Big Blue Wave's Comments
Have a look at what people like you are saying.
It is terrorism.
PROLIFERS: It's wrong to try to solve problems by killing people.
PROCHOICERS: If somebody's existence is troubling you, it's okay to kill them.
And WE'RE the ones promoting violence?
But the people who embrace killing as a way of solving problems will blame those of us who oppose killing.
Let's look at this:
1. Tiller likely died unrepentant.
2. The killer damaged his own soul in committing this act.
3. Just as the abortion lobby was losing ground, they've been provided with a high profile martyr.
This was truly a Satanic act.
It is terrorism.
It is terrorism. I condemn it. I want the culprit in jail.
I reject killing, whether the victim is a fetus or an abortionist.
Predictably, the opposition will use this to smear all pro-lifers as violent
Well, when you gleefully link to Jill Stanek gleefully linking to Gingi Edmonds metaphorically dancing on the graves of Bud Feldkamp's family, we kind of have to wonder if you're not secretly getting off on anti-abortion terrorism.
I reject killing, whether the victim is a fetus or an abortionist.
I'm not buying that for a minute.
I guess calling him "abortionist George Tiller" instead of Dr. Tiller was accidental?
A lot of the blame can be dumped at the doorstep of groups like Operation Rescue.
Apologists for murder, and yet have the temerity to call themselves "pro-life".
If you don't think your non-stop idiotic "abortion is murder" rhetoric isn't a direct cause of this crime, they you are only confirming your acceptance of this crime.
How many pro-choice people have killed anyone in the "pro-life" camp?
None. Zero. Ziltch.
You disgust me with your backpedaling and pretending not to be a part of the problem. Damn you all to hell.
The least you can do is admit that your constant babbling about murder has finally led someone to act on it.
Take some personal responsiblitly.
This site is basically the same as those ones filled with Jihadist wannabe's.
All that's missing is videos of the shootings..
when you gleefully link to Jill Stanek
I did not "gleefully" do it, joying in his death.
That is YOUR reading into my post.
I'm not buying that for a minute.
That is a cheap ploy. I know myself better than you do. I will say it again
I reject killing, whether the victim is a fetus or an abortionist.
You have no reason to doubt me, except your prejudice against pro-lifers.
A lot of the blame can be dumped at the doorstep of groups like Operation Rescue.
And when Palestinians engage in terrorist tactics, is leftist rhetoric Israel to blame?
This site is basically the same as those ones filled with Jihadist wannabe's.
Clearly you are reading what you want to read.
I condemn killing abortion doctors.
Apologists for murder, and yet have the temerity to call themselves "pro-life".
Who? Not. Not the pro-life movement.
If you don't think your non-stop idiotic "abortion is murder" rhetoric isn't a direct cause of this crime, they you are only confirming your acceptance of this crime.
And leftists who don't think their anti-Israeli rhetoric doesn't fuel anti-semitism only confirms their acceptance of Palestinian terrorism.
That's simply a politically expedient logical fallacy.
How many pro-choice people have killed anyone in the "pro-life" camp?
None. Zero. Ziltch.
No, but lots of pro-lifers DO get hurt at protests and the like. I don't hear a peep from abortion supporters that it's not okay for that to happen.
The least you can do is admit that your constant babbling about murder has finally led someone to act on it.
Take some personal responsiblitly.
I am not personally responsible for the behaviour of others.
Millions of pro-lifers believe that killing both the unborn and abortionists is wrong.
That someone believes otherwise is not our fault. I know you'd like it to be our fault, because it's so rhetorically convenient to do so, but it's not. Individuals are responsible for their own behaviour.
The rhetoric is the anti-choice movement's fault, SUZANNE, and that means you. The "Tiller the Killer" BS that you people use to whip each other into a frenzy is what made this happen.
Rhetoric has consequences. You own this and you wear it well.
Suzanne, how dare you even suggest that this isn't the fault of the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement. This is exactly the reason that Canada has hate speech laws, and this is why the murder (who has been identified as a frequent poster on Operation Rescue) and all of his enablers should be rounded up and questioned on suspected terrorist charges.
For shame, you purport to support life but you stand idly by while your movement encourages murder.
Information has been released about the suspect. It appears that he does have ties to the anti-abortion group "Operation Rescue," as well as prior arrests and convictions. More here:
http://tinyurl.com/mn8mub
Suzanne, how dare you even suggest that this isn't the fault of the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement.
Is anti-Israeli rhetoric responsible for Palestinian terrorism?
This is exactly the reason that Canada has hate speech laws,
To silence people like me. I know. You want to shut me up. I won't.
and all of his enablers should be rounded up and questioned on suspected terrorist charges.
I suppose that people who engage in Anti-Israeli rhetoric should also be questioned?
For shame, you purport to support life but you stand idly by while your movement encourages murder.
Our movement does not. Did you READ the post?
The rhetoric is the anti-choice movement's fault, SUZANNE, and that means you.
No. Ideas do not cause people to kill. You can be mad and not kill someone.
When leftists call Israel an oppressor, are they supporting Palestinian terrorism?
The "Tiller the Killer" BS that you people use to whip each other into a frenzy is what made this happen.
No. Because we can be mad at Tiller and not want to kill him. You don't seem to get that. Being mad at someone doesn't mean you kill him. The decision to kill was the killer's alone.
I'm not shutting up. Fetal rights are human rights.
Ooo. Over there. Shiny bright thingy. Palestine? Sheesh.
Get a grip, SUZANNE. This is yours. Your people incited this. You wear it.
The suspect is associated with Operation Rescue, i.e. Randall Terry, American domestic terrorist.
Bullshit, SUZANNE.
Are you trying to tell me that calling someone a baby-butcher and a mass-murderer over and over again, complete with gory images, keeping lists of doctors with the ones who've been assassinated struck through, encouraging people to follow, spy on, and share information about clinic staff, giving youtube demonstrations of abortions, etc etc etc, is NOT going to incite some nutcase to take it further? That it's not, on some level, intended to do just that?
How else would you expect that kind of ongoing virulent hateful propaganda to end? With rational discussion over tea & cookies?
Anti-choicers know good and damn well that there are many among you who are psychologically close to the edge. You know this. You must. And yet you insist on using the kind of inflammatory language that would push them over.
Then you want to wash your hands of it? Sorry, it don't work that way.
The only positive about this is that the anti-choice movement, which was already pretty marginal, will be a public pariah for years to come.
Well fern, does anti-Israeli rhetoric fuel Palestinian rhetroic?
When suicide bombers blow up, I hope "your side" takes responsibility.
I guess whipping up people into a "frenzy of hatred" is okay when "your side" does it.
I never notice you feel apologetic when pro-lifers get beaten up by pro-abortion supporters.
And you still have not address the issue of how stabbing a baby in the head is not child abuse. I know you think it's stupid and all, but most people think it is child abuse.
And I am trying to recall the last time I spouted anti-Israeli rhetoric. I have denounced actions on both side of that.
But don't let that deter you.
Deflector shields at maximum.
Gigi
Whether YOU have or not isn't so much the point.
Saying that ALL pro-lifers are responsible for this killing is like saying that anyone who spouts anti-Israeli rhetoric is responsible for Palestinian suicide bombers or any other anti-semitic vandalism.
You can be angry and denounce the actions of people or groups without killing them, wanting to kill them or encouraging others to do so.
That's logical. The left wants to make pro-lifers responsible in the name of scoring cheap political points.
Ooo-ooo. More shiny thingamajiggies.
Cite me where I spouted anti-Israel anything.
The scissors thing? Still too stoooopid.
Your side is toast, SUZANNE.
Attorney-General Holder in the US is sending US marshalls out to protect abortion clinics from your people. Nice optics, eh?
"Is anti-Israeli rhetoric responsible for Palestinian terrorism?"
In North America? No. In the Middle East, perhaps. That's a sidestep though and you know it.
"To silence people like me. I know. You want to shut me up. I won't."
You can't make your point without calling people "murderers" and wishing that they would die or that something bad would happen to them?
Weak.
"I suppose that people who engage in Anti-Israeli rhetoric should also be questioned?"
Show me one instance of a progressive blogger saying that Israelies deserve to die and I will agree with you. Until then you can put the strawman away.
"Our movement does not. Did you READ the post?"
Except that it does. I read your post, and I read other sites. To shove everything under the rug and cry that this was an isolated incident is the height of dishonesty.
Again, shame on you.
"The left wants to make pro-lifers responsible in the name of scoring cheap political points.'
But you ARE responsible. It WAS a pro-lifer who did it. When was the last time that a pro-choice person bombed an anti-abortion rally or otherwise shot someone?
And don't give me that tired excuse that people get shoved (ZOMG SHOVED! THE HORROR!) while protesting.
Paladiea, you have stated on your blog that Israel has targeted Palestine for extermination.
http://thestormydaysofmarch.com/?p=358
Doesn't that kind of rhetoric whip up hatred for Israel and making suicide bombing seem okay?
Does that make you responsible for suicide bombings?
It WAS a pro-lifer who did it.
And Muslims engage in terrorism. Does that make all Muslims guilty? No.
Cheap, illogical political points.
And don't give me that tired excuse that people get shoved (ZOMG SHOVED! THE HORROR!)
I'm not talking about being "shoved". Rose Mawhorter was punched while holding an abortion sign in front of a clinic in Vancouver. Suzanne Poulin was assaulted while praying peacefully in front of the Ottawa clinic. She had to go to the hospital, and if I rm
Does that make YOU responsible?
Individual responsibility is just that *individual*.
You can be mad and denounce the actions and beliefs of others without wanting to hurt them or encouraging others to hurt.
George Tiller's killer is responsible for his own behaviour. He decided that killing abortionists is okay.
The vast majority of those involved in the mainstream pro-life movement reject such violence.
Rhetoric has consequences. You own this and you wear it well.
If everyone was responsible for every act of violence connected to their movement, no one would be innocent.
Were all Quebec separatists responsible for the FLQ crisis? No.
Are all anti-zionists responsible for suicide bombings? No.
Were abolitionists responsible for the failed uprisings? no.
I could go on.
Rhetoric does not make decisions.
Individual responsibility is that-- individual.
Read this sloooowly. You participate in the rhetoric. Somebody (the 'one lone crazy person Marc Lepine theory') acts on the cumulative exhortations about 'baby killing', 'Tiller the Killer', yadayada.
That somebody goes into a church and shoots and kills a person who has been systematically demonized for decades by PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
You wear this.
You participate in the rhetoric. Somebody (the 'one lone crazy person Marc Lepine theory') acts on the cumulative exhortations about 'baby killing',
That is their personal responsibility.
Rhetoric does not "make" people do anything.
Marc Lepine was a loon. There was no rhetoric that "made" him shoot 14 women. He was a frustrated loser who took it out on women.
That somebody goes into a church and shoots and kills a person who has been systematically demonized for decades by PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Demonization does not make people kill someone. You can denounce someone, and ever hate someone, without encouraging to kill them.
Fern. That's the truth. Rhetoric does not kill people.
You wear this.
Okay, then the anti-zionist movmement must wear all suicide bombings and all anti-semitic acts.
You set the standard.
And when George Bush gets assassinated, you can wear it, too.
In North America? No. In the Middle East, perhaps. That's a sidestep though and you know it.
It's not a sidestep. If you're going to set up a standard, it must apply to you.
In the age of the internet, borders don't matter. The suicide bomber in Palestine can easily access anti-Israeli rhetoric written in English. So that's a cop-out.
Anti-semitic acts born of anti-Zionism are not unheard of in North America.
But I guess...it's okay with when anti-Zionists do it.
You can't make your point without calling people "murderers" and wishing that they would die or that something bad would happen to them?
Weak.
Well, I regularly do make my point about abortion WITHOUT calling anyone murderers. In fact, I rarely call abortion murder. My angle has consistently been that unborn children are equal who should have their human rights acknoweldged.
When was the last time that a pro-choice person bombed an anti-abortion rally or otherwise shot someone?
And don't give me that tired excuse that people get shoved (ZOMG SHOVED! THE HORROR!) while protesting.
Off the top of my head, Rose Mawhorter and Suzanne Poulin were not merely "shoved" but violently assaulted. It does happen at peaceful pro-life vigils. Suzanne Poulin had to go to the hospital.
Show me one instance of a progressive blogger saying that Israelies deserve to die and I will agree with you. Until then you can put the strawman away.
"Israelis deserve to die" is not the only rhetoric that whips people's hatred. You picked an easy standard. Things like "Israel engages in extermination" justifies "resistance" like suicide bombing. I guess you'd better wear all the Palestinian terrorism....
Except that it does
Every major organization denounced the murder of George Tiller. That's not representative enough for you? A few anonymous posts are representative, but large organizations representing millions of pro-lifers is not?
To shove everything under the rug and cry that this was an isolated incident is the height of dishonesty.
Who's "shoving everything under the rug?" I am confronting everything you are saying. You do not seem to like my answers because they do not conform to your stereotype of what a pro-lifer is supposed to be.
It was an isolated incident. How often are abortionists shot? That should answer your question.
Again, shame on you.
Get off your high horse. I will never be shamed into silence for upholding the right to life of ALL human beings, including the unborn.
If I had participated in the bs line that Bush needed to be assasinated then yes, I'd wear that as well. But I haven't. You've participated, on more occasions than I have the energy to count, in the dehumanizing of abortion providers.
There is a straight line from your rhetoric and these actions.
You want rhetoric and free speech with no consequences.
But there are always consequences.
This consequence is yours..
and it looks good on you.
That is a cheap ploy. I know myself better than you do. I will say it again
Garbage!!!
There is nothing cheap about it. You, yes, you, are an enabler and bear as much responsibility as anyone else for this act. Further, you pounded your frigging drum as hard as you could.
You're not the slightest bit sorry about this, or we'd be seeing your acts of contrition for your contribution to an assassination.
Want to know what I have to say to you, SUZANNE, come over and read it.
You want to shut me up. I won't.
I don't want you to shut up.
I want you to be yapping your religious, superstitious crap from behind bars.
That's right, SUZANNE, I want you in a jail cell as someone who aided and abetted an assassin.
"Get off your high horse. I will never be shamed into silence for upholding the right to life of ALL human beings, including the unborn."
Wow.. that took a while.. the whole "we're trying to censor you" whine...
I DEMAND that you keep going on the way you are... I REQUIRE that you never stop. Because it makes it clear who you and yours are and it's easier to point to terrorists and terrorist enablers like you when you keep braying..
"the dehumanizing of abortion providers."
Why, because I called him what he is: a killer?
He probably knew he was a killer.
There is a straight line from your rhetoric and these actions.
Give me a break. As if calling someone a "killer" will make people kill that person. It doesn't quite work that way.
It's called personal responsibility.
You want rhetoric and free speech with no consequences.
Denouncing someone who kills as a killer doesn't make people kill. I know that sounds crazy to you, but it's true. Lots of people are denounced as killers, and they're never killed. Because denunication doesn't kill.
Are you trying to tell me that calling someone a baby-butcher and a mass-murderer over and over again, complete with gory images, keeping lists of doctors with the ones who've been assassinated struck through, encouraging people to follow, spy on, and share information about clinic staff, giving youtube demonstrations of abortions, etc etc etc, is NOT going to incite some nutcase to take it further? That it's not, on some level, intended to do just that?
No. That is simply your fantasy.
Before you can kill, someone must WANT to kill.
Pro-lifers do not want to kill.
I know you want to believe that we're all secretly plotting to kill people.
But those are lone nutters.
I'm not going to stop speaking the truth about unborn children in fear that some lone nutter is going to act on it. No more than you would stop saying what you thought was true just because someone killed somebody over it.
Saying things that are true does not kill people.
There is nothing cheap about it.
It's totally cheap. It's rash, fallacious judgment spewed in an effort to silence people.
You, yes, you, are an enabler and bear as much responsibility as anyone else for this act. Further, you pounded your frigging drum as hard as you could.
Okay, Dave, then I guess the next time a Palestinian suicide bomber kills people, you'll wear the anti-Zionist rhetoric.
This is all foolish. People do not kill on the basis of seeing aborted pictures.
Yeah, and I'll keep speaking out. Because unborn children are people, too. I will simply not be silenced.
That's right, SUZANNE, I want you in a jail cell as someone who aided and abetted an assassin.
No censorship there...
But Dave, under what law, exactly, would you have me arrested and charged.
That would be very interesting.
But as long as I live in a free country, I won't be silenced. I will continue to speak for the unborn child. I will never back down from denouncing what abortionists do--- which is violate the rights of unborn children by killing them.
And you know what? I might just make my point by cranking more blogposts.
I REQUIRE that you never stop. Because it makes it clear who you and yours are and it's easier to point to terrorists and terrorist enablers like you when you keep braying..
Well now you're an enabler.
You're enabling me to enable.
You're ENCOURAGING ME to continue in the lethal rhetoric that supposedly killed George Tiller.
Your rhetoric has consequences.
Next time an abortion doctor is killed, it'll be YOUR fault.
Wear it.
Want to know what I have to say to you, SUZANNE, come over and read it.
What makes you think I'm that interested in what you have to say to me?
Ooo. The spinning has addled S's brain. Either that or the catlick church meltdown.
You demonize abortion providers. You defend the child-abusers. You wear it.
Oh, wait. Palestine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What makes you think I'm that interested in what you have to say to me?
Because I'm accusing you of enabling a murderer.
If that doesn't bother you, fine!
It further reinforces my position that you promoted this event.
By the FSM, you really are too easy.
"But those are lone nutters."
Lone nutters who are completely unaffected by the hateful hyperbolic rhetoric and the demonization of doctors.
Either you're lying because you're fully aware of your culpability, or you're as delusional as the POS who pulled the trigger today.
Pick one. There is no "none of the above" option.
"Rose Mawhorter and Suzanne Poulin were not merely "shoved" but violently assaulted."
They are alive still and they will recover and their injuries are not permanent and you're the one who excuses forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term by saying the harm to her is not permanent. George Tiller is not injured. He is dead. And whether you personally wished for that to happen or not you own what happened because you helped facilitate the urging of the murder. Yes you did. You are an accessory to murder.
"Pro-lifers do not want to kill."
All evidence to the contrary.
"But Dave, under what law, exactly, would you have me arrested and charged."
Under the Terrorist Act or whatever it's called, that's what law. And you can be arrested in Canada as a Canadian citizen and extradicted to the United States for trial. If they can try it with Marc Emery, who has much more political clout than you, they can do it to you.
And you're all of a sudden very big on the idea of individuality, now that one of your cohorts has stained what you all like to think of as a "reputation", aren't you? Now you know how it feels to be lumped in with the freaks and nasties that hang out with you folks and learn from you and take your words and turn them into actions that get people killed. Don't like it, do you? Too bad.
Maybe next time you come across what one feminist does to grind sand into your gearbox you won't be so tempted to lump all feminists under the same umbrella?
Gorgon DON'T YOU DARE SUGGEST SUZZI CAN LEARN!
*ducking* Did I do dat?
From the alleged killer:
"It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the "lawlessness" which is spoken of in the Bible. Tiller is the concentration camp "Mengele" of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgement upon our nation."
Don't you frequently call abortion a holocaust? Sounds like similar rhetoric to me...
Dear god, you cant leave this palestine thing alone can you? It's retarded.
Israel does bad stuff to palestinians, this is pretty much universally known. Pretty much every Palestinian gets the shaft good and hard from israel. Palestinians blow *** up in Israel because Israel does horrible *** in Palestine.
The fact that someone called the Israelis on their *** is neither here nor there. If they werent occupying someone elses country then the people from said country wouldn't be interested in striking back. Holy hell, I do not understand how this logic is so hard to grasp.
And it was the Right who was all in favour of going and stomping all over countries in the middle east for.... err... Oh wait, there was no good reason. It lends an awesome air of hypocracy to the whole thing.
Edited By Siteowner
"I'm not talking about being "shoved". Rose Mawhorter was punched while holding an abortion sign in front of a clinic in Vancouver. Suzanne Poulin was assaulted while praying peacefully in front of the Ottawa clinic. She had to go to the hospital, and if I rm
Does that make YOU responsible?"
Blah blah blah. What about the Sue Atkinson that you claimed was hospitalized by the terrible pro-choice violence at your big rally. No citation of that anywhere in the media, above ground or even in the twisted fetishist media that your own side uses as a bullhorn to rouse the credulous and whip up the fervent. Just another lie to divert the eyes of those who would see you for what you are.
I've stepped in between some of your "counsellors" and innocent women going into the hospital. One of your screaming cohorts was trying to physically impede a woman's progress with his sign. He ended up knocking my glasses off my face with his peaceful prayer. I called the cops and had him removed though in all honesty it was pretty tempting to pop him in the mouth. But actual violence, calculated, terrorism and murder is all on your side of the fence. You can lie to yourself SUZIE but more and more people see through the veils of righteousness that you and your ilk hide behind. You can try and hide the corruption of your fellows behind a cross but the stink of you is repugnant.
And after a little googling, I found that in the case of Suzanne Poulin, it was the abortion clinic security that intervened to stop the assault. When your ilk get shoved it is because you stalk, harass and verbally assault people. You try and impose your will on the lives and bodies of others. You sit in your smug judgement and deign to decide upon intimate personal decisions regarding the health and lives of people whom you have no right to be bothering. When people react to your confrontational tactics you whine that the lefties are evil.
When your side stalk and murder doctors, plant bombs at clinics, set buildings aflame and put people in harms way, you pretend not to be culpable and you blame the lone crazies. Yet the pattern is there to be seen. You lie to obscure your responsibility but it is there. You and your troubled ilk are involved in terrorism in the mildest form, via harassment and psychological and verbal assault and by extension you share in the blame for the more extravagant terrorism committed by your movement brethren.
"Nuh UH that makes you responsible for palestine."
The majority of comments on this post are ridiculous. The organized pro-life movement condemns all violence against human beings, born and unborn. To denounce violence acts on the unborn in no way supports violence against the perpetrators of those acts. Suzanne couldn't have been clearer about this. Commenters that post other wise about Suzanne or the pro-life movement simply show their bias and inability to think clearly.
George Tiller's death was a tragedy, as are all deaths that result from the violence of others ---- that includes the unborn by the way. Keep up the good work Suzanne! you are making a significant, positive difference in the world we live in.
SUZANNE said: Rhetoric does not "make" people do anything.
Oh? Then what is your rationale in using rhetoric to change people’s minds about abortion?
Rhetoric does make people kill, among other things, and you know it damn well. The rhetoric doesn’t have to say specifically “go kill,” it’s enough to spread vitriolic hatred.
On top of that, you, and those like you lie, lie, and lie to drive your audiences into a deeper frenzy of hate. Therapeutic late term abortions - which is what Dr. Tiller performed - are not done as you would have us believe because some selfish little slut got “herself” pregnant, didn’t want a kid, and just finally got around to scheduling her abortion.
Yes, you own this murder. You helped spread the hate and the lies. You wear it, whether you agree or not. Why do you think the rabid cheerleaders of murders such as this recent one go to your site, and sites like yours? They like what they see.
I'd be interested to see what the pro lifers takes on overpopulation and contraception are, just out of interest, just out of interest.
You wrote: "I want the culprit caught, prosecuted, and jailed for life."
Not enough. This demands not only a lawful response but also an unlawful one.
It is time for counterterror against right-to-lifers. Against ALL right-to-lifers including those who claim to be non-violent.
The slogan "abortion is murder" must now be recognized for what it is: a claim that the murder of Dr. Tiller is no worse than doing an abortion for a woman who wants one. That's tacit approval. An incitement to terrorize abortion providers.
I really think that after yesterday, anyone professes that abortion is murder deserves to be murdered himself.
Let me put it this way: it's kind of rich for the pro-life movement to claim that they're against all killing, unless they're all also the pathological variety of pacifist as well.
I mean, moral consistency please. If I thought---knew for an absolute fact---someone was a mass murderer, and I had the chance to stop them---even if it meant killing them---what do *you* think I should do?
There's only one morally consistent answer to that question. And it's not the one where I let the murderer keep killing.
Tiller's death was committed by someone who clearly thought he was being morally consistent, and he was---according to his own beliefs. Either Tiller was a mass murderer or he was not.
The pro-choice side believes he was very much not, because he dealt with the hard cases and saved people's lives that way.
The pro-life side he was. Then anything else but owning his death is weaselry. That's because the pro-life side believes that the fetus' life trumps that of the mother by virtue of its dependency---even if it were going to die anyway. There's a straight line between that belief and Tiller's death.
Using the Israel distractor, which is about the right to a country and who has it, is further weaselry.
Yup, that's the thing Mandos - conservative, "pro-life" (and we now have further proof of what a crock that moniker is) Catholics really do think that even if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is still not justified.
Hence, Tiller is a demonic mass-murderer - in the words of the Operation Rescue head.
As someone who truly values human life, and not just the fetal variety, the millenia of deaths due to childbirth and the myriad inherent risks of pregnancy make it quite obvious that people who are pathologically opposed to abortion really have it all wrong - and nuts like the murderer of Tiller show exactly how fetus fetishism is so dangerous to the psyche. As well as to women and doctors who are brave enough to stand up for their health.
Can we not with that the prolifers were locked up or killed?
I think these guys are retarded as the next man but stooping to that level kills the argument guys.
"The majority of comments on this post are ridiculous. The organized pro-life movement condemns all violence against human beings, born and unborn."
Those are weasel words and cowardly and guilt ridden and hollow. Here's a clue, Andy: Actions speak louder than words and your boy Roeder acted. He did it for "the cause" and now a lot of members in the cause want to desert him because you're all afraid of what he did.
Some of your cohorts are playing the justification by numbers game, well Tiller was only one life and he "killed" "hundreds" (but no specific number, note) of other "lives" and if Roeder hadn't killed him he'd have "killed" more, so he was justified because he actually "saved lives".
You guys are always saying how this is a black and white decision and either the rest of the world is with you or against you and there is no neutral ground. Well Roeder is with you. He's yours. You better claim him because he's claiming you and the rest of the world is focused on him, not your feeble denials.
Doctor Defense - You cross the line.
Violence is only acceptable as a defensive measure against an imminent threat -- people have free speech to say "abortion is murder" or "abortion is great", whatever they choose. People should not be killed because they have an unpopular or stupid opinion, and to advocate for such is absolutely wrong.
Actually, your comment is so wrong and weird that I suspect you're really an anti-choicer trolling for violent reactions from pro-choicers. Nice try.
You demonize abortion providers. You defend the child-abusers. You wear it.
Oh, wait. Palestine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You demonize Israelis. They kill Jews. You were it.
What about the Sue Atkinson that you claimed was hospitalized by the terrible pro-choice violence at your big rally.
I got the names mixed up. I was thinking of the Suzanne Poulin incident, but I erroneously said it was Sue Atkinson.
Frank Schaeffer, a former "pro-lifer" and member of the religious right, takes ownership for yesterday's killing. An interesting read...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
fr...e_b_209747.html
BN
Yup, that's the thing Mandos - conservative, "pro-life" (and we now have further proof of what a crock that moniker is) Catholics really do think that even if the mother's life is in danger, abortion is still not justified.
That's right. We will be consistent with our beliefs and not attack any innocent life.
It is somewhat disingenuous to bring this up, as I've said, on numerous occasions, that a premature delivery is permissible, thereby saving the mother.
Dear god, you cant leave this palestine thing alone can you? It's retarded.
It's retarded because the whole idea of making one's views responsible for the actions of a lone nutter is retarded. Were anti-Zionists and Muslims ALL responsible for September 11th?
Of course not. Even if they hate America, as many leftists do, they all didn't fly the plane into the WTC.
Palestinians blow *** up in Israel because Israel does horrible *** in Palestine.
The fact that someone called the Israelis on their *** is neither here nor there. If they werent occupying someone elses country then the people from said country wouldn't be interested in striking back. Holy hell, I do not understand how this logic is so hard to grasp.
Tiller killed third trimester babies for a living. The fact that people called him is normal.
How is it okay for a Palestinian suicide bomber to go kill innocent Jews who had nothing to do with the Israeli occupation? Don't you think the anti-Zionist rhetoric fuels his hatred.
Oh. I get it. It's okay when YOU do it because YOU'RE RIGHT.
"Rose Mawhorter and Suzanne Poulin were not merely "shoved" but violently assaulted."
They are alive still and they will recover and their injuries are not permanent
If pro-life rhetoric causes people to kill, then anti-pro-lifer rhetoric causes people to hurt pro-lifers. That's not okay, right?
Yes SUZANNE, just as that Catholic bishop would have liked to see the 9-year-old girl carry twins to six months and then deliver them.
Thereby subjecting two fetuses to suffering and certain death, and a 9-year-old to the risk of death and complications that would have put her health and future reproductive ability at great risk.
There is no moral or medical justification for your position. Only a religious one, and I for one reject it.
If I had participated in the bs line that Bush needed to be assasinated then yes,
Well I'd never said that Tiller needed to be assassinated, and same thing with 99% of all pro-lifers, so I guess this discussion is all moot, right?
Lone nutters who are completely unaffected by the hateful hyperbolic rhetoric and the demonization of doctors.
Either you're lying because you're fully aware of your culpability, or you're as delusional as the POS who pulled the trigger today.
Pick one. There is no "none of the above" option.
Then I guess the lone nutters who punched Rose Mawhorter and Suzanne Poulin were affected by the demonization of pro-lifers (such as is going on in this com box) therefore you're responsible for their assaults and you must wear it.
An opportunity for Janet Napolitano to take action against those "terrorist" pro-lifers. Just like all the 9/11 terrorists who "entered the US through Canada" who (however nonexistent) provided an excuse for building up a bigger wall. Just say a thing, and it becomes true--don't let mere facts get in the way. That's why pro-lifers are pro-life--so they can shoot people who don't agree with them. Isn't that obvious???
It's a sad day for everyone when someone is shot, but consider the context: According to research published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "The Maternal Death Rate from Abortion is almost 3 times higher than the Death Rate from Childbirth, according to a 13-year population study of pregnancy-associated deaths." Another study[Southern Medical Journal] "linked death records to Medi-Cal payments for births & abortions for ~173,000 low income CA women. In that study, researchers found that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following 2 years and that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least 8 years." The CDC, who traditionally records as few abortion-related deaths as possible, admits that 4-11 women die each year in the US as a direct result of complications of abortion, never mind other non-lethal, but still harmful effects.
Leaving completely aside for a moment the more than 50 million children whose lives have been stolen since 1973,(or the "lucky ones" who have survived the procedure, with permanent consequent disabilities) where is the outcry from women's groups about these dead women? Think of it! At an absolute minimum, 4 to 11 women each and every year die, and did any one of them get any of the press that George Tiller did? George Tiller's killing was wrong, but just because he's a white male doesn't make his life more valuable than the countless lives of women who have been harmed by legal abortion. Surely we can all agree on that, even if only some of us care about the 50 million other human beings.
I mean, moral consistency please. If I thought---knew for an absolute fact---someone was a mass murderer, and I had the chance to stop them---even if it meant killing them---what do *you* think I should do?
There's only one morally consistent answer to that question. And it's not the one where I let the murderer keep killing.
Mandos, there is not only "one" morally consistent answer.
I've addressed that question on this blog before.
The laws of this land are that abortion is legal.
Therefore, to engage in a massive resistance against abortionists would amount to Just Revolution, a form of civil war, which is closely related to the Just War theory.
I do not wish to get into the Just War theory in detail. However, the situation does not live up to a Just War criteria, therefore, it would be unlawful to engage in a mass act of violence against abortionists.
It is not permitted to take the law into one's hands. Pro-lifers have not exhausted every last means of peaceful advocacy for the unborn. And even if they had, there are several other criteria to be met before such a resistance would be justified, namely, the population would have to be on our side, we would have to be in a position to win, and the evil caused would have to be less than the good created.
Clearly, we are nowhere near this situation.
Thanks for posting that link, southernquebec - Francis Schaeffer was indeed one of the first to use the holocaust rhetoric that makes people crazy; even though I doubt he would have directly condoned murder, all of his rhetoric pushed in that direction. I see him as having helped to create this polarised, radical climate where wingnuts with guns are tacitly justified, and false equivalences are bandied about (such as the holocaust, slavery, and even dragging the Israel-Palestine conflict into the mess, as SUZANNE is trying to do.)
I'm glad his son has recognised what has happened and how the religious right created this monster. Or *is* the monster, in many ways.
Thank you Cathy.
I am angered that Tiller was shot.
But I am angered that practically no one feels outrage for the babies he stabbed in the head, whose brains he sucked out. The babies in whose hearts he injected potassium chloride. Things that not even Morgentaler would do because he has ethical issues with them.
There is no sadness or regret for these children who were killed in the name of eugenics or convenience.
Thereby subjecting two fetuses to suffering and certain death, and a 9-year-old to the risk of death and complications that would have put her health and future reproductive ability at great risk.
No true, BN. Brazil has lots of sexual violence, and many girls give birth without issue.
Those fetuses were dismembered. Doctors do things to them that you wouldn't do to any of the animals that you handle.
(such as the holocaust, slavery, and even dragging the Israel-Palestine conflict into the mess, as SUZANNE is trying to do.)
The dehumanization of the unborn child is the latest of a series of attempts to dehumanize various groups and to deny them the right to life. There is an analogy to be made because it is in the name of dehumanization that this killing is done.
"It's a sad day for everyone when someone is shot, but consider the context:"
See, here's the problem with that sentence, to a person like me it reads like this:
"yeah yeah, whatever the abortion killer doctor genocidal massacring guy was killed, but look, over here, a really good reason to have shot him.".
It reads like an excuse, a rationalization of killing (an illegal act) a man who provides abortions (a legal act).
Oh, just a bit later in the same post: "George Tiller's killing was wrong, but just because he's a white male doesn't make his life more valuable than the countless lives of women who have been harmed by legal abortion." More "but but but"... abortion is a legal procedure, a medical one. Medical procedures have risks. During the mid-90s elective plastic surgery had a rate of "20 deaths per 100,000". One study I found said that death rates from surgery (non-cardiac) was between .8 and 1.5...
So, by your "logic" it's also ok to kill plastic surgeons?
Terrorists, the lot of you.
"Then I guess the lone nutters who punched Rose Mawhorter and Suzanne Poulin were affected by the demonization of pro-lifers (such as is going on in this com box) therefore you're responsible for their assaults and you must wear it."
You're not seriously equivocating a slap upside the head or a shove with a bullet to the brain?
I also did not participate in an ongoing campaign of hatred and demonizing rhetoric against these 2 individuals for the express purpose of dehumanizing them to the point where some "lone nutter" (who just happens to share my sentiments on abortion) would attack and kill them.
If you people only had the balls to admit your culpability in this latest anti-choice murder, I might actually have some respect for you.
"There is an analogy to be made because it is in the name of dehumanization that this killing is done."
That is only the way you spin it, but it has little to do with reality.
You realise that the brain piercing was designed to remove any of the percieved suffering as opposed to other methods. The only reason that one gets trotted out is because of its shock value.
Anyway.
I am pretty sure this is mock outrage. Not one of the prolifers here is sorry this guy is dead, they are sorry that his death has left a black mark on their campaign.
Suzanne you pointed out the reasons for your palestinian/babykiller logic earlier and it just doesnt work. Simply because the israelis are subjugating people and the babykillers are killing things that AREN'T PEOPLE yet.
And no, dehumanising the fetus isnt a new thing, the entire point has been for a long time that its ok to do because its not a person yet.
Also, third trimester abortion is never going to be a convenience abortion. The mother is going to be facing injury or the baby disability, so it's a quality of life issue. But its clear you dont give a damn about that, since you were all in favour of a BABY WITHOUT A BRAIN being kept alive as long as possible.
"So, by your "logic" it's also ok to kill plastic surgeons?"
Sorry, I missed the part where I said it was okay to kill anyone; in fact, I'm rather sure I said it wasn't, ever. But again, let's not let facts get in the way of our ranting. I guess, after all, we CAN'T all agree that 4-11 women's lives lost a year is as bad as Dr. Tiller's life lost. It really IS hard to find common ground with some people.
Oh, and owning slaves was legal once, and beating one's wife still is legal in some places. Legal does not equal ethical.
The truth about the Suzanne Poulin assault:
The police were called while the security guard from the abortion mill and some men from the gathering crowd tried to subdue the attacker, who was described as about 30 years old, and well dressed and groomed.
No hint anywhere that this person was other than crazed. No hint of pro-choice ties. Ditto the attacker of Rose Mawhorter.
But the killer of Dr. Tiller was a member of Operation rescue. And the killers of other doctors have all been active members of your obscene "pro-life" movement. And these domestic terrorists were all motivated by the ceaseless rhetoric of--people like yourself, SUZANNE, prating about holocausts and waving your stupid pictures around. The killer was a time bomb, and folks like you set the fuse.
Own up to your responsbility, and stop trying to change the subject to Palestine. Good grief, that's weak and cowardly.
Therefore, to engage in a massive resistance against abortionists would amount to Just Revolution, a form of civil war, which is closely related to the Just War theory.
All too convenient. You love contorted hypotheticals so here's one. Let's say that the State authorizes some people to shoot randomly in grocery stores. You happen to be behind one and have a gun yourself. You don't have a mass murder license of your own. You have the opportunity to shoot him while he's firing randomly into a grocery store.
Do you take the shot or not? He's legally allowed to do it. But people are dying in the grocery store.
"But the killer of Dr. Tiller was a member of Operation rescue."
Does posting a comment on a website make you a member? (Because that's the killer's only connection to Operation Rescue). Cool! Welcome to Suzanne's Pro-life team, Dr. Dawg! Great to have you! 
Facts, bah humbug! Why bother?
JJ, free speech is limited. You're not allowed to incite people to violence.
"Abortion is murder" incites people to terrorize abortion docs.
Someone should kill a right-to-lifer.
Hey Princeton Prof, one George deserves another.
Doctor Defence please shut up you are an idiot and hurting the argument in a spectacular way jeeesus
Cathy is right. There is no evidence that Roeder was a member of OR, just a supporter. Mea culpa. Meanwhile, OR has been busy scrubbing its website, apparently, and Randall Terry has stated that Dr. Tiller "reaped what he sowed," ie, had it coming.
What a lovely bunch.
Doctor Defense - I have a very strong feeling that you're trolling for violent comments so you can go back to your blog and post about "pro-choice hypocrisy".
Smarten up. This is no laughing matter, and neither are comments like "someone should kill a right-to-lifer".
Your logic is faulty not simply because I or any number of pro-choice people have not sided with one side over the other vis a vis Palestine, rather that you keep insisting that we have to be leftist and therefore automatically side with Palestinians.
These three thing do not equate.
If you were just making a random analogy, I could accept that (a is to b as c is to d), but you seem to be going a step beyond to equating b to d, not drawing a parallel.
Can I assume then that you are cool with Israelis shooting stone-throwing Palestinian children?
I for one am no more fine with that than with a parent strapping a bomb to their daughter or son to get closer to civilian targets.
suzanne,
it's weird that some people want some violent gunman's actions to land on your shoulders because you hold strong beliefs - the old "guilt by association" thing.
some of the comments here border on hysteria and there is no remedy for that - but i believe there are posters here that owe you an apology and a retraction for what they have written.
there is no law in canada concerning abortion but there are definitely laws that deal with defamation and libel. in my opinion (and that's not saying a lot), the accusations levelled at you are outrageous and beyond fair comment.
some christians would advise you to turn the other cheek. i can offer no advice - only encouragement to continue on your path with the courage of your convictions.
No, but lots of pro-lifers DO get hurt at protests and the like. I don't hear a peep from abortion supporters that it's not okay for that to happen.
Probably because we have seen all too often that it's a response to your own aggression with "sidewalk counselling" and not giving people their own space. I know that when I hear about it I take it with a grain of salt as being exaggerated or the result of not getting out of the way of someone who is simply trying to get inside.
The CDC, who traditionally records as few abortion-related deaths as possible, admits that 4-11 women die each year in the US as a direct result of complications of abortion, never mind other non-lethal, but still harmful effects.
That is disgusting, frankly. Bad doctors should be stripped of their licenses and penalized (in the manner befitting their culpability - depending on whether it is incompetence, malice, or a simple error).
It doesn't mean we outlaw abortion anymore than we outlaw heart surgery, nose jobs, or any other surgery that results in injury or death. Nice try, though.
"yeah yeah, whatever the abortion killer doctor genocidal massacring guy was killed, but look, over here, a really good reason to have shot him."
Cameron,
That is YOUR projection.
When I say that George Tiller should not have been killed, I really mean that.
That's not going to stop me from denouncing what he did and what he is. He killed babies. He was a baby killer.
If Henry Morgentaler had guts, he would step up and agree with me, because that's what he thinks. He's said as much.
But I do not want anyone dead. I hate death. I want the killing to stop.
I also did not participate in an ongoing campaign of hatred and demonizing rhetoric against these 2 individuals
I did not participate in an ongoing campaign of hatred or demonization of George Tiller.
Denouncing George Tiller is not hatred.
To all the supporters of legal abortion.
I believe that Doctor Defense may be a troll. So I do not take his comments that seriously.
But should he be somebody hell bent on killing a pro-lifer, I will not run from the challenge.
If spilling my blood is what it takes to see fetal rights accomplished in this country, then, scared as I might be of the gun or the knife or whatever instrument that might come at me, I would be ready to incur martyrdom. If my life is the sacrifice that is necessary to see thousands of other children saved, then I am willing to offer it. My husband and children would be deprived of me, but I would hope that they understand the greater good accomplished by my death.
I could be potentially liable for this man's comments. As they could be breaking the law, I might have to delete them. But I might just leave them up for the sake of discussion.
If this indeed is the work of some abortion opponent, I agree that they are counter productive and dangerous.
No hint anywhere that this person was other than crazed. No hint of pro-choice ties. Ditto the attacker of Rose Mawhorter.
That's not the point, Dawg. The point is the rhetoric. The rhetoric did this. I have no ties to this killer, but my rhetoric contributed to this man's assassinating Tiller.
Supporters of legal abortion constantly dehumanize supporters of fetal rights. I am called every name in the book. Every nasty thing is said of me because of my support for fetal rights. By extension, all pro-lifers are smeared in this way.
That is enabling assault.
I don't actually believe, Dawg. I'm just using the logic that is presented to me.
Own up to your responsbility, and stop trying to change the subject to Palestine. Good grief, that's weak and cowardly.
If I am responsible for Tiller's assassination, then the left is responsible for anti-Israeli terrorism.
It's the same logic Dawg.
Let's say that the State authorizes some people to shoot randomly in grocery stores. You happen to be behind one and have a gun yourself. You don't have a mass murder license of your own. You have the opportunity to shoot him while he's firing randomly into a grocery store.
There's a contextual answer to this, and a "policy" answer to this.
Everybody is allowed to save themselves. But even these shooters aren't always in the process of shooting people, as they go about their business. As long as they are not shooting, they cannot be harmed.
Abortionists who were killed were not in the middle of doing abortions. You could argue that it might be right to stop an abortionist from doing an abortion.
But as shooting an abortionist would put the pro-life movement at a disadvantage in ending the evil altogether through persuasion and legislation, it would be licit to tolerate this evil, in order that a greater good may be accomplished.
And in the context of the grocery store shootings, you'd have to consider, again, what are the chances of ending the evil if you shoot? It might lead to greater evils.
Consider the history of martyrs in the early Church. There were ten persecutions of Christians in the early Church. As far as I know, there was no organization of resistance against the emperor. The Christians upheld the social order, in spite of that social order persecuting them.
And I believe that it's more or less the same thing, here. Pro-lifers want to uphold the social order, not withstanding all the lives being lost. You can see this in the denunciation of vigilantism. An armed resistance on the abortion issue would create far more evil than it would solve.
Killing is not the preferred method of dealing with issues. It's the method of last resort, and with many qualifications. Tolerating others killing is preferable than engaging in killing when there are other means at our disposal to promote fetal rights.
Consider the Vatican's response to the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a man who clearly deserved to be punished and Iraq was crying out for liberation. But as bad as things were under his regime, it might have been better to have bidden our time and let the regime run its course.
Doctor Defense's IP is from the US. No worries. For me, anyway.
"That is disgusting, frankly. Bad doctors should be stripped of their licenses and penalized (in the manner befitting their culpability - depending on whether it is incompetence, malice, or a simple error)."
It is, isn't it? And, as I say, that's just the tip of a very large iceberg.
"It doesn't mean we outlaw abortion anymore than we outlaw heart surgery, nose jobs, or any other surgery that results in injury or death."
My point is simply that the president of the US and many other public figures are publicly commenting on Tiller's death,and condemning (rightly) the actions of the killer, but where is the media attention and outrage for these women who believed the rhetoric that it was okay to "terminate" their babies' lives because the procedure was legal and safe. Safe for whom?
Finding better solutions than abortion to women's problems would save women's lives, babies' lives, and apparently abortion doctors' lives (and they all have a right to life). It's a win/win/win situation. Okay,admittedly any one of them might go get a nose job afterward and die from it, (or have a heart attack, or get run over by a car, or get a bad case of swine flu), but that's not exactly the point. The killing of Tiller would have been no less wrong if an autopsy were to show he was about to experience a fatal aneurism.
(This discussion gives new meaning to "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.")
We don't teach Creationism in science class because it's not "science" but "philosophy" or "theology," but when it comes to determining when a human is actually a human being and deserves consequent protections, we throw science out the window and pretend philosophy is better at defining personhood.
Once again, who wants to let facts get in the way of our carefully crafted arguments--"legal and safe"...hmmmm.
Clearly what I am not understanding is why it is worse to be killed by a bad doctor as a result of an abortion as opposed to because of liposuction.
Why is it worse to you that she should be killed while having an abortion than as a result of having fat sucked out of her ass?
Bad doctors are bad doctors.
So the difference for you is when he's firing and when he isn't firing. So does that make a clinic bombing morally legitimate or illegitimate by that criterion?
I don't think that early Christianity counts. If they had *not* upheld the social order, they'd have been crushed more thoroughly than they were. It would not have been savvy to break the social order, for one thing, regardless of their reasons.
On the other hand, one can argue that doctor assassinations, though they may take a toll on the "well-meaning" *political* wing of the movement, *have* had a pro-life effect: you can bet that fewer young doctors are willing to perform the procedure than before.
The thing is, not many people make the kinds of complex distinctions that you make. For some people, the moral calculus is quite simple: stop a murderer. So when RealChoice on your sidebar writes that "All the keening surrounding the murder of abortionist George Tiller stands in stark contrast to the silence when he and his staff killed Christin Gilbert...", you are setting up a comparison with real consequences, for real people who do not study early Church history or whatever. Like George Tiller's murderer.
Do you have to do this? I'd argue, to take a position that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of its gestator, you do.
"If I am responsible for Tiller's assassination, then the left is responsible for anti-Israeli terrorism."
Baaaaaalls this answer doesnt work.
Israel has other factors. People are sitting watching their houses get bulldosed and people shot for crossing the street. They lash out. To suggest that us commenting on the other side of the world is what makes a palestian arm a bomb doesnt make a lick of sense.
There is no parallel here.
The parallel would be that you are in the position of the palestinians, as you are the ones who have an issue.
In the case of israel/palestine we are COMMENTING on a conflict.
in the case of prolife/choice we are IN conflict.
your analogy doesnt hold any water.
(anyway, the babies arent people yet so you are fighting over a non issue)
SUZANNE, it is utterly astonishing to me that you refuse to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the women who have gone in for these later-term abortions. You utterly refuse to acknowledge the medical necessity, the medical justification for these terminations, and that the procedure itself is no picnic for the women who undergo it. Most have not "chosen" it in the sense that they wanted their pregnancy terminated: they have chosen the procedure as a medical option to terminate a pregnancy that has gone utterly wrong and which is unadvisable to carry to term.
You are essentially butting your head in where it absolutely does not belong, i.e. in the health concerns and decisions of women, of couples, who are facing only terrible choices. YOU, AND YOUR ANTI-ABORTION ILK HAVE NO BUSINESS THERE. Your dishonest use of inflammatory images of late-term abortions are what stir up crazies like the Tiller assassin.
There is a reason why so few doctors perform later-term abortions. It is not a pretty procedure, and it is not done very often. You need a large population basin for it to even be necessary, because of the types of cases in which it is used. (You are even constantly bringing up Mortgentaler totally out of context on this.)
This murder will prove to be a fatal tipping point for your "cause" - when people realise why these procedures are done, when they hear the stories behind the statistics. Your ignorance and dishonesty will be revealed, and your numbers will drastically decrease. That's my prediction anyways.
On the other hand, one can argue that doctor assassinations, though they may take a toll on the "well-meaning" *political* wing of the movement, *have* had a pro-life effect: you can bet that fewer young doctors are willing to perform the procedure than before.
Well, let's examine that thesis. Have there been more abortions or fewer since the last rash of abortion shootings?
The answer is that in spite of the shootings, the numbers went up.
There may be fewer, but they do more.
US doctors may not be willing to do abortions, but there are doctors from other parts of the world who will do them. It's just a hunch I have, but I've noticed that a disproportionate number of abortionists are from foreign countries.
Even if there *were* fewer abortions as a result, the ends does not justify the means. As I said, there can be no mass campaign to kill abortionists because it would be immoral. We must use peaceful means first, and we haven't begun to do so. I would say that, collectively, pro-lifers have not begun to vote pro-life en masse, lobby every mp, put pro-life literature everywhere, lobby the Church, set up educational campaigns, set up pregnancy centres, etc in proportion to their numbers.
We are not even close to exhausting all possible peaceful avenues.
The thing is, not many people make the kinds of complex distinctions that you make.
No, I would say that many people do. The vast majority of pro-lifers support peaceful means to promote the right to life, as evidenced by the fact that large number of pro-life groups have condemned this act and said that peaceful acts are the only means.
So when RealChoice on your sidebar writes that "All the keening surrounding the murder of abortionist George Tiller stands in stark contrast to the silence when he and his staff killed Christin Gilbert...", you are setting up a comparison with real consequences, for real people who do not study early Church history or whatever. Like George Tiller's murderer.
It does not follow that because one denounces George Tiller for his murderous acts, that people will go out and kill him.
There are millions of pro-lifers in North America. If denouncing abortionists was so dangerous, how come more of them aren't shot?
Probably because most people understand that even if someone is guilty, you don't shoot them.
You can't stop speaking the truth and denouncing wrong-doers because someone is insane.
Otherwise, you could never speak. What if someone who is mentally ill interprets denunciation of Zionism as a carte-blanche to kill Jews? Are you going to stop saying what you think is true *just in case* somebody with a mental illness misinterprets your belief?
Do you have to do this? I'd argue, to take a position that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of its gestator, you do.
Well, are you making a philosophical argument or a religious one?
Not that that would change my answer, bu
"There are millions of pro-lifers in North America. If denouncing abortionists was so dangerous, how come more of them aren't shot?"
Sorry SUZANNE, but you can't be unaware that abortion doctors and clinic workers are harassed, stalked and persecuted by anti-abortionist non-choicers all over the US - that is especially the case in Wichita. Murder is simply ratcheting up the persecution to another level. Many of the "millions" of pro-lifers participated in those activities, which directly led to his assassination (and all of the other violent events that have taken place elsewhere.)
SUZANNE, it is utterly astonishing to me that you refuse to acknowledge the pain and suffering of the women who have gone in for these later-term abortions. You utterly refuse to acknowledge the medical necessity, the medical justification for these terminations, and that the procedure itself is no picnic for the women who undergo it.
I acknowledge the pain. But that doesn't make it okay to kill a baby.
The "medical justification" for these abortions, in most cases, is that there's something wrong with the baby, and often, the malformation or chromosomal issue in question is not lethal.And even if it is, it's still wrong to kill him.
Practically every woman who would go through that pregnancy would survive without any major health repercussion.
In fact, the abortion can aggravate mental health issues.
I have written on my blog about late-term abortions and how I wouldn't wish a prostaglandin abortion on my worst enemy. It is such a vile procedure, I don't know how any feminist can say that it's "pro-woman". Try looking up "Killing Girls" on YouTube-- it's a documentary about abortion in Russia. You'll see women undergoing the procedure. Marc Emery, the pot activist, wrote about being in a ward with six women undergoing late-term abortions, and they were all wailing and screaming incessantly. The prostaglandin abortion is supposed to be worse than regular labour because it's the contractions that kill the fetus. You can tell a late-term fetus has gone through a prostaglandin abortion because his body is black and blue from bruising.
Most have not "chosen" it in the sense that they wanted their pregnancy terminated: they have chosen the procedure as a medical option to terminate a pregnancy that has gone utterly wrong and which is unadvisable to carry to term.
That's all euphemism for what actually happens.
The vast majority of late-term abortions are done because there's something wrong with the baby.
It's not that the "pregnancy has gone wrong". That's euphemism.
The truth is that the parents do not want to parent that child with a problem.
The mother wants to get rid of the baby.
She may be in pain about the decision, because in her head, she thinks that if she brings the baby to term, she might cause the baby to suffer AND it might bring a lot of hard luck on the family.
She is typically uninformed about the reality of the child's disability. The doctors are often clueless and their knowledge of the disability in question is clinical, based on statistics and superficial descriptions.
So they recommend to terminate. They may also not want to have to deal with a disabled child.
There is a lot of eugenic thinking going on.
It's not a "medical decision." You don't cure Down Syndrome by killing the baby.
It's a logically and morally flawed decision to solve a problem by killing.
The mom wants to get rid of the problem as soon as possible. She thinks: le
(got cut off...)
The mom wants to get rid of the problem as soon as possible. She thinks: let's just get it over with.
And large numbers of women abort in haste, and a number of them come to regret their hasty decision.
You are essentially butting your head in where it absolutely does not belong, i.e. in the health concerns and decisions of women, of couples, who are facing only terrible choices. YOU, AND YOUR ANTI-ABORTION ILK HAVE NO BUSINESS THERE.
"None of your business" is the line of the oppressor.
It was used to justify slavery. It was used to justify domestic violence.
And now it's used to justify denying a category of human beings their right to life.
When innocent human beings are killed for any reason, it is my business. It is the business of society.
Your dishonest use of inflammatory images of late-term abortions are what stir up crazies like the Tiller assassin.
What dishonest use of inflammatory images?
I am extremely honest and forthright in the examination of the late-term abortion.
It's the supporters of legal abortion who are euphemistic and evasive about abortion.
I have posted a number of documents from medical sources on late-term abortions. I didn't cover anything up. If anyone has any objection to what I said, they can post them here and we'll talk.
There's no evasion or cover up here.
I am very keen on gathering the facts about late-term abortion. I have no interest in being misled or in misleading.
So if you have actual *facts* to bring to the table, by all means, this is the place to do it. I am well acquainted with the phenomenon of late-term abortion in Canada. I've read numerous medical documents on it. If you have anything more to bring about the actual phenomenon, by all means.
I'm for facts.
The abortion lobby often ignores inconvenient facts about abortion. I am willing to confront any and every issue about abortion.
The abortion lobby will not address the issue of the unborn child and his status and value. They will not answer hard questions.
The vast majority of those involved in the mainstream pro-life movement reject such violence.
Right. You mean mainstream "pro-lifers" like Randall "Hate is Good" Terry, who said that Tiller "reaped what he sowed?"
The pregnancy has gone wrong. It is ectopic. The egg has divided into two, but incompletely, therefore the result is conjoined twins, neither of whom are viable. The fetus has severe neural tube defects. Anencephaly. Maternal cancer. Fetal cancer.
None of these things are euphemisms. They are medical realities. You are being dishonest about their prevalence and severity. No woman should be forced to do as Myah did with her anencepalic baby, and torture a creature for 3 months while it would have died a quicker natural death otherwise. It's fine for her that she chose it, but that "choice" should not be imposed.
You use these images dishonestly because you want them to represent all abortions. They don't: they represent only late-term abortions which are none of your business anyways. That is not the language of the oppressor. You are trying to switch things around, but the fact is that your side is doing the harassment, the stalking, the persecution, the bombing and the murdering.
The stories of late term abortions are out there. I have read many of them, and I will not do your research for you. But they are out there; here are a few:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/arc...mber-dr-tiller/
"We are not even close to exhausting all possible peaceful avenues."
Yeah you are and it doesn't work it only creates litter and anymosity so stop it already. You have a right to your opinions like everyone else but you don't have the right to paper my walls with them.
"The "medical justification" for these abortions, in most cases, is that there's something wrong with the baby, and often, the malformation or chromosomal issue in question is not lethal.And even if it is, it's still wrong to kill him."
Just a by-point here but the DNA you so often use to "prove" human status is based on chromosomes and genes and if the chromosomes are wrong then the DNA is wrong and NOT "human" eh?
"Practically every woman who would go through that pregnancy would survive without any major health repercussion."
"Practically"??
And the ones who wouldn't are the ones who have the proceedure done.
"Major"??
Who gets to say what "major" is when it comes to someone's health? I'll give you the answer: ONLY the woman and her doctor. Not you or me. How about without ANY health issues?
"In fact, the abortion can aggravate mental health issues."
EVERYTHING can aggravate mental health issues. Including anti-choice rhetoric. See Roeder? See Roeder shoot? You labelled him crazy for shooting Tiller but he was only acting because he listened to the anti-choice ranting. Take a bow.
""None of your business" is the line of the oppressor."
When I tell you that it's none of your business what MY body does or does not do according to MY wishes how the hell does that make me an "oppressor"? What about MY body can possibly be any of YOUR business?
"The abortion lobby will not address the issue of the unborn child and his status and value."
We choicers have addressed it not as a lobby but thoroughly on individual levels because we don't group-think: if it's unborn it's NOT a child and has NO value to me.
"They will not answer hard questions."
What you call "hard" is what I call "irrelevant" and no I'm not that interested in those questions anymore because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that we have basic and opposite defintions of things that the questions you ask are based on. You ingore the fact that there is no foundation for the argument and go straight to the third floor.
Yes JA. Randall Terry, flawed as he is, rejects violence.
Saying "He had it coming" doesn't mean you condone what was done. If I go to a KKK meeting and denounce racism and then get beat up, I had it coming.
I don't necessarily agree with the view that Tiller had it coming, but I'm just saying that telling people he had it coming is not the equivalent of condoning violence.
SUZANNE, stop digging your hole, we can't even see you anymore down there. You obviously haven't even listened to what Randall Terry said after Tiller was assassinated.
The pregnancy has gone wrong. It is ectopic.
Remove the embryo. See. I'm not against the mother living.
but incompletely, therefore the result is conjoined twins, neither of whom are viable.
If they're not viable and they're going to die anyway, let nature take its course and keep them comfortable. Don't kill them with a shot of potassium chloride to the heart. That's cruel.
Anencephaly. (...) Fetal cancer.
Ditto.
Maternal cancer.
Then remove the baby. If you're going to induce labour, why not just let the baby live.
See. No abortion needed.
None of these things are euphemisms. They are medical realities.
When you say that the killing of late-term fetuses is a matter of women's health, in the vast majority of cases, that is a euphemism.
You are being dishonest about their prevalence and severity.
Here is the truth: the vast majority of late-term abortions are done because the fetus has a malformation or a chromosomal abnormality. There are a few abortions because of the mother's health issues. There are a few abortions because of people waiting that late to abort (like teenagers).
I make no misrepresentation of the reality.
You use these images dishonestly because you want them to represent all abortions.
No, I don't. I want them to represent what extreme late-term abortions look like to a public that already opposes them, or is unsure of the reality.
I've shown early term abortions on this blog. I often label fetuses by gestation as accurately as possible. I've shown embryos and fetuses to scale.
I am in full favour of showing the facts about abortion. I do not shrink from them.
They don't: they represent only late-term abortions which are none of your business anyways.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. When human beings are killed, they are my business. "None of your business" is the line used by people who want to continue oppressing.
That is not the language of the oppressor.
History shows that it is, BN. When human beings have been oppressed the line goes "that is none of your business."
Human beings should not be killed. Period.
Moral issues are also everyone's business.
You are trying to switch things around, but the fact is that your side is doing the harassment, the stalking, the persecution, the bombing and the murdering.
And your side is jabbing babies in their hearts with potassium chloride and telling people "none of your business."
You're telling me that killing sentient creatures is nobody's business? You wouldn't stand for it if it were a pet.
BN: the late term abortion stories are nothing new. It amounts to: the baby was going to die anyway, so we should kill him before birth.
How does killing him before birth make it all okay?
Those babies should have been comforted, not killed. The "I didn't have a choice" meme doesn't really jive, because birth is always a choice.
SUZANNE, stop digging your hole, we can't even see you anymore down there. You obviously haven't even listened to what Randall Terry said after Tiller was assassinated.
What?
That he had blood on his hands.
He did. He killed babies.
And?
Gigi—At some level, there is no difference between women dying unnecessarily due to nose jobs and liposuction gone awry and women dying unnecessarily due to abortions. Both are sad in their own way and an unnecessary waste of human life. When government-approved drugs prove deadly, as in dieting aids, we remove them from the market. But when women die even in the testing phase of an abortion drug, we move merrily along to approve and promote it (see a pro-choice woman’s perspective on RU486 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/...sp?
article=3991 ). Even CDC /Guttmacher statistics admit that some 1% of abortions result in serious health consequences to women (the same percentage of abortions, incidentally, that result from a woman’s having been raped). And 1% of the most recent number—1.21 million in the US in 2005 means 121,000 women in the US every year (more when abortions increase). And these are the women that the doctors (who have a vested interest in downplaying such statistics) admit to—there’s very convincing evidence that these are significantly under-reported.
But there is a way in which these deaths are different, too. Abortion supporters say that abortion must be legal so that it can be safe. Clearly, it is not safe for the developing human inside of the mother, but presumably it is safe for most of the women who have the procedure (outside of the 121,000 or so women a year in the US). But more and more research is showing that women who have abortions are at significantly higher risk of death in the 8 years following the abortion.
In his speech at Notre Dame, Obama made this comment, “Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” Is this true? Can we all agree on this? If it’s heartwrenching, why so? Removing some fat from one’s buttocks might be frightening, might be uncomfortable, but hardly heartwrenching. There’s only one reason it can be heartwrenching, and that is that it confirms what we already know: that a woman who seeks an abortion because she wants to get unpregnant knows at some level that she is asking the doctor to kill her baby. And there are only three kinds of women: those who know what they’re doing when they do it, those who will understand what they have done after they have done it, and those who will never admit what they have done.
Several people in this forum have stated categorically that a pre-born fetus and/or embryo is not a person, as if somehow we all were well aware of this fact. But we know the truth. Science knows that a life growing in a human woman is a human being. But human beings know something else; we know what all mothers know: that a clump of cells becomes a human person the moment it is known and loved. No couple longing for children has ever watched an ultrasound of their baby sucking its thumb and moving about and said, “What an interesting clump of cells.” Georg
(Got cut off--here's the rest)
George Tiller’s life is a loss because he was loved by his wife and children and grandchildren and friends—in a way that a drunk with no family who dies in the cold on a street corner is not acknowledged—and yet, is the drunk less a person? When a woman who has been praying for a baby loses it to a miscarriage, she has lost her baby, not a clump of cells—anyone who is honest with him or herself knows this to be true. Her baby cannot be a baby if another woman’s of the same age is nothing more than the equivalent of a clump of fat cells. Love makes us acknowledge humanity, but is it what makes us human?
In our heart of hearts, all of us know that the life growing inside a woman must be human—there can be no other option, and if it is heartwrenching for a woman to ask a doctor to kill that life, that is the reason it is heartwrenching. If she doesn’t feel that now, she will feel it later or be in denial her whole life.
If pro-lifers are responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death because of their rhetoric, then pro-choicers are responsible because of their rhetoric for the death of every woman who has died of abortion complications or suicide. They are guilty of the deaths of 1,210,000 babies every year in the US alone who were “clumps of cells” instead of people only because they weren’t loved or wanted. They are guilty of the maiming of numerous “lucky” clumps of cells who happened to survive a procedure never intended to be safe for them. And they are guilty of aiding and abetting the doctors who manage to kill or maim two for the price of one, and continue to practice because it’s too much of a political burden to hold them accountable.
And the last bit...
You may say that an abortion is a medical procedure and all medical procedures have risks. George Tiller knew the risks of continuing as an abortion provider, but his choosing to continue in that risky choice did not justify his killing. Women are made to believe that abortions are safe; when they choose to have one, their death or harm justifies our outrage.
we know what all mothers know: that a clump of cells becomes a human person the moment it is known and loved.
Well sometimes, that doesn't happen. I didn't love my clump of cells, and it was gone while it still was, quite literally, a clump of cells (the HCG levels were dropping before the 3 week mark).
Women are made to believe that abortions are safe; when they choose to have one, their death or harm justifies our outrage.
It JUSTIFIES your outrage? It creates outrage in me rather than justifying a pre-existing state. When we say, "safe, legal abortion" it's not a meaningless slogan.
Do you seriously think that the people who put the labour that goes into ensuring that women have access to proper medical care are somehow just fine with bad abortion doctors?
We're not "cool with" women dying from what is supposed to be a relatively minor procedure, anymore than we'd be "cool with" someone dying because a surgeon stitched up a sponge inside someone else.
The difference being we think it SHOULD be a minor procedure (particularly when done early) and not elaborate punishment for "not loving and protecting her baby".
You have no monopoly on outrage at the death of women who have received bad medical care. What you do have the monopoly on is trying to use their deaths for your own agenda.
The options are not logically "fix it and make it safe" vs "outlaw it."
"What?
That he had blood on his hands.
He did. He killed babies.
And?"
He repeatedly called Tiller a mass murderer and demonic. Repeatedly. Incitation to murder, and justification of same. If you have no problem with that, then you have a problem.
And as regards your arguments against late-term abortion, you still do not get to choose the medical options available for women based on your points of view on life. You don't agree with abortion of non-viable fetuses and doomed pregnancies? Don't have one when you're in that situation.
Otherwise: none of your business. What goes on in another woman's body is NEVER your business. And as long as you try to fabricate arguments against that, you will be opposed. Not oppressed.
"It creates outrage in me rather than justifying a pre-existing state."
Good, because my "agenda" as such is to inform people of the truth and hope to save some lives. When my sister was a teenager, both she and her best friend found themselves pregnant. My sister chose to see her pregnancy through and her friend (possibly in part due to my sister's confiding her own frustrations and difficulties) chose to abort hers. You may be sure, over the years, things have been difficult for my sister, but one of the most important parts of her life, one of her biggest successes, is her beautiful daughter. Her friend later married and tried for years every means of advanced technology to get pregnant. She won't figure into any of those statistics about women impacted negatively by abortion, but she'll never really know whether her choice resulted in her infertility, and she has indeed attempted suicide several times over the years.
If you don't have sympathy for women like that, if you don't care one iota about the 2.1 million babies who die in the US each year, but you do care about the 4-11+ women each year who die thanks to bad doctors, and you are willing to do something about it, I'll take it, thank you. If you can save one woman a year from death at the hands of a bad doctor, I'll consider part of my agenda accomplished--and I'll look for sympathy and help from someone else for the suicidal post-abortive women and the unborn children who are killed or maimed, because every one of them is part of my agenda.
correction: 1.2 million babies
Further correction: 1.2 million fetuses, 90-some percent of which are 10 or fewer weeks gestation. Not babies.
I'm still looking for some objective validation of that, fern hill.
before 10 weeks there's no evidence of any serious brain activity. it's just not a person yet.
"we know what all mothers know: that a clump of cells becomes a human person the moment it is known and loved."
That's.... hardly scientific. You are pandering to emotion rather than making an argument.
I made the scientific argument, TSBeing--that it is a human being from the moment of conception. Any other point in time is purely arbitrary. When I say that it is a human being from the point at which it is known and loved, I am not "pandering to emotion," but only saying what we all know to be true: Once a woman (or a couple) know(s) she is/they are having a baby and experience(s) love for that individual, it has become a baby, and no one will convince the parents that it is a mere clump of cells.
"And there are only three kinds of women:"
No there's at least one more: those who DON'T CARE what somebody else says or thinks.
" Her baby cannot be a baby if another woman’s of the same age is nothing more than the equivalent of a clump of fat cells."
Bad argument because both women do not have the same wish and desire fior that clump of cells. One wants it and another doesn't. Like my neighbor screaming at me to quit yanking out all the roses that are growing in my onion garden. To her they're her favorite flower. To me they're nothing more than a bunch of damned weeds that are sucking up all the nutrients I need for my onions.
"George Tiller knew the risks of continuing as an abortion provider"
RISKS? For doing his job? His LEGAL job?
You people really are terrorists.
"What?
That he had blood on his hands.
He did. He killed babies.
And?"
And you have blood in your mouth sugar. You do. You take communion. So?
"When my sister was a teenager, both she and her best friend found themselves pregnant."
Gee I wonder how they "found" that? But it doesn't matter because each personal story is just that, personal. Anecdotal. Nothing more important to the rest of the world than that.
"If you don't have sympathy for women like that, if you don't care one iota about the 2.1 million babies who die in the US each year"
So? Why would I want to "care"? Why would you want me to?
"I'm still looking for some objective validation of that, fern hill."
You're never going to find any because it's not objective it's subjective, but don't let that keep you from looking. At the very least maybe it will keep you too busy to interfere in my life or the life of another woman who didn't realize that by the simple fact of BEING a woman she invited your nose into her personal affairs.
Gorgon, my dear, you're mixing up people and arguments, but let me address what I can of my points.
"No there's at least one more: those who DON'T CARE what somebody else says or thinks."
Certainly, but that's not a separate category; it's an overlapping one.
"Like my neighbor screaming at me to quit yanking out all the roses that are growing in my onion garden."
An interesting but false analogy. Whether we value roses or not is one thing, but whether a woman, or an African-American, or a First Nations individual, or a fetus is a person is a matter of concern to all of us, and impacts all of us. It matters and should matter in a way that your roses never could.
"RISKS? For doing his job? His LEGAL job?"
Yes, risks. He knew they were risks. I also said clearly that this did NOT justify his being killed; my point was simply that he knew that what he was doing was risky. That's all I said. As for his job being legal, that's debatable, but even if it weren't debatable, slave ownership was once legal too and wife-beating still is in some places. I'm failing to see your point here in calling me a terrorist; I can only assume that you read half the paragraph and responded w/o reading the rest.
"Gee I wonder how they "found" that?"
I'm guessing a pregnancy test; would you like me to inquire?
"So? Why would I want to "care"? Why would you want me to?"
Once again, I'm guessing you mustn't have read the rest of the paragraph. Apparently you don't care...and apparently you won't be one of the people I'll be hoping to help out with saving lives. I'll just have to keep looking and cross your name off my list. Thanks anyway. 
"You're never going to find any because it's not objective it's subjective."
Well, no, actually it is objective--in the way that it is possible to know that African Americans and Caucasians, and First Nations people, and women, and George Tiller, and Gorgon are people. But I'm sure you can find reasons to debate that, too. Have at it.
Well, there you have, potential doubters of whether or not fetus fetishists are enablers of domestic terrorism.
Dr Tiller knew the risks all right. He wore a bullet-proof vest -- well, having been shot in BOTH arms before might incline someone that way -- but apparently not to church. He drove an armoured car. He spent zillions on security for his clinic, his staff, and patients.
But he was 'asking for it'. So, like a woman with a couple of drinks in her in the wrong part of town, he was asking for it.
You people make me sick.
Ah, fern hill, I'm disappointed. You didn't read the whole paragraph either. Here's what I said:
"You may say that an abortion is a medical procedure and all medical procedures have risks. George Tiller knew the risks of continuing as an abortion provider, but his choosing to continue in that risky choice did not justify his killing. Women are made to believe that abortions are safe; when they choose to have one, their death or harm justifies our outrage."
Maybe without all the other words around it, you'll find it easier to focus.
Or maybe you just really don't care about the women who die due to abortions...because their risktaking is somehow different from Tiller's.
"before 10 weeks there's no evidence of any serious brain activity. it's just not a person yet."
Ten weeks might be a wildly optimistic estimate of serious brain activity in some cases that I've seen, TSBeing. I definitely think we'd significantly reduce our population in terms of actual "persons" if we go with that definition.
"Gorgon, my dear, you're mixing up people and arguments,"
No I'm not. I respond to the words, I don't care who said it.
"that's not a separate category; it's an overlapping one."
And what does it overlap? I disagree. I'm one of them and I don't fit into any of your other categories.
" An interesting but false analogy. Whether we value roses or not is one thing, but whether a woman, or an African-American, or a First Nations individual, or a fetus is a person is a matter of concern to all of us, and impacts all of us. It matters and should matter in a way that your roses never could."
The roses matter to me. I don't care if they don't matter to you. You are not me. And the analogy was about how our values are all different from each others. We don't value the same things with the same intensity, that is quite obvious so the analogy stands.
"my point was simply that he knew that what he was doing was risky."
Nonsense. What a stunt pilot does is risky. Being killed while doing his job is inherent in the job. Being a physician is not inherently risky and all the risk comes from outside the job directed at the job by terrorists who think there oughtn't to be a job.
"I'm guessing a pregnancy test; would you like me to inquire?"
That one did go a bit high, I suppose. No, never mind, explaining a punchline is a wasted exercise.
"Well, no, actually it is objective"
No actually is is SUBJECTIVE as in in the mind of the person who thinks of it. A fetus is NOT A BABY. That is my opinion and that is how I think of it and THAT is as subjective as it can get.
"Apparently you don't care...and apparently you won't be one of the people I'll be hoping to help out with saving lives."
No I don't and fetuses still aren't babies and thanks ever so much I appreciate it.
A woman having an abortion is not subject to the same risks as Tiller had foisted on him by the terrorists. In any medical proceedure there is always a risk, but Tiller had a totally different category of risk placed on him by those who opposed him doing his LEGAL job and who wanted to stop him from doing it. This is not a risk that is endemic to the job but a result of terrorism by opponents of his job.
Well they stopped him. Happy?
"The roses matter to me."
Yet I'm quite sure you said they didn't, but that they mattered to your neighbour. It's difficult to debate you if you keep debating yourself.
But perhaps in the end you'll decide babies and women matter to you too...or not.
He repeatedly called Tiller a mass murderer and demonic. Repeatedly. Incitation to murder, and justification of same. If you have no problem with that, then you have a problem.
He called Tiller "Tiller the baby killer".
That is literally true.
He didn't incite anyone to murder.
People call me a terrorist and a murderer. Is that incitement?
I have no problem with speaking the facts. Tiller killed babies. Why do you simply not admit the facts?
Tiller even called his fetuses "babies".
Why do people who support legal abortion run away from the plain facts?
I wonder why Homeland Security warned about right wingnuts going off the deep end not even two months ago...
And they took some shit for that, didn't they, Gigi. In retrospect, it looks like maybe for once they could find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Terrorism. Pretty simple concept really. Even the fetus fetishists geddit.
""The roses matter to me."
Yet I'm quite sure you said they didn't"
They matter because they are there where I don't want them, "matter" does not have to mean "in a good way".
"I have no problem with speaking the facts. Tiller killed babies. Why do you simply not admit the facts?"
No - you spin the facts so that they fit your agenda. I have stated some facts about late-term abortion. I am sure that if I were in that terrible situation, I would not consider it a "killing of my baby". I would consider it a euthanasia of a non-viable potential baby, a very tragic personal event. Something precious to me, and certainly not something I would want to turn into a science project, a propaganda accessory or a religious talking point as Myah did. Certainly something I would want to keep private because it would involve my deepest feelings and emotions. Certainly something I would want to keep away from people like you. BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
"You're not supposed to be looking at US! This is all about THEM!"
Which it still is. "Terrorism" is clearly about THEM, eh?
I would still like even one of these THEM to address the issue of who the over-the-top rhetoric is for - it's not for the pro-choice movement; it's not for the "mushy middle". And that leaves what, exactly.
" I wonder why Homeland Security warned about right wingnuts going off the deep end not even two months ago..."
Probably for the same reason they claimed the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada...missing the abilities of the average 10-week-old embryo.
Sure picked an inconvenient time to be right for once, eh?
Oddly enough, Gigi, Americans shoot people in churches all the time. In March a pastor in Illinois was shot by someone whose motive, as far as I know, is still unknown, as no one from the church knew him (some suggestion that lyme disease made him act violently).
It is a terrible thing, though, isn't it--attacking and killing someone in one of the places we expect to be safest, practicing our faith within our faith community? Ironically, a lot like what one might expect of a mother's womb.
I am sure that if I were in that terrible situation, I would not consider it a "killing of my baby". I would consider it a euthanasia of a non-viable potential baby, a very tragic personal event.
That's euphemism. We don't kill newborns. We shouldn't kill the unborn, either.
No - you spin the facts so that they fit your agenda. I have stated some facts about late-term abortion. I am
You're spinning the facts to fit your agenda.
I am not afraid of plain, neutral English, but the abortion lobby is.
Abortion kills a fetus. A human being. That is a fact.
Certainly something I would want to keep private because it would involve my deepest feelings and emotions.
Naturally. But emotions do not determine right and wrong. Emotions, especially in such a situation, are incredibly unreliable gauges of what right and wrong is.
BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Privacy is not a license to kill a human being.
"You're spinning the facts to fit your agenda."
Aha the old I know you are but what am I retort.
"I am not afraid of plain, neutral English, but the abortion lobby is."
Okay, let's examine your "neutral" English in that one sentence, shall we? "afraid" "lobby" Want to explain what's neutral about inventing a demonic nonexistent entity and then calling it a coward because you disagree with it?
"emotions do not determine right and wrong. Emotions, especially in such a situation, are incredibly unreliable gauges of what right and wrong is."
So why then do all the anti choicers always cry and sob and moan in the most embarrassingly emotional manner about "the baybeez! What about the baybeeeeeez!" Yes all. I'm going to use your tactics for awhile and see how you like it.
"Privacy is not a license to kill a human being."
A fetus is not a human being.
"You're spinning the facts to fit your agenda."
I have no agenda. I have simply listened to the women who have told their stories. I have used medical reasoning and logic as well as empathy and understanding, and compared their reactions and gut feelings and reasoning with my own experiences, feelings and memories of being pregnant and sometimes afraid for my own health and that of my fetus. I have used my imagination in thinking "what I would have done if..." I have not used any formal philosophical framework and I have not used religion. I have not dealt in euphemisms as you accuse me of doing.
You are the one with the agenda. And you are the one sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
Ironically, a lot like what one might expect of a mother's womb.
One can only expect if one thinks.
No brain, no expecting.
No expectations.
I can live with the phrase "abortion kills a human body." Though, it is a little reminiscent of homunculus.
"One can only expect if one thinks.
No brain, no expecting."
If I read this differently than you probably intended it, I'd probably have to say I agree with you; though, I might be less likely to phrase it quite so harshly.
I have no agenda.
BN, you're being disingenuous. You absolutely do have an agenda. Your agenda is legalized abortion on demande for the whole pregnancy. At least have the candour to admit that.
I have simply listened to the women who have told their stories.
Without considering what happens to the unborn child.
. I have not dealt in euphemisms as you accuse me of doing.
When you do not consider the killing of a late-term fetus a "killing of my baby" that is euphemism, because that is the truth of what happens during a late-term abortion, in plain English.
You are the one with the agenda. And you are the one sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
Privacy is not a license to kill human beings. Never has been, never will be.
"Your agenda is legalized abortion on demande for the whole pregnancy. At least have the candour to admit that."
Well if BN won't I will with an edit: The OPTION OF legalized abortion for the whole pregnancy, on demand up till a certain time without justification and thereafter for cause and that cause only to be determined by the woman and her doctor without outside interference or pressure.
The time limit does not mean I think a fetus is a person it's that abortions can become dangerous for the woman after a certain stage of fetal development.
"Without considering what happens to the unborn child."
I've considered it. I don't care. Happy? Even IF I considered it to BE an "unborn child" which I don't.
"Privacy is not a license to kill human beings. Never has been, never will be."
I didn't said it was. Never have, never will.
"Your agenda is legalized abortion on demande for the whole pregnancy. At least have the candour to admit that."
That's not my agenda, because it is already legal - something that was decided a long time ago, back when I really didn't care all that much, to be honest. I therefore have no agenda except the status quo, and that by definition is not an agenda.
"When you do not consider the killing of a late-term fetus a "killing of my baby" that is euphemism, because that is the truth of what happens during a late-term abortion, in plain English."
???? Nobody is killing your baby. Once again, you show yourself incapable of stating things accurately, without distortion, when it comes to abortion.
I didn't see Gorgon's post, and I'd just like to say that I agree. "On demand" is again, a distortion of reality.
I'm curious as to what "on demand" is the opposite of, in this case.
My "agenda" is to leave things alone. Good luck getting a late term abortion in Canada for a frivolous reason.
Any laws are unnecessary (given that reality) and are transparently a thin-edge strategy.
If you weren't so untrustworthy, you might actually gain allies for some of your laws.
Commenting by HaloScan
