone be charged with murder if it's not alive? In China female fetus are regularly aborted because they want sons. Is that OK? The issue goes much deeper than murder or not murder.If a person dies on the operating table it is not considered murder or even manslaughter. Even if the death was due to malpractice one isn't charged with a crime. So there is not the conflict you are claiming here in calling the death of a fetus at the hands of some kind of violence, murder, while the same death under different circumstances is not murder. We actually can consider motive and circumstances in defining what is and what is not murder.

Murder, in this country, is defined by the law. The problem is the anti-abortion fanatics are unhappy with the law and wish to call something murder based on their personal judgment. That is not the way the law works in this country. And that is not how we define murder legally. murder (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder)n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've always been under the impression that there are already plenty of people trying to adopt children. I've heard stories of people waiting for as long as a year to adopt a child.

I googled a bit and found some forum discussions where people say times ranging from 6 to 18 months, and longer, but also depending on what parameters the adopting parents seek.

For example:

http://forums.adoption.com/christian-adoptive-parents/100576-how-long-wait-adopt-child.html

Some actual Christians discussing how long to wait for an adoption!

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me to find out that there are many unwanted babies though. I'm open to seeing any real data.And yet there are many kids awaiting adoption that don't meet the criteria would be parents are looking for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or how about those that say "America had it comin'!" or even "America's pigeons have come home to roost". :D

Seems to me these things incite and even excuse violence against America (which includes American soldiers obviously).

People who are already inclined to do bad things to us can only be emboldend by hearing that some of our very own citizens think they have every good reason to hurt us.Again with the apples and oranges analogies.

First, very few people actually have this attitude. You don't hear it nightly on any mainstream news programs like you hear people such as O'Reilly blaring the outrageous distortion that Dr Tiller would kill any baby for $5K.

And second, serious attempts to critically analyze the role the US has played in the rise of anti-American sentiments is more often than not, twisted by the right wing into the claim this is blaming America, yadda yadda. It's impossible to consider anything the country should examine and perhaps not repeat or even, heaven forbid, apologize for, if even the slightest criticism is turned into such nonsense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

George Tiller had buttons printed of his personal motto: "Trust women."

American Prospect: The Compassion of Dr. Tiller (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_compassion_of_dr_tiller)

Including the poor ones.When you actually look at this man's life, you see him for the quiet hero he was. It's mind boggling to hear A-holes like Bill O'Reilly smear Dr Tiller. O'Reilly couldn't have bothered actually looking into the facts before he carried on his ignorant witch hunt.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is getting a little coverage on in the papers, but ALmost none on the major news networks.
BOth Obama and the News Media seem to be underplaying this so as not to "offend" Moselm sensibilities.
Of course the ability of the Left to have "Selective Outrage" while accusing the right of the same thing is of long standing.Everyone has selective outrage. Clearly we are not all a bunch of clones.

Your imagination anyone is considering Muslim sensibilities regarding the soldier murder is down right bizarre.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Comcast shut my access down last night for maintenance so the following are some replies I intended to post yesterday.

Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things. I bet some of them are for seat-belt laws, and maybe even restricting what people can do on the property they own. They just think you shouldn't be restricted on having a doctor kill their unborn child.

Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.Why don't you just define yourself as you see fit rather than worrying the labels don't fit your view? The terms pro-choice and anti-abortion are pretty standard and specific to the choice of abortion, not the choice of seat belts or whatever. (I'm sorry I cannot agree pro-life is accurate unless the label is changed to pro-fetal life, or pro-life and anti-choice. If you want to call me pro abortion choice, that would be fine.)

If you feel you are anti-abortion but pro-choice, then you are pro-choice. Most pro-choice people are not 'for' abortions. They are against a law restricting individual choice in the matter. Even some anti-abortionists are wise enough to recognize the legality of abortion should not be where their energy is focused.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know...there is no way to enter into a discussion involving abortion without there being a whole lot of thoughtlessness and a whole lot of cruelty. Emotions run high, and they do so for many, many reasons--most of which people aren't able to necessarily articulate to the satisfaction of anyone who pigeonholes them into some arbitrary, pre-defined category. So let me elaborate here, if I may.....
I hope that doesn't trip your irony meter again.:hug6 I'm sorry, that sounds heartbreaking.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Many Pro-Lifers are seeing this as a States Rights issue which is being forced upon them by the Federal Government (and those in other Pro-Choicers in other states).

If you miss that you'll be missing a large component of the friction happening between the two sides.This is a total red herring and it's BS. The vast majority of anti-abortion activists only make the claim this is about state's rights because they want to see abortion be illegal and it isn't. If they could get a federal law passed banning abortion they wouldn't care one snit about state's rights.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think letting states decide would alleviate some of the stress on the system being caused by the extremes.I don't think it would stop the fanatics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And right away in this thread you have people immediately blaming entire segments of the population for this psycho's actions.I wanted to address the claim there are merely a tiny fraction of anti-abortionists out there ranting murder inciting rhetoric.

Bill O'Reilly claimed over and over Dr Tiller the baby killer would murder any baby for $5,000. Much of the extreme right either embraces this attitude or goes along with it because it brings in voters. Karl Rove in particular actively recruited this group. Abortion is murder is a rally cry for Evangelicals.

It's not a handful a people. It's a lot of people who have money and media access. It's actively embraced by the Evangelical church. They've taken the abstinence only and anti-abortion message all over the planet.

Not everyone who is anti-abortion is out there screaming, abortion is murder. The Catholics are against abortion but I doubt many are associated with this hate message like the Evangelicals are. But Evangelicals who might claim Dr Tiller's murder was not what they had in mind are not out there condemning the rhetoric because they agree with it.

[Robster, FCD]

Roeder's contact at Operation Rescue, Cheryl Sullenger, had served six months in jail for conspiring to bomb a clinic in 88. Her phone number, name, and the words Operation Rescue were on the paper on the dash of his car when he was arrested. Pretty sure she gave him the church and home address of Tiller, and it was also listed on their website. Roeder had protested Tiller's clinic at Operation Rescue protests, and had vandalized Tiller's clinic four times in the last few years, including the day before the murder.

[boloboffin]

More stories about Dr. Tiller from his patients:

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/patients-remember-dr-tiller/?hp

I'm quoting the last one.

In 2002 I found out I was carrying triplets. My husband did not want me to have them. The day of my appointment I was scared and not sure this was the right decision. They took me back and did an ultrasound. I asked if they all had heartbeats and the nurse said yes. I asked if I would have the chance to talk to the doctor and right away she went and got Dr Tiller. He came in and looked at my babies on the screen. Then he looked at me and said “God gave you these babies, it’s not my job to take them away.” He asked if I agreed and I immediately said yes. He told the nurse to take me to the counter and have them give me my money. You know that day was a turning point for me. I ended up having a great pregnancy and three healthy baby girls. I can never thank Dr. Tiller enough for sending me away that day.

So much for Bill O'Reilly's lies about this man.

[linusrichard]

More stories about Dr. Tiller from his patients:

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/patients-remember-dr-tiller/?hp

I'm quoting the last one.

So much for Bill O'Reilly's lies about this man.

Thank you for this. If I were the sentencing judge, part of the sentence would be copying these stories out longhand.

[The Painter]

Edited for Rule 12 violation.
If you make an attempt to address the topic or previous comments, you may escape infraction, but a post that is nothing but an insult is an obvious violation.

[rwguinn]

Edited to remove quote and reply to a modded post.

[sugarb]

:hug6 I'm sorry, that sounds heartbreaking.

Thanks for the hug, and I'm sorry for getting upset.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Edited for Rule 12 violation.
If you make an attempt to address the topic or previous comments, you may escape infraction, but a post that is nothing but an insult is an obvious violation.


Geese, right in the middle of responding the post changed before my very eyes. I actually had a reply. Perhaps I can word it as a general question instead.

Is every death at the hands of another murder or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you for this. If I were the sentencing judge, part of the sentence would be copying these stories out longhand.Great idea. I hope he has to listen to some of these patients in the sentencing part of the trial. Then people should spam O'Reilly with copies of the testimony.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd like to post a short side track: My appreciation to the mods for the difficult task of moderating such difficult topics as this one.

And short of calling people murderers, I for one, have a pretty high tolerance for ad homs in such an emotional thread. [/sidetrack]

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for the hug, and I'm sorry for getting upset.No apologies necessary.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Between 10 and 25 weeks??? That is a very big amount of time. 2.5 months to 6.25 months before birth. According to you, there is desire therefore there is life. By your definition, this Doctor was a murderer. You have contributed to what you abhor.

First, to respond to your question: There are other considerations. A fetus without a proper brain development may never have desires. A fetus that isn't viable for other reasons.

I don't know the details of what this doctor did. Do you? How many late-term abortions did he do, and what were the circumstances? I understand someone tried to bring charges against him, but he was acquitted.

In other words, what is your case that he was a murderer?

Second, my point was about those who go around holding signs up saying, "Abortion is murder". They're claiming that all, routine, first-trimester abortions are murder, and my observation is that their other positions and behaviors are inconsistent with the belief that "Abortion is murder"--including their condemnation of the killing of the doctor and trying to distance themselves from that position. Their inflammatory rhetoric certainly helped encourage this guy to kill the doctor.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wanted to address the claim there are merely a tiny fraction of anti-abortionists out there ranting murder inciting rhetoric.


There's a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic a couple miles from where I live. I have occasion to go past there pretty regularly. Anytime I see protesters there (maybe once a week), I always see a prominent sign that says, "Abortion is murder".

I also see similar rhetoric on billboards around the area. Stuff like, "Every hour 135 unborn children are killed" (or something like it).

If it's a minority of pro-lifers making such statements, then they're the ones in control of the movement overall.

[Whiplash]

I can't help but feel that saying "Abortion is Murder" is not a means to incite violence. I always felt it was meant to make people realize it was wrong on some emotional level. To get them to see what they feel is "the truth" about abortion.

Having come from a Christian family, as I've said before, I remember many discussions about the morality of abortion. And the consensus opinion at the time was the people accepted abortion because they didn't realize how horrid it was, and things like "abortion is murder" and commercials with fetus' and so forth were meant to shock people. To get them to see the fetus as a person. To reach them emotionally.

Not to incite violence.

[rwguinn]

There's a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic a couple miles from where I live. I have occasion to go past there pretty regularly. Anytime I see protesters there (maybe once a week), I always see a prominent sign that says, "Abortion is murder".

I also see similar rhetoric on billboards around the area. Stuff like, "Every hour 135 unborn children are killed" (or something like it).

If it's a minority of pro-lifers making such statements, then they're the ones in control of the movement overall.
Drive into Kansas on an Interstate sometime.
All the way to Wichita, Bilboars proclaim anr/or imply the "Abortion is Murder" theme.
(In fact, there was one on I-35 at the OK border that proclaimed "Wichita-Murder Capitol" )

[thaiboxerken]

I'm so glad I won't live in Wichita anymore. If abortion is murder, is scrambling an egg killing a chicken?

[BenBurch]

I can't help but feel that saying "Abortion is Murder" is not a means to incite violence. I always felt it was meant to make people realize it was wrong on some emotional level. To get them to see what they feel is "the truth" about abortion.

Having come from a Christian family, as I've said before, I remember many discussions about the morality of abortion. And the consensus opinion at the time was the people accepted abortion because they didn't realize how horrid it was, and things like "abortion is murder" and commercials with fetus' and so forth were meant to shock people. To get them to see the fetus as a person. To reach them emotionally.

Not to incite violence.

Intentions and effects can be quite different. And having NOW seen what this does, any moral person will abandon that rhetoric, or so it seems to me.

[garcia<3]

I can't help but feel that saying "Abortion is Murder" is not a means to incite violence.


Well it's obviously causing violence. Maybe people should start thinking about the consequences of calling women and doctors murderers for going through an abortion :mad:

[MattusMaximus]

Ben makes a good point. It seems the "pro-life" movement is reeling from Tiller's murder - this is the worst kind of press for them, the absolute worst. Let's hope this causes them to reflect a bit more on their tactics, rhetoric, and insane zealots like Randall Terry.

At the same time, let's hope this sad event galvanizes the medical community into standing up more against this lunacy.

[Fiona]

I can't help but feel that saying "Abortion is Murder" is not a means to incite violence. I always felt it was meant to make people realize it was wrong on some emotional level. To get them to see what they feel is "the truth" about abortion.

Having come from a Christian family, as I've said before, I remember many discussions about the morality of abortion. And the consensus opinion at the time was the people accepted abortion because they didn't realize how horrid it was, and things like "abortion is murder" and commercials with fetus' and so forth were meant to shock people. To get them to see the fetus as a person. To reach them emotionally.

Not to incite violence.

I am sure you are right that this is what many who make such statements are thinking and trying to achieve, Whiplash. But is it not curious to note what follows?

A foetus is not a person: so you cannot get folk to see this, because it is not true. I put it to you that such people have put forward all their arguments and they have lost the debates they have had with many: though of course not all.

They have no reason to suppose that other folk don't have the same information and insight they have themselves: information about abortions is not exactly hard to find and I am sure if it matters to them they have given persuasion their best shot. It seems, at best, smug to suppose that the only reason someone might disagree with you is because they do not have the facts; especially after you have presented those facts. I am trying to imagine a conversation like that, and I fail when I get to the the bit that goes " hmmm: if so many people accept abortion, even after we have given them the information about it, perhaps it is us who do not have all the facts?" How does it go after that bit? Do they consider they might be wrong? At least wrong enough to make forcing their views on others a dodgy proposition? I imagine some do.

Obviously some do not. Instead they abandon reason and try emotional blackmail. You are not supposed to tell lies to persuade people to your point of view. And you are not supposed to fall back on emotive blackmail when your reasoned argument fails: if you do then you did not engage in the debate honestly in the first place: because you will have your own way and the argument was only one means to an end you will pursue by any means you can stomach.

It is at least a waste of time pretending to engage in honest discussion of the issues, if that is where you are coming from. We all do this and sometimes at the start we don't even know we are doing it: we think our arguments are sound and it is only when they are shown to have flaws that we face the dilemma: we can only do 4 things at that point: we can change our minds;we can reserve our position and learn more and better arguments; we can recognise that this is a core issue and that we are not amenable to argument about it; or we can continue to believe we are right and abandon reason altogether on that issue

The first option is the ideal: but we can only do that some of the time
The second and third are very human and the right response in both cases is to hold to our own view but acknowledge it is irrational: and in consequence give up the idea we can impose it on others
The fourth is the problem: because now the only limit on our action is what we can face in the mirror: and some folk can face an awful lot if they can find a form of words which justifies it. And we all know that.

So, while any given individual who has taken this option might not themselves be willing to murder, they do have to accept responsibility for predictable consequences of their actions. Their actions include speech. A justification of the sort we are discussing leads logically to murder for at least some people: if you honestly believe that abortion is murder then some folk will come to believe that it is heroic to take direct action of the sort we are discussing. There is no excuse because it has happened before and so you cannot claim you never could have thought this might follow.

Hate speech has consequences: wearily predictable consequences. It is hard to see how you can take the view that hate speech designed to shock people into radically rethinking their view is only supposed to work in one direction. I find this disingenuous, frankly

[Whiplash]

Thank you for taking the time to write that Fiona. But I want to make myself clear here. I was stating what I believe that these people think, and how they rationalize to themselves. I may not have been clear about that, the only opinion I meant to be stating for myself personally in that was that I felt that "abortion is murder" never struck me as deliberately hateful. But I can see where you guys are coming from, completely. I certainly always thought it was a tad extreme or shocking. Just not deliberately meant to incite violence.

I agree it'll be good if this sad event causes them to rethink their approach. And Fiona, I am in no way pretending to have an honest discussion. I thought I made my opinion clear on abortion earlier in this thread, and said I realize my position is really one of pro-choice. I'm with you guys on this for the most part. I just have some moral niggles about abortion that I can't explain other than "it feels wrong", and that I admit may be some kind of religious baggage from my youth. And this is also probably what causes me to somewhat knee jerkishly defend them at times.

[BenBurch]

I'm not in love with abortion either.

But whatever ills accrue to legal abortion are pale in comparison to those that accrue to illegal abortion.

[Whiplash]

I agree 100% with that. Realizing that, long ago, was what first made me start to come away from strict pro-life belief.

[The Painter]

Geese, right in the middle of responding the post changed before my very eyes. I actually had a reply. Perhaps I can word it as a general question instead.

Is every death at the hands of another murder or not?

Better ask Content in violation of Rule 12 removed, I sorry I mean Tricky, He seems to be the megalomaniac around here.


But I would say no.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Robster, FCD]

I'm so glad I won't live in Wichita anymore. If abortion is murder, is scrambling an egg killing a chicken?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=187&pictureid=1171

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
But I would say no....So if every death at the hands of another is not murder, then your logic fails. If one can define the death of a fetus at the hands of another murder, it does not necessarily follow that ALL fetal deaths at the hands of another are murder.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm so glad I won't live in Wichita anymore. If abortion is murder, is scrambling an egg killing a chicken?

The eggs you use for omlette's aren't fertilized so no... eating balut however. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

The eggs you use for omlette's aren't fertilized so no... eating balut however. :DSome people eat fertilized eggs.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ben makes a good point. It seems the "pro-life" movement is reeling from Tiller's murder - this is the worst kind of press for them, the absolute worst. Let's hope this causes them to reflect a bit more on their tactics, rhetoric, and insane zealots like Randall Terry.

I hope that happens, but I don't see anything that would make me think this incident will have any greater effect than all the others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence).

[MattusMaximus]

Well, it seems as if the other shoe is starting to drop. I had long feared that this was the work of more than just one unhinged nut...

Suspect in abortion doctor death warns of violence (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting)
The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.

A Justice Department spokesman said the threat was being taken seriously and additional protection had been ordered for abortion clinics last week. But a leader of the anti-abortion movement derided the accused shooter as "a fruit and a lunatic."

Scott Roeder called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail, where he's being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Dr. George Tiller one week ago.

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. He would not elaborate. ...

I'm now pretty much convinced that we could be seeing a resurgence of the kind of ultra-fundamentalist domestic terrorism that we saw in the 90s regarding abortion clinics & doctors. This seems to confirm my suspicions.

Btw, I started a new thread on this particular point.

[BenBurch]

Well, MattusMaximus, if that is actually true, then we need to use the anti-terrorism laws and shut down Operation Rescue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, MattusMaximus, if that is actually true, then we need to use the anti-terrorism laws and shut down Operation Rescue.While this should have been done a long time ago, I think anything that idiot murderer claims is on par with Tim McVeigh and Manson both thinking they were starting 'the revolution' with their idiot actions.