Leaders of the prolife movement have quickly and appropriately condemned the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Tiller, who was gunned down while serving in his Church in Wichita, Kansas, had long been one of the most vocal leaders of the pro-choice movement and was one of the few doctors still performing late term abortions.
Many in the prochoice world however are already rejecting these condemnations as insufficient, suggesting that the long campaign against Tiller’s clinic created a climate of incitement. Kelli Conlin, head of NARAL NY, has published an especially harsh statement:
[I]t is cold-blooded, vicious actions like today’s assassination that make it hard for those of us in the pro-choice community to find common ground with those on the other side. It is lawless, violent behavior like this that makes us fear for our lives and our families. When they sit down across from us, they have no reason to believe that we come to the table with violent intentions. Today is a brutal reminder that we are not privileged to have the same sense of security.
We therefore call upon the leaders of the anti-abortion movement to go beyond condemning today’s action to actually committing to control and measure their own irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric and actions.
When these anti-abortions leaders stalk us, harass us and label physicians “murderers,” they fan the flames to create a setting where abhorrent acts such as today’s can transpire.
Others in the prochoice world are singling out Bill O’Reilly for his vehement television campaign against Tiller.
Such accusations obviously carry a heavy political agenda. The scholar of religion Philip Jenkins observed three months ago that liberal presidencies have repeatedly seized upon individual incidents of extremism to condemn the whole conservative world.
As recently as a decade ago, “terrorism” in the American public consciousness meant, almost entirely, domestic right-wing activism. This was certainly the case in the fictional media, where filmmakers discovered to their cost that any treatment of Muslim or Middle Eastern misdeeds could provoke boycotts. How much easier, then, to choose notorious villains who lacked defense groups and anti-defamation organizations. That generally meant white right-wingers. Militias, skinheads, and neo-Nazis became stock villains in the popular culture of the era. On television, countless police and detective shows dealt with ultra-Right villains, who were usually on the verge of releasing weapons of mass destruction against a decent, liberal America too naïve to realize the forces arrayed against it. The high-water mark of fictional far-Right villainy occurred in the 1999 film “Arlington Road,” in which a terrorism expert comes to suspect that his too-perfect neighbors are in fact the masterminds of a deadly fascist conspiracy. (He should have known: after all, they listen to country music.) As the film’s publicity warns, “Your paranoia is real!”
Ideas have consequences, even if those ideas are dreadfully, embarrassingly wrong. In terms of American national interests, by far the worst consequence of the Militia Panic was the massive underplaying of Islamic terrorism in U.S. public discourse and the disproportionate focus on the domestic far Right. Liberal columnists scoffed knowingly at terrorism experts who warned about foreign militants like al-Qaeda, when every informed observer knew that the real menace was internal. That attitude naturally had its impact on policymakers and on intelligence agencies, who recognized just how sensitive investigations of Middle Eastern-related terror plots might be. Those overcautious attitudes go far to explaining the otherwise perplexing neglect of all the blaring alarm bells that the agencies should have heard in the lead-up to Sept. 11.
Rod Dreher argues
It cannot be true, however much some pro-choicers may want it to be, that pro-lifers are obliged to shut up and go away because one violent kook killed an abortion doctor. Think about the harsh criticism of the US torture policy under Bush. If, God forbid, someone infuriated by that committed murder against one of the Bush officials who devised the policy, it would be a heinous crime, but most people would understand that torture critics could not be blamed for it. Nor would the severity of their moral indictment of torture be at issue. If torture — or abortion, or war, or discrimination, or any other morally consequential issue — is wrong, then we are obliged to speak out against it, no matter what.
On the other hand, Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing in National Review Online’s “The Corner” has warned against “yes but” condemnations of Tiller.
Randall Terry is doing exactly what CAIR does. When someone dies at the hands of a Muslim, CAIR rushes to warn the rest of us not to use it as an excuse to scapegoat Islam.
More generally: We have noticed a disinclination in the right blogosphere to talk about the Tiller killing at all. There’s a widespread feeling that the prochoice left will exploit the crime for political advantage. Dangerously, however, conservatives and prolifers seem to stop there – as if that fear has somehow paralyzed them. Tiller’s kiling unfortunately is not the first violent crime committed by prolife extremists. This is not a uniquely horrific incident. A broader self-examination is called for if we wish to claim in good conscience that our hands are clean of the next victim’s blood.
This emailer to Andrew Sullivan’s blog expresses the point powerfully:
I was initially shocked about the news of Dr. Tiller’s slaying. However, I’m now a bit surprised it actually took this long to happen, the more I think about it. You see, for about 18 months (circa 2000—2002) I was one of the protestors at the clinic. … Email newsletters from these people — not just the higher ups — spoke of Tiller being guilty of “blood libel”, aborted fetuses’ “blood crying out for vengeance”, “death mills”, etc. These people not only spoke the language of the Old Testament but saw themselves as part of its narrative. They are Jonah warning Ninevah (Wichita) prophesizing about its wickedness (Tiller’s clinic). They are David up against Goliath (Tiller). There were endless calls for this “atrocity to end” and that “abortion in Wichita will end when the Church of Jesus Christ decides it will end”. The radicalism seemed to endlessly feed back on itself.
This had been going on for years now. When these people said that Tiller’s practices must be “brought to an end” or whatever, I truly believe that the vast, vast, vast majority of them (including the OR president, whom I’ve talked to about this before) do not have homicide on their minds. However, it doesn’t matter. Operation Rescue or Bill O’Reilly do not qualify every statement about Tiller with a parenthetical stating “oh, by the way, killing him is not the way to stop him” for obvious reasons. But even if they did, they can’t stop someone from thinking that more drastic measures are “necessary”.
174 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm
This is a huge own goal for the pro life movement because it largely reinforces their image of extremism and stridency. The comments of a lot of far right bloggers which have been captured although many of the blogs have taken them down provides a window on how many of these folks think. The guy was a doctor murdered in his church for godsake and it’s being applauded or condoned by many movement conservatives. How anyone in their right minds thinks this is going to redound to the credit of conservatism beggars belief but they either think it will or don’t care. It’s really quite staggering.
2 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Let’s call this what it is: Domestic Terrorism.
No, the Right does not have blood on its hands. The terrorists (in this case, Roeder) and sympathetic, like-minded terrorist orgs do.
e.g., Like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02tiller.html
“Commenting on Dr. Tillers death, Mr. Leach said, To call this a crime is too simplistic. He added, There is Christian scripture that would support this.”
Leach’s contention is nothing short of an abomination.
Is O’Reilly et al incendiary food for the ignorant and psycho-emotionally unstable? Yes. And perhaps he can personally reflect upon that. (Should be interesting to hear what he has to say about it tonight) But censorship is a slippery slope and I’m not inclined to peer down.
If history is any indication, there is a convincing argument to be made that this ilk of domestic terrorism is likely to escalate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-murder-of-dr-tiller-a_b_209562.html
Holder and the FBI have their work cut out for them.
This not only horrifically colors and impedes the P-L movement itself, but throws a wrench into constructive dialogue between both sides of the debate. Personally, I’m not all that concerned about the former, but as a conscientious Pro-Choice advocate, I am most indeed concerned about the latter.
3 joemarier // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps I read a different right blogosphere than you all do. In the Catholic blogosphere there’s been quite a bit of commentary.
4 Jewels // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“But even if they did, they cant stop someone from thinking that more drastic measures are necessary.”
exactly. No one can stop a person from deciding what to do.
But refusing to condemn the actions of an abortionist because someone *might* get the wrong idea is absolutely irresponsible. Imagine where we would be had no one in history ever condemned evil because they were afraid that some idiot would take their words the wrong way and act out in violence.
5 Jewels // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm
joemarier : I was also just thinking the same thing. Do a quick technorati search and I think the editors might have quite a different perspective about how many on the right are addressing this.
6 mpolito // Jun 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm
One can believe that abortion is murder, or homicide, and still not support killing abortionists; we do not believe in vigilante justice for murderers of adults, but justice under the law. Pro-choice groups, which desire no common ground at all (and for good reason: we have fundamental disagreements on the issue) are using this as a cover to say “pro-lifers are too crazy to talk to.” This is one person. There are at least 100 million (probably more like 130 or 140 million) “pro-life” people in this country. So lay off the movement.
How many liberals condemned the war and the troops as “murderers”? Are they responsible for attacks on military recruitment centers, or troops here at home? There is a double-standard here, and the standard needs to be either applied fairly or dropped.
7 balconesfault // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Frum cites Jenkins:
“Militias, skinheads, and neo-Nazis became stock villains in the popular culture of the era. “
I say BS. I watched any number of shows and movies during the 90’s where the villains were Latin American narco-terrorists, slick-Euro trash, ex-Soviet Union/KGB sorts, and yes … Middle Easterners.
And following Richard Clarke’s Washington Post editorial yesterday – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html – the only response to the line “the worst consequence of the Militia Panic was the massive underplaying of Islamic terrorism in U.S. public discourse” is mocking laughter.
8 Dustin Ferrell // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm
The murder of Dr. Tiller was a heinous crime, and was rightly condemned. It is a shame one has to explain to anyone in the pro-choice movement that these are isolated acts of extremists.
Even liberal friends and relatives of mine who are pro-life are hesitant to be seen as having a common ground with conservatives on this issue, due to the ridiculous notion that the doctor murders are somehow mainstream to the movement.
Appropriate responses were given by pro-life organizations, as noted in the editorial above. After that, we cannot force some pro-choicers to act or think reasonably, although I will assume we’re dealing with their radicals.
9 balconesfault // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Dustin – again – it’s not just about the rare act of violence.
It’s about the constant harrassment – of doctors, of their employees, of women who choose to have an abortion. It’s about stalking. It’s about public verbal abuse. It’s about campaigns even against contractors who might do some building or HVAC work for Planned Parenthood, as we saw here a few years ago. It’s about vandalism.
Many of these things are legal. That doesn’t make them civil. If a doctor is shot – how should any other abortion clinic worker react the next time a red faced protestor gets in their face with screaming a stream of obscenities and epithets and yes … threats?
The movement doesn’t need only to distance itself from violence. The movement needs to distance itself from anyone who actively invade the privacy of those engaged in lawful activities. When the doctor pulling into his driveway never knows when those one of those people who protest in front of his house might pull out a gun and shoot him – maybe it’s time for those in the crowd who seek discourse rather than terror to disperse.
10 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Egli Ha…it’s people like you who truly need some help. Your also a large part of the reason our party is going down the drain. Your thought process that feels violence is a good excuse for something you don’t like is usually left behind in kindergarden…when it isn’t? One can only hope that some agency is reading sites such as these and will remove you from the streets before you decide that God is o.k with you passing judgement.
11 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:30 pm
mpolito sez:
“Pro-choice groups, which desire no common ground at all (and for good reason: we have fundamental disagreements on the issue) …”
I cannot stress highly enough how deeply, deeply, wrong you are.
Part of the problem is the prejudice we immediately assign to ‘Pro-Life’ and ‘Pro-Choice’ terminology: Pro-Lifers must all be radical murdering terrorists, and Pro-Choicers must all want unmitigated abortion. What an injustice to both ideals.
I am Pro-Choice. Here’s why:
1) The P-L movement has zero active and proven effective programs for reducing unintended teenage pregnancy.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/11/27/leading-scientists-tell-pelosi-no-more-ab-only-funding
The P-C movement has many active and proven effective programs in place:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html
Reduce unintended pregnancies, the bulk of abortions are reduced. To my mind, it’s a no-brainer. Meanwhile, Bristol, bless her heart, is trying to reconcile her ab-only stance with her outcome. ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’
2) No legislative body has the right to dictate to myself, nor my daughter, what we do with our bodies, particularly during what is a deeply personal and familial matter.
I am not pro-abortion, and sadly that is what most P-Lers believe of P-Cers. I’m not naive, I know there are areas in which we will never come to terms, and we both have our extreme wings: but there is indeed common ground to be found among reasonable people of good conscience in preventing unintended pregnancy.
12 Jewels // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I find this question: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2009/06/a_tale_of_two_s_2.html
to be quite interesting as well. Will the two be scrutinized the same way? Will left wing, anti-war, anti-military groups also be taken to task? Will liberals be found to have “blood on their hands” because these two nutcases committed murder?
13 // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Clearly, O’Reilly and others on the Right are not responsible for Tiller’s murder. But, if we don’t believe that incendiary rhetoric creates an environment where these kinds of acts are more likely to occur, then we shouldn’t criticize the radical imams who, while not personally advocating terrorism, do use hyperbole and metaphors that cause their audiences to be enraged against the West.
14 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 1, 2009 at 3:46 pm
We DO NOT have blood on our hands BUT anyone in this party who supports the blood lust that people such as O’Rielly and Limbaugh spew are guilty of standing silent while they appeal to the sick nature of mentally ill people. People who kill in Gods, and those who turn a blind eye, are guilty just the same.
15 shipwack // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm
As a left wing progressive, I definitely do -not- feel the right (in general) has “blood on their hands”… That brush is too broad.
However, I wonder if any of those right wing commentators and members of congress who condemned the recent security report about the danger of right wing extremists will take back their demands for an apology… It appears that there is something to be concerned about after all.
16 ottovbvs // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm
It’s obvious from the responses by movement conservatives here that they just don’t get it and no amount of pointing out a few basic issues of commonsense or decency are going to make any difference. I’ve come to the conclusion that one just has to let these folks words speak for themselves and leave it to ordinary American men and women to make up their own minds about just how mainstream they are.
17 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Jewels! You’re kidding, right?
Unlike Roeder, at this point there is NO evidence, none, zero, as to the affiliations and motivations of the gunman who shot those Recruiters. Generally, militants who wield assault weapons aren’t Lefties; remember, it’s the Left and O that ‘wants to take everyone’s guns away’.
Btw, there were and are plenty of Right-wing anti-war voices, some of them pretty darn prominent:
http://buchanan.org/blog/anti-war-conservatives-vs-foreign-policy-realists-629
You’re not seriously trying to mount a tit-for-tat defense with this, are you?
18 Claude // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“This is not a uniquely horrific incident. A broader self-examination is called for if we wish to claim in good conscience that our hands are clean of the next victim’s blood.”
No, it’s not “uniquely” horrific but it is quite rare. It’s happened a grand total of three times before, the last time in 1998. And when it happens, it is quickly and unequivically condemned by all major pro-life groups. The three previous shooters were all vigorously prosecuted – two are serving life sentences and the third was executed.
These facts will be allowed during the “broader self-examination”, won’t they?
19 midcon // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Egli Ha,
I for one am thankful for your views and comments and wish they had a wider audience.
If we are to successfully marginalize the fringe element, so that citizens of intellect can debate the issues as they should be in a civilized society, we depend on you and those like to you to be the symbols of all that is wrong with conservatism today. Remember, without you there will be no call for change. The talk show hosts reaping their millions are merely carpetbaggers. You are the true face of the fringe element, the real embodiment of all that we despise. Keep up the good work!
20 RightNow09 // Jun 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I certainly do not have blood on my hands. Neither does the pro-life movement. Neither does Bill O’Reilly.
If fact, the only man with blood on his hands is Tiller’s assassin. Let clear heads prevail, America.
21 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Egli Ha:
I’m going to get you banned from New Majority if I possibly can.
I warned you once before about threatening violence.
I only warn people once.
22 sinz54 // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Most conservatives, and even most pro-lifers, had nothing to do with creating a climate in which Dr. Tiller would have to fear for his life.
But a few did.
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, here is a video from Operation Rescue that specifically calls out Dr. Tiller. (WARNING: this video is graphic, and should NOT be viewed by children under 18.)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-505011165214919567
or
http://tinyurl.com/my72vd
It’s easy to see how someone whose elevator doesn’t quite go all the way to the top, could watch this video and opt for direct action.
When you’re dealing with issues so passionate, responsible pro-life organizations should turn down the rhetoric and stop portraying men like Dr. Tiller as the spawn of Satan or something. And they should avoid making snuff films like this Operation Rescue video.
Remember: We’re not at WAR against our fellow Americans. And Dr. Tiller was an American.
23 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 5:47 pm
sinz, re Egli: This time, I agree with you. There’s no room here for such callous and incendiary rhetoric.
24 TigerTiger // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Blaming Bill O’Riley or Rush Limbaugh or any Conservative Republican for this crime is like blaming Richard Nixon for the Kennedy assassination, which is stupid because everybody knows LBJ did it.
25 balconesfault // Jun 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Claude: “No, it’s not “uniquely” horrific but it is quite rare.”
Yes – but abortion doctors constantly live with verbal and written threats. Their employees daily face aggressive, in your face challenges from pro-life protestors.
You can’t just denounce the actual violence. You have to denounce the entire culture. The pro-life movement had decided to wage a constant war of intimidation (or terror, if you may) against abortion providers. Until they step back and get out of their face, then every action, and not only the pulling of the trigger, is part of the picture.
26 Chekote // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The problem is that the leadership of the pro-life movement looks the other way and encourages irresponsible rhetoric. They need to make a stand and denounce crazy rhetoric like abortion is like the Holocaust, slavery, death mills, etc. They need to drop the “child murder” meme and start working together to find ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
27 petty boozshwa // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Probably the most influential gun control advocate today is Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was murdered on the Long Island Rail Road by a nutter named Colin Ferguson. Ferguson, who killed six and wounded 19 on his shooting spree, claimed to be inspired by Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton to dramatize his “black rage”, yet very few hold those spokesmen responsible for his acts. Why is O’Reilly anymore culpable?
28 balconesfault // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Very few hold Farrakhan or Sharpton to be responsible for anything. Does the NY Times, or NBC, or Newsweek, or NPR, or any of the other theoretically liberal media outlets give either of those men a daily forum to vent their extremism to a nationwide audience?
29 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Chekote: “…start working together to find ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies.”
Indeed, the money quote.
Thing is, we do have ‘ways’, as in proven and effective means to reduce unintended pregnancy- none of which are employed nor supported by the P-L movement. Their answer is ab-only sex ed, currently spearheaded by poor Bristol who’s having an understandably difficult time credibly reconciling her spokesperson role with her own personal outcome.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23459576
The P-C movement, on the other hand–which is not synonymous with pro-abortion as is often spuriously painted–already has in place actively successful programs proven to reduce unintended pregnancy.
This may well be our only common ground, but it cuts a very wide swath.
30 Patrick // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:10 pm
You wrote “There’s a widespread feeling that the prochoice left will exploit the crime for political advantage.”
Everyone exploits everything for political advantage – or at least attempts to. The internets would cease to exist without it.
I absolutely despise the hate-filled rhetoric coming from both sides of this issue.
I am against abortion in general, but I don’t think it should be outlawed –the same way that I am against war in general and against the death penalty in general, but don’t think either should be outlawed.
I can easily conceive of instances when abortion, war and the death penalty is the last, bets choice.
The simple-minded thinking that outlawing abortion will solve the problem is, well, simple-minded.
If the anti’s would spend just half the energy they spend on protests, teeth gnashing, garment rending and hate filled invective against the other side on working together to change the cause and conditions that make abortion the easiest choice, we might actually do some good in the world.
31 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Patrick sez: “…working together to change the cause and conditions that make abortion the easiest choice …”
With all due respect, on what list would abortion be the ‘easiest’ choice?
I can only assume you buy into the myth of ‘abortion as birth control.’ I can assure you that every other form of birth control is unequivocally ‘easier’ on every single level–emotionally, physically, economically, accessibility, mechanically–than having an abortion.
Reducing unintended pregnancies to reduce abortions is a no-brainer. But make no mistake, there are zero causes and conditions that make abortion an easy nor ‘easiest’ choice.
32 Patrick // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:00 pm
@ktward
There are numerous circumstances when abortion might be the “easiest” choice.
For instance, a heavily traumatized rape victim could easily come to the conclusion that aborting would be “easier” than carrying to term.
A 35ish single career woman who conceives while on the pill could easily decide that aborting would be “easier” than carrying and raising a child by herself.
A happily married couple who discover that their expected child is Trisnomy 18 positive and decide that aborting is the “easiest” path.
I could come up with several dozen more.
33 brendan // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Hey, maybe the whole ‘pro-life’ movement isn’t to blame for Tiller’s murder, but Bill O’Reilly? Well, i hope he at least wonders about it a bit–if he ever wonders about anything he says or does.
The anti-abortion movement of course includes primarily fine people expressing a real concern. i don’t think O’Reilly is typical. But he is vile, and that is true no matter how many of his ‘views’ you agree with (if ANYthing he says reflects his true views rather than what he calculates will build ratings).
there are monsters that will attach themselves to any movement, exploit its popularity or their own gain, and so on. This horrible incident (and all that led up to it) has helped make this clear for this movement, at this time.
34 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Patrick:
Those are all valid scenarios where abortion is a horrifically difficult choice, yet perhaps the right one. I don’t believe any variation of the term ‘easy’ applies.
But not a one of your examples speaks to your original assertion of “…working together to change the cause and conditions that make abortion the easiest choice …”
Relative to your examples, precisely what substantive ’cause and conditions’ might we work toward changing so that those ‘easiest’ choices would not have to be made? Can we guarantee no woman would ever be raped? Or that BC would never fail? Or that no child ever conceived would possess a life-threatening abnormality?
These circumstances do not correlate to discussion on the common ground we can indeed find in reducing unintended pregnancies- which represent the majority of abortions.
I think you and I are on the same page in the main, but that particular statement of yours was, well, not very well thought out.
35 danbmil99 // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
In defense of O’Reilly (I can’t believe I just wrote that) and other Tiller critics, they did open my eyes to the fact that on-demand abortion up to and after viability is not something I, or most of the middle grounders, support.
What this jerk did really was to make that issue moot, as Tiller is now the victim.
I don’t know if the hard pro-lifers actually care about this, but in the right circumstances I suspect 3rd trimester abortions could be banned at a federal level, except for clear cases where the mother’s life (not mental health!) is in danger, and there really is no option of delivery for whatever reasons.
36 ktward // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:31 pm
danbmil99:
Despite the incendiary and baseless accusations of extreme anti-abortion groups citing ‘on-demand’ 3rd-tri abortions, they are in fact a horrendously difficult choice with a stringent protocol. When performed legally by Dr’s such as Tiller–which, thanks to Dolton and Wade, there is no longer a need for illegal and unsafe abortions with no ethical protocols–they are not some haphazard and ill-contemplated procedure to mitigate maternal depression. They are never ‘on demand’.
A more accurate portrayal:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/1/123831/9397
Tiller is indeed a victim of domestic terrorism.
Distasteful as it is though (!), like you I don’t hold O’Reilly responsible. He’ll say anything for ratings and ad revenue. But I do indeed hold active anti-abortion terrorist groups responsible for organizing and fomenting such extreme mindsets:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02tiller.html
Sez above link:
[Commenting on Dr. Tillers death, Mr. Leach said, To call this a crime is too simplistic. He added, There is Christian scripture that would support this."]
Leach’s contention is nothing short of an abomination.
37 GoramFirefly // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:40 pm
dandmil99:
From Dr. Tiller’s cached site:
“Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter’s syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.”
http://tiny.cc/dwugk
And I agree with what ktward wrote.
38 GoramFirefly // Jun 1, 2009 at 10:47 pm
dandmill99:
Actually, the previous paragraph add makes it even more clear. Again from Dr. Tillers cached site:
“If you are reading this information, you have received devastating news regarding your pregnancy: a serious or lethal health problem has been diagnosed. We recognize that you are sad and concerned about the diagnosis and this has come as unexpected news. You may, based on the information provided by your doctor or genetics counselor, elect to end your pregnancy early due to the serious medical problem explained to you. At Women’s Health Care Services, we offer Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy consultation and care.
We recognize your decision to come to our center is distressing. We understand that many of our patients are experiencing the most difficult situation of their lives. All of our services are oriented around our philosophy that the easy part of the process is the premature delivery of a stillborn — the hard part is saying goodbye to the hopes, dreams and relationships that you have with your baby.
Kindness, courtesy, justice, love, and respect are the cornerstones of our patient-provider relationships. Our outstanding reputation for high quality abortion care is the result of our dedication to providing professional, respectful, and confidential health care services.
Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter’s syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.”
http://tiny.cc/dwugk
You might want to take a look at what those conditions are before you so blithely pass judgment.
BTW, O’Reily et.al. on the right wing talk circuit do not have the faintest clue as to what they are talking about.
39 Churl // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:45 am
(1) The lefties are making rhetorical hay from a murder committed by a despicable psycho, trying to pin blame for the crime on right wing commentators.
(2) Frum and Chums use the haymaking to attack said right wing commentators.
(3) Anti-military lefty agitators escape blame for the murder of one Arkansas Army recruiter and the serious wounding of another.
(4) In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning.
40 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:39 am
“(1) The lefties are making rhetorical hay from a murder committed by a despicable psycho, trying to pin blame for the crime on right wing commentators.”
SOME lefties are drawing a direct linkage from O’Reilly to the murderer. And SOME in the Pro-Life movement are essentially responding “tsk tsk – this whole unseemly business would have been avoided had Tiller not been performing abortions”.
“(2) Frum and Chums use the haymaking to attack said right wing commentators.”
We consistently hold that rhetoric has consequences, and associations have consequences. For that end, for example, since 9/11 we have consistently been putting pressure on the Muslim community to disassociate itself from radical Islamists who call America “The Great Satan”, or talk about Israel’s “illegitimacy” as a nation. Frum is trying to save the conservative movement by disassociating it from the radical speech of some like O’Reilly.
“(3) Anti-military lefty agitators escape blame for the murder of one Arkansas Army recruiter and the serious wounding of another.”
That is because it seems clear that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad was inspired by radical theology as well, and not by “lefty agitators”.
This said, there have certainly been property attacks on recruiting centers by radical leftists. But I cannot think of one liberal commentator with the platform of O’Reilly who uses such incindiary language when discussing the US military as O’Reilly used when discussing Tiller. The marketplace would not sustain it.
41 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:44 am
re balconesfault and Churl:
“(1) The lefties are making rhetorical hay from a murder committed by a despicable psycho, trying to pin blame for the crime on right wing commentators.”
SOME lefties are drawing a direct linkage from O’Reilly to the murderer. And SOME in the Pro-Life movement are essentially responding “tsk tsk – this whole unseemly business would have been avoided had Tiller not been performing abortions”.”
Well, we’ve had at least one other incident where a gunman entered a church during services a killed apparently due to, at least in part, the influence of “right wing commentators”.
“According to the News-Sentinel, Knoxville police department investigator Steve Still wrote in the search warrant that Jim David Adkisson, the man who was arrested in the rampage, went to the church “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets.”
Adkisson, who had served in the military, said “that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office,” the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson’s house were three books: “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by radio personality Michael Savage; and “Let Freedom Ring,” by political pundit Sean Hannity.”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/07/a_whole_lotta_ugly_in_church_s.html
42 Churl // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:08 am
GoramFirefly: Regarding Adkisson’s library: a well-thumbed and annotated copy of Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” was found among the effects of the Unabomber. I don’t remember environmentalists wanting to shut down Al Gore over this matter. Do you think they should have?
43 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:15 am
So I’m kinda confused here.
Is it Goram’s contention that “Knoxville police department investigator Steve Still” is a “lefty”?
44 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:25 am
I really object to New Majority using the word “we”. They have acknowledged a association that doesn’t exist. Are they trying to muddy the debate? Are they just clueless? Really, some nut offs an abortion doctor in cold blood and a whole group of people, who have nothing to do with the action, have to go on the defensive?
New Majority seems like a spouse in a dysfunctional relationship, taking on blame or even having the discussion that doesn’t apply.
45 mpolito // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:35 am
The question remains: why do liberals celebrate Bill Ayers? Why do they not condemn the killing yesterday at a military recruitment center? They are perfectly happy to blame Bill O’Reilly for Tiller’s murder, but unwilling to acknowledge that crazies on their side do the same thing.
46 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:47 am
balconesfault,
“We consistently hold that rhetoric has consequences, and associations have consequences. For that end, for example, since 9/11 we have consistently been putting pressure on the Muslim community to disassociate itself from radical Islamists who call America “The Great Satan”, or talk about Israel’s “illegitimacy” as a nation. Frum is trying to save the conservative movement by disassociating it from the radical speech of some like O’Reilly.”
The fact that rhetoric and speech has consequences means nothing. Our government guarantees freedom of speech. Got a problem with that?
“…we have consistently been putting pressure on the Muslim community to disassociate itself from radical Islamists who call America “The Great Satan”, or talk about Israel’s “illegitimacy” as a nation.’
Who is “we”, and what kind of pressure, with what kind of effect? Speech is a protected right. There is no law to stop people from saying unpleasant things, and therefore no real pressure can be brought to apply, and there has been little or no change in speech or rhetoric as one would expect.
47 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:49 am
Churl said: “a well-thumbed and annotated copy of Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” was found among the effects of the Unabomber. I don’t remember environmentalists wanting to shut down Al Gore over this matter. Do you think they should have?”
Why should they? He was using “Earth in the Balance” as more “evidence” to attack the left! Kaczynski was all about destroying the left as per his manifesto.
http://www.newshare.com/Newshare/Common/News/unifesto1.html#1
He was just another right wing nutjob!
balconesfault said “Is it Goram’s contention that “Knoxville police department investigator Steve Still” is a “lefty”?”
No, I was just pointing out that there was at least one other domestic terrorist, who (coincidentally, committed his act of terrorism in a Church as well) appears to have been at least partially influenced by “right wing commentators”.
48 Churl // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:06 am
“Others in the prochoice world are singling out Bill OReilly for his vehement television campaign against Tiller.”
Does anyone have anything resembling proof that O’Reilly or anyone else directly influenced this nutbag to commit murder? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is, you know, a classic fallacious argument.
49 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:23 am
Franco said: “The fact that rhetoric and speech has consequences means nothing. Our government guarantees freedom of speech. Got a problem with that?”
But they are limits. Such as libel and slander. There is also incitement. Which is, according to the First Amendment Center:
“The act of one person causing another to consider committing a crime, regardless of whether in fact the crime was committed. Incitement is the attempt to draw in another person as a conspirator or an accomplice.”
However, they go on to cite Brandenburg v. Ohio:
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that, to be a crime, incitement must go beyond mere advocacy of illegal actions to tending to cause imminent lawless action.
So, as vile as O’riely etal.’s rhetoric is, it appears that (unless one can prove “imminent lawless action”) he can not be held criminally liable.
This, of course, says nothing about his moral responsibility as a broadcaster. Which is up to the public to decide.
50 BoolaBoola // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:35 am
Good job, banning Egli Ha.
But the idea of requiring training in third-trimester abortion techniques for OB/GYN certification is a very good one. It would mean the services would remain available no matter how many docs they kill.
51 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:36 am
Chekote & ktward say: “….working together to find ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies.”
The pro-life movement is already doing that–according to their lights. They are advocating abstinence-only sex education in the schools.
If by “ways to reduce,” you mean birth control, then NO, the pro-life movement will not accept that. (Remember the flap over RU-486.)
Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review wrote an interesting column on that early in 2008. Her social conservatives are NOT satisfied with a society in which teenagers are given birth control so they can have sex. She said that their real goal isn’t just to reduce unplanned pregnancies, but to return sex to its original purpose of procreation within wedlock. Unmarried teens should not be having sex.
What about a woman who is raped and gets pregnant? She can carry the child to term and give it up for adoption, they say.
So what common ground is there? Probably only on education about maturity: How kids can resist peer pressure to have sex, for example.
52 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:40 am
Goram – sorry, I misunderstood the thrust of your comment.
Franco – as I said in the other thread on this:
O’Reilly has freedom of speech. I’m fine with that.
Fox has responsibility for what they choose to air. The proper aribter of Fox’s responsibility is the marketplace.
More salient to this blog – politicians have responsibility for their associations. The proper arbiter of political responsibilities is the ballot box. If the Republican Party wants to tie itself to a media outlet that carries overt hate speech, and violence carried out by extremists mirrors that hate speech, it may be like tying oneself to an anchor thrown overboard.
53 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:43 am
Franco: We conservatives have *always* believed that rights imply responsibilities. Don’t run away from that now, just because you’ve suddenly discovered it also applies to social conservatives.
You have a *right* to say anything short of outright incitement to riot. That doesn’t mean you should. You have a Constitutional RIGHT to verbally abuse your spouse or your Significant Other or your friends or your parents–but would you do that???
When the pro-life movement makes a video that specifically calls out Dr. Tiller as a mass murderer of children, accompanied by horrific images, that is on a par with the “snuff videos” that the Islamists put out, which show the Islamic flag flying over the White House, awful caricatures of Jews abusing Muslims, and American troops being targeted.
We conservatives have demanded that Muslims step up to the plate and tone down the virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American hatred in THEIR communities. Because we believe that someone whose elevator already doesn’t go all the way to the top could look at that propaganda and decide to take direct action on his own.
NO ONE should voluntarily make a video that calls out individuals as unfit to live. It’s totally irresponsible.
And if anyone believes in personal responsibility, it’s us conservatives.
54 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:47 am
mpolito: You’re raising a whole other question, which deserves a separate thread: In what ways are radical Islamist fanatics like this recruiter assassin on the same side as radical Leftists?
Because the Left would deny that THEY in any way encouraged Islamist radicalism.
They have a stronger argument than they would have had in the 1970s, when radical Leftists were committing actual bombings and assassinations of cops. Today’s Left doesn’t seem to be doing much of that.
55 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:50 am
balconesfault
The chain of blame you got going is pretty extensive. One more link and we’re talking “original sin” here. Interesting you have the word “fault” in your name – who’s balcone, your Dad?? Really, dude you need to put some boundaries on your guilt-by-association module.
56 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:50 am
sinz54
wrote 3 minutes ago
“So what common ground is there? Probably only on education about maturity: How kids can resist peer pressure to have sex, for example.”
……Sinz, it’s not peer pressure it’s hormones. In the face of these maturity education, abstinence advocacy etc are non starters. The clock can never going to be turned back to 1909. Otherwise amazingly I agree with most of what you say.
57 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:54 am
sinz, You are not a conservative you are a moderate – you can’t be both. More evidence of sloppy thinking on your part.
Hey, so what happens if O’Rielly gets shot for being the dick that he is? Whose fault is that, Obermann? Grow up.
58 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:55 am
sinz: “So what common ground is there? Probably only on education about maturity: How kids can resist peer pressure to have sex, for example.”
Interestingly, my sister used to teach classes to lower economic tier hispanics in San Antonio HSs years ago, as a Planned Parenthood volunteer. She’d ask the guys to raise their hands if they wanted to have sex before marriage … of course almost every guys hand went up. Then she’d ask them to raise their hands if they wanted to marry a girl who was a virgin before she dated them … a remarkable number still went up. She then asked the girls “what does that tell you all”?
The moderate position here is education. Not just “abstinence education” – but realistic education to teach, as you said, how to resist “peer pressure”.
An interesting phenomena that has been observed about abstinence programs. To the extent that they’ve worked – they’ve worked when they’re very small, and the kids believe they’re involved in something very special. When they expand, they lose their success, because the perception of “special” diminishes.
Personally, I’m all about keeping teen-agers from having kids, because of the obvious socio-economic consequences. If that means encouraging abstinence, great. If that means teaching that it’s not a sin to “be prepared” and have a condom in your purse or wallet or glovebox, great. If that means making sure that morning-after contraception is readily available, great. If that means that abortion providers are readily available, and a 16 year old HS sophomore who misses her period can go in and get counseling and if she decides to terminate her pregnancy have it taken care of early and quickly – I’m going to go against the grain here, and say “great”.
I don’t want children having children. I don’t want baby mammas raising kids while still going through puberty. I don’t want kids not finishing HS to deliver, or work to support, a family. I don’t want talented, intelligent kids who could use college to escape the ghetto or barrio being pulled back because they feel compelled to raise a family. I don’t want kids getting married at 18 because of a pregnancy, and then divorcing at 25 because almost every kid I’ve known has become in many ways a very different person between ages 18 and 25.
I’m all for altruism. I’m all for girls who want to carry a pregnancy to term and give it up for adoption. But I’m not in favor of regulating it, just as I’m not in favor of a military draft.
59 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 6:58 am
sinz54 said: “They have a stronger argument than they would have had in the 1970s, when radical Leftists were committing actual bombings and assassinations of cops. Today’s Left doesn’t seem to be doing much of that.”
That’s only true if you don’t include the ELF, PETA or the anti-vivisection crowd as radical leftists.
60 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:00 am
sinz,
“We conservatives have demanded that Muslims step up to the plate and tone down the virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American hatred in THEIR communities.”
Again you misrepresent yourself., but you are also mischaracterizing what conservatives are doing and/or want to do.
Conservatives are smarter than moderates when it comes to fighting our enemies. They know demanding mosques tone down their rhetoric is not going to happen, so they are for monitoring and thwarting terrorist plots. Conservatives don’t place much emphasis on what is tantamount to begging radicals to change their behavior – that is what a silly moderate might do.
61 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:05 am
balconesfault
wrote 2 minutes ago
“The moderate position here is education. Not just “abstinence education” – but realistic education to teach, as you said, how to resist “peer pressure”.
…..Peer pressure baloney……that’s just another excuse to deny reality……from my mid teens I was very keen on girls and spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out how I could put my ideas into action….peer pressure had zero to do with it…….most of the girls were fairly enthusiastic too…..the churchgoers particularly btw….all these weenies claiming I was forced into it by my buddies…..the latest variant of I was only following orders.
62 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:08 am
Franco
wrote 5 minutes ago
“Conservatives are smarter than moderates when it comes to fighting our enemies.”
……Yes after all we’ve demonstrated that conclusively over the last seven years.
63 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:12 am
ottovbvs said: “the churchgoers particularly btw.”
Preachers kid here. I can attest to that!
64 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:15 am
Goram: “That’s only true if you don’t include the ELF, PETA or the anti-vivisection crowd as radical leftists. “
And they should be considered dangerous radical leftists.
But by the same token – they have no seat at the table in the Democratic Party, either. Most Democrats I know go skiing, wear fur or leather, and don’t lose sleep over how makeup or shampoos are tested. You’re not going to see those groups policy statements included in the Democratic Platform any time soon.
The Republican Party should similarly cut the anti-abortion rhetoric from its platform, promote responsible behavior, and encourage people to consult with their religious leaders over matters of faith.
I think that the mainstreaming of violence into the left during the 60’s/70’s was because the draft impacted the self-interest of many American males who did NOT want to end up in Vietnam. Once the draft disappeared, the reason for radical behavior (and for many, the reason for being associated with the political left at all) disappeared.
65 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:29 am
balconesfault: Points well received.
Especially: “The Republican Party should similarly cut the anti-abortion rhetoric from its platform, promote responsible behavior, and encourage people to consult with their religious leaders over matters of faith.”
I absolutely concur.
66 Cforchange // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:13 am
Sure we do have freedom of speech but rhetoric certainly has consequences. How soon we forget the 3 slain police officer’s at the hands of another crazed who also also has links to Fox.
Thanks for Goram & Balcone for joining me to point out that yes indeed to be a patient of Dr Tiller – grim circumstances have already occurred. If you listened to most reporting about this clinic, you would have the impression that women make this choice because like changing hair color they’ve changed their mind about parenting. This is a disgusting manipulation of fact.
I’ve had a 100% newly formed opinion about Bill O’reilly since his harsh rebuttel last eve – he sucks as he also through ommison manipulated the above facts. How many special needs children does Bill O’reilly support??? Maybe Bill didn’t care for Dr. Tiller but no significant kind words to the victim members of Dr. Tiller’s church. What, tough beans because it’s not his religion?
Abortion is not an issue of government, mostly it’s personal health issue. The Beast today has an article about how limited abortion services really are, If that is the true goal of the ProLife movement, they need to boast about their achievements and admit they have largely succeeded.
In contrast to this issue, the GOP has not been remotely successful with it’s other traditional platforms that effect EVERY CITIZEN such as fiscal competantcy. So if it’s strictly a single issue religious crusade that the GOP has embarked upon – come square with your members. If not, the Republican Party should remove the anti abortion rhetoric and move on to wide appeal issues pertainly to government business and our economy.
The majority voter doesn’t want to hear about abortion ad nasuem nor do they want it to affect candidacy choice – especially when the best choice won’t even be considered.
67 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:22 am
“The majority voter doesn’t want to hear about abortion ad nasuem nor do they want it to affect candidacy choice – especially when the best choice won’t even be considered.”
Bingo! One of the reasons I support Roe v Wade is was an attempt to remove the abortion battle from the political sphere.
I do not want any candidate elected because they’re pro-life. I do not want any candidate elected because they’re pro-choice. At the best, these can be positions which may or may not reflect a consistent philosophy of governance, no matter what supporters of either position may claim. At the worst, these are positions which can easily be adopted by carpetbagger opportunists who have no real moral position on the issue, but who will jump to one side of the fence or another simply to attract a motivated voting block.
68 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:01 am
The scale of the violence problem summarized:
“From the immediate post-Roe years to the mid-1990s, clinic violence and blockades were a constant threat. After Dr. David Gunn was assassinated in 1993, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which specifically banned such acts as blocking clinic doors, trespassing, making violent threats, arson, vandalism, stalking clinic employees, and other forms of violence. Many of these acts were illegal already, but the law made clear that targeting a clinic with these crimes merited a federal response.
While FACE improved the situation (the number of clinics experiencing severe violence dropped from 52 percent in 1994 to 20 percent in 2000), it didn’t succeed in ending the violence. Attacks against women’s health clinics — both those that provide abortions and those that do not — continued throughout the Bush years. According to the National Abortion Federation, since 2000 abortion providers have reported 14 arsons, 78 death threats, 66 incidents of assault and battery, 117 anthrax threats, 128 bomb threats, 109 incidents of stalking, 541 acts of vandalism, one bombing, and one attempted murder.
Add one murder to that list.”
…….If there had been 117 anthrax threats from “Islamofascists” the usual suspects would no doubt be claiming imminent armageddon……There’s obviously no shortage of loons up for this so incendiary rhetoric is clearly courting an incident.
69 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:26 am
balconesfault: The GOP can *never* strike all the pro-life rhetoric from its platform. It’s a pro-life party, against Roe v. Wade. It would be like striking all the pro-working-families rhetoric from the Dem platform.
However, the GOP used to be pro-life in a way that at least acknowledges different points of view. Here’s what the 1976 GOP Platform (on which Gerald Ford ran) said about abortion:
“The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.
“We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/document/platform/rights.htm
And here’s what the 1980 GOP Platform (on which Reagan ran) said:
“There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in generaland in our own Partywe affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.
“We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent’s obligation and right to guide their minor children.”
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1980
70 sinz54 // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:35 am
Franco claims: “Conservatives are smarter than moderates when it comes to fighting our enemies. They know demanding mosques tone down their rhetoric is not going to happen, so they are for monitoring and thwarting terrorist plots.”
That’s not true.
If you read The Weekly Standard (the house organ of the neo-conservatives), you will see how they constantly monitor the hate speech coming out of Islamists and Palestinians–and demand retractions or apologies.
Little Green Footballs exposed the hateful propaganda being spoon-fed to Palestinian children, when they used a clone of Mickey Mouse, called “Farfour Mouse,” to act out skits in which Mickey Mouse is tangling with evil Jews and promising that Islam will conquer the earth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY0zE64thJ4
Would you rather wait patiently till these little kids grow up and become suicide bombers? And then we’ll have no choice but to shoot them or put them in SuperMax?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM
Israel herself has demanded that the Palestine Authority crack down on the hate propaganda being spoon-fed to the Palestinians. No matter how strong the Israeli military is, it can’t stop hate.
Stop being disingenuous. We can’t fight enemy propaganda that preaches hate and implies violence–if we hide behind our own.
71 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:49 am
sinz asks of myself and Chekote: “So what common ground is there?”
Excellent question. Literally, of course, it is reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies. As you point out, there are rocks and pits to be found in this middle ground, but it absolutely is traversable.
Lopez, btw, is not a representative voice of moderate Pro-Lifers; her views are extreme and not part of that majority of us in the middle illustrated by the latest Pew poll.
Here’s a local snapshot of responsible, middle ground public policy:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/may/08/awash-in-mixed-messages/
Part of what makes common ground bumpy is inherent prejudice in the terminology itself. I’ve already written at length on much of this here:
(5/22/2009 2:34 PM) http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=df1054eb-1ba5-4697-9a90-5683ae322e53
There are strong ecumenical efforts already under way among moderates:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0604&article=060410
There are organized GOPers who self-identify as Pro-Choice:
http://www.gopchoice.org/
There are Catholics for Choice:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/
Admittedly, there will continue to be extreme views, such as contraception itself is ‘murder’, or that ab-only sex ed–despite its demonstrated failures–is sufficient. And gross disinformation–such as 3rd-Tri abortion is available ‘on demand’–will continue to be propagandized as fact.
In terms of politicization, why should this contentious issue be any different from every other contentious issue?
What we do recognize is that sticking our heads in the sand by proselytizing ‘just stop having sex’ is a useless and futile exercise.
That said, public policy will continue to trend toward the middle, toward abortion reduction through prevention of unintended pregnancy via effective programs, and likely through enhanced adoption services which will, like or not, probably require more tax dollars.
72 Jewels // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:04 am
ktward
4:24 PM
Um, no, I’m not kidding. It turns out the gunman was a religious individual with anti-military political leanings. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter-killed_N.htm?csp=34
I’m pretty sure we can draw some direct parallels between the two cases.
And if you think that the left doesn’t express itself violently or with hate, you clearly haven’t been to any of their rallies recently.
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
73 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:07 am
sinz: You make all very legitimate points in the argument for responsible rhetoric on incendiary issues. I don’t disagree with a one.
Nevertheless, in this particular instance of domestic terrorism, I don’t believe O’Reilly played any part in its promotion. Roeder concocted his perverse justifcations without Bill’s bluster.
That said, Operation Rescue certainly played a part. Prayer and Action News played a part. All of those organizations with tactile connection to the sick Roeders need to be held accountable.
It is sad that Dr. Tiller’s assassination had to be the spark, but we can be assured that DOJ and the FBI are now training their sites on these extremist organizations who perpetrate this kind of hate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02tiller.html
“Commenting on Dr. Tillers death, Mr. Leach said, To call this a crime is too simplistic. He added, There is Christian scripture that would support this.”
Sick bastards.
74 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:24 am
Jewels:
From your link:
“He said the gunman targeted the military but was not believed to be part of a broader scheme. Interviews with police showed that Muhammad “probably had political and religious motives for the attack,” the police chief said.”
This links the shooter to some alleged violent ‘Left’ org … how? And, well, the unbalanced ‘religious’ folk are generally on the Right. The Left has the unbalanced atheists. [tongue firmly planted in cheek]
As to your other link: well, there’s no shortage of crazies on both the Left and the Right who manifest bizarre behavior. Shall I pull up some of the inarguably embarrassing ‘Tea Party’ signs and activities?
C’mon. You don’t actually believe you’re building a credible argument with this stuff, do you?
Look. This site has precious few women (and I’m assuming you are one … but you’ll correct me if I’m wrong), and I don’t care one whit if you and I agree or not. What I do hope for is legit and credible discourse.
So buck up, for both our sakes.
75 GoramFirefly // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:45 am
I think Jewels is trying to build a rhetorical parallel between those protests (I think specifically the pictures of those apparently in support of Islamic terrorism), and Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad’s attack on the Arkansas recruiting center; with Tiller’s murderer and the “Pro-Life” rhetoric of O’riely and other commentators.
I don’t think there is a comparison. While the pro-lifers have a national stage to spew their invective (day after day after day) as well as the ear of a somewhat major political party, those protesters were generally ignored by the media as well as the other major political party.
However, as ktward posts, “Muhammad “probably had political and religious motives for the attack,” the police chief said.” And the same site says that Muhammad converted to Islam within the past few years. So, it is more likely that his religion rather than anything some protesters said or did in Berkely, was the motivator behind his actions.
76 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:46 am
sinz said:
“We conservatives have demanded that Muslims step up to the plate and tone down the virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American hatred in THEIR communities.”
The weekly standard is “neo-conservative” and Frum is a charter member. I often agree with them but that doesn’t mean they speak for “conservatives” as you called them first, and now are qualifying your statement after the fact.
The debate is whether you CAN control speech by law. No, you can’t, and since you can’t , whether people who are inclined to hate or have very strong opinions will willingly stop or change their speech by the mere petitioning by the aggrieved party is a non-starter, it is absurd.
balconesfault tries to link the murder to O’Reilly – then ORielly to Fox News – and since Fox news viewers skew Republican – is therefore an official outlet of the Republican party – therefore elected Republican representatives need to denounce Fox News! Brilliant! Her six-degrees-of-separation blame-game constitutes a coherent argument only for those lacking basic common sense.
I would love for all propaganda to be magically stopped – that isn’t the issue. We all would love it if people all spoke truthfully and children weren’t exposed to this indoctrination, but short of violence ourselves (which I don’t rule out as a tactic) there isn’t a practical way of getting these people to stop. Israel can only threaten Hamas with force to get them to stop this.
Demanding retractions or apologies is a vehicle for debate. It isn’t expected and it is never granted. We know they are anti-Semitic and that they are lying propagandists.
I know all about the hateful propaganda the Palestinians Al jezzera, et all spew regularly. I’ve seen that video (and not from LGF either).
And you conclude in your fantasy world, that when I claim that conservatives aren’t paying too much attention to this, beyond making people aware that it is out there, you ask me if I want to patiently wait for these indoctrinated children to grow up.
Really, who’s being disingenuous? What exactly do YOU propose should be done about this Farfour character? (We could publicly stone him but that would play right into their hands
Recap, because you seem dense
1. Lies, strong political speech and propaganda exists
2. In this country it is (to a point) protected free speech
Therefore, there is NOTHING anyone can do about it.
You claim this speech should not happen and that the speakers should be shamed and denounced. “Something must be done!” As it were.
I say nothing can be done and that this isn’t where energy is effectively spent; there is no method of control.
In response to that you say “Would you rather wait patiently till these little kids grow up and become suicide bombers?
Non sequitor.
Please, please when you read my posts, employ logic, not just your wishful fantasies.
77 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:18 pm
balcone:
Franco’s convinced you’re a ‘her’ … are you? Please please please?
This site is glaringly estrogen deficient.
78 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Franco:
God knows I’ll come to regret this engagement, but …
You assert:
“The weekly standard is “neo-conservative” and Frum is a charter member. I often agree with them but that doesn’t mean they speak for “conservatives”…”
So, who exactly in your mind ’speaks for conservatives’?
I’ve only seen your list of those orgs/individuals who do not.
Damn my curiosity.
79 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Franco: “The debate is whether you CAN control speech by law.”
If that’s the debate, I’ve totally missed it here. Perhaps you should respond to what’s been written in this blog, and not to the voices in your head.
ktward “Franco’s convinced you’re a ‘her’ … are you? Please please please?”
Sorry. If I were, it would shock the hell out of my wife, my kids, and the troop I’m a Scoutmaster of. Although there would have been a period of time during the 80’s and 90’s when I’d have been the world record holder in the marathon, which would have been kinda cool.
***
Meanwhile, I do consider it pathetic that anyone argues that nothing can be done about extremist speech.
You can step away from it, you can boycott those who use it, you can boycott those who associate with those who use it. There is a big world of people out there willing to debate issues using rhetoric of respect for opposing viewpoints, so long as they also come to the table showing respect.
Bill O’Reilly plays to our basest instincts. Walk away.
80 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm
ktward,
There is no one person or group that I would totally entrust the mantle of “conservative spokesman”
But pretty much Limbaugh, Levin, Coulter, Mark Steyn, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, Larry Elder, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, Laura Ingraham all fall into the same general vein of thought – not of method or action, but of philosophy.
Philosophical underpinnings of F.A Hayek, William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan (the man, not the President – no politician can get by without some compromises).
The neos -for lack of a better term are Bill Kristol of Weekly Standard, David Brooks of the NYT, Frum, John Fund and many elected Republicans like Bush I and II. They are not anathema to me in office but I am highly suspicious of them especially after Bush II.
If Ron Paul were a bit more pragmatic I would be in his camp, but he has a couple of deal breakers and he will never win. I do applaud his consistency though.
Then there are paleocons Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak and others I don’t really pay too much attention to.
There are a lot of people I read who I like but don’t always agree with. Christopher Hitchens, Camile Paglia, Lou Dobbs, Nat Hentoff. These people are usually intellectually honest.
I personally am a libertarian who skews conservative. I want to conserve the classic Liberal ideals the left wants to squander in the name of “social justice”. I never call them liberals because they aren’t.
81 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Franco:
Credit where credit is due and all that, thank you, genuinely, for a reply sans your hallmark disparagement. C’mon, you know this about yourself, so don’t even think about getting all defensive.
You know, I’ve read some of most of those individuals you listed. I don’t agree with them a lot of the time (especially Malkin and Ingraham, exemplary examples of small minds it pains me, as a woman, to point out), but I do like to get out of my comfort zone. How about you? Do you ever venture out of your comfort zone for wider perspective?
Gasp! We share suspicion of the neocons. I might use a stronger term than ’suspicion’, but there you go, common ground.
Me, I try not to entrap myself within terminology: conservative, liberal, pro-life. pro-choice … list goes on. I’m a pragmatist: What works, works. What doesn’t work, doesn’t work. I’m a sucker for facts, science, research. Nevertheless, I’m an active UU and a Sociologist, which means I see lots and lots of gray which paints me as a moderate, a centrist, an Indie. I know you do not share my color palette. That’s okay.
If you promise to play nicely, I’ll happily engage in discourse with you. We of course will not agree on a lot, but you’ve an intelligent mind if you could just let go of your disdainful rhetoric with anyone who disagrees with you.
Do we have a NM sandbox accord?
82 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 1:44 pm
balconesfault That was the debate between me and sinz, I made a statement which she (I guessed right with her) gave lip service to free speech and then claimed people should take “personal responsibility”,which she obviously is defining as, speech that is in accord with her moderate views and within her personal comfort level.
Again please if you are going to quote me please use context, it isn’t difficult.
“Meanwhile, I do consider it pathetic that anyone argues that nothing can be done about extremist speech. You can step away from it, you can boycott those who use it, you can boycott those who associate with those who use it.”
Well that isn’t really “doing” anything about it, that is merely reacting in a very passive way. None of those actions seem to stop the speech from happening now do they?
Hamas still has Farfour. The KKK still hold marches in the streets. Quite a few Imams worldwide and more every day, still inveigh against Jews, Israel and the Great Satan American. We gonna boycott oil? Are the Bush’s and Clintons going to stop taking money for their libraries from the Saudis?
O’Rielly has ratings Obermann would sell his mother for.
Boycott O’Rielly his advertisers, whatever, you are pissing in the wind and since you ARE a guy (so I guessed wrong…) you understand that. His ratings will probably go up after this just from the publicity.
83 ChristianMiller // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:11 pm
ktward
No need for thanks, though I do appreciate it. Why should I disparage a question? (I tend to disparage what I consider not-well-considered conclusions.)
Do I go outside my “comfort zone?” I LIVE outside my comfort zone. To be a conservative in the modern world and I am around a lot of artists actors and musicians and always have been, plus I’ve traveled too. I know all the arguments, and yes I pretty much have come to general conclusions.
I am not trying to “hurt” anyone personally by disparagement I only intend to give my blunt opinion. perhaps if we were all having coffee together here I would be more diplomatic, but I enjoy the fact that nothing can really be taken personally on a forum like this. I certainly don’t take offense.
84 Patrick // Jun 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@ktward
“Easy” and “Easiest” have two very different meanings.
85 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Franco sez: “I tend to disparage what I consider not-well-considered conclusions.”
In my observations and experience, that encompasses virtually every conclusion you don’t agree with.
Whatevah. (Got that from my daughter.)
btw, ‘blunt’ and ‘disparaging’ are not synonymous, but let’s not get bogged down in semantics.
Let’s look instead at intention and outcome.
1) If a blogger’s intent is to rant or vent, then the outcome will likely be unproductive for the community, but productive for the blogger; venting can be cathartic on a personal level.
2) If a blogger’s intent is to serve an egoistic need, again, the outcome may be productive to the individual, but unpredictability (as in crap shoot) productive for the community.
3) When a blogger appreciates and respects (even when expressing disagreement) diversity of opinion as exists real-time on every level of community, and seeks to contribute as well as learn, then it’s a win-win productive outcome on all levels.
This doesn’t mean we won’t encounter ignorance or narrow-mindedness or-indeed!-opinion counter to our own, but how we deal with said encounters speaks more about ourselves than the blogger in our sights.
Capiche?
Be blunt. I am. That’s all good. But you do not need to belittle someone else to make your own point.
I’m taking my soap box down now and heading for a nice relaxing argument with my daughter, who now believes at the ripe old graduated age of 18 that she should be able to stay out as long as she wants. I’m pulling out the ol’ not-under-my-roof argument, which has served so many generations of parents so very well.
Peace.
86 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Patrick: “Easy” and “Easiest” have two very different meanings.”
You got me. I’ve absolutely no idea how this comment applies to our discourse.
87 ottovbvs // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Meanwhile back at the white house:
-Obama is going to put a Republican rep in the Sec of the Army spot
-He’s kissing Nancy Reagan before…
-He signs the Ronald Reagan commemoration act (whatever that is).
-It’s a day after he rescues GM…..WSJ tell the voters in MI, IL and IN that’s a bad idea
-NBC screens the first of two one hour prime time evenings of an Obama admin advertorial
…..He’s a canny lad that Obama
88 Patrick // Jun 2, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@ktward
I wrote “that make abortion the easiest choice”
Not, “that make abortion an easy choice”
If all your options are bad, the easiest choice can conceivably be abortion. That doesn’t necessarily make it “easy”.
You’ve take exception to my “causes and conditions” statement.
Perhaps it was poorly stated, or perhaps we are mincing words, but I maintain that if we would address the causes and conditions that so often make abortion “the choice that is seemingly (at the time) the least difficult of a set of difficult choices”, we might actually accomplish something good in regards to the number of abortions performed, the number of unwanted and unloved children in the world and effect a net positive change in the world.
Or something like that.
Nevertheless, I applaud your patience and persistence in pointing out the myth of late term abortion is far, far removed from the reality of what happens at clinics like the late Dr. Tiller’s.
I generally don’t have that much patience with people who are willfully ignorant of the facts.
89 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Patrick:
Yeah, miscommunications happen easily in this venue, at some point it’s best to just move on.
Or something like that. (that made me chuckle)
All in all, it sounds like we’re generally on the same page, which is recognizing that in order to reduce abortions, we need to reduce the need for them.
Meanwhile, you can be sure the extremists will continue to foment fear and outrage via disinformation. Nothing to do for it but to counter with facts. Thanks for helping in that regard.
Peace.
90 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Here’s the question that I would ask people. At what point during the pregnancy does termination make you uneasy?
I see a spectrum:
- those bothered even by birth control methods that act as abortifactants (eg – the IUD, the pill)
- those bothered by the morning after pill
- those bothered by first trimester abortions
- those bothered by second trimester abortions
- those bothered by later term abortions even when it’s almost a certainty that the baby will be born directly into very expensive ICU treatment, with a very slim chance of survival, and virtually a non-existent chance of normal development
- those who believe it’s up to the mother, no questions asked
With this diversity of opinion, it’s not a surprise that we often seem to be speaking different languages. Just a separation by one or two places on the list above will give some very different results when discussions come up. For example – both are considered “pro-life” – but the person who opposes the use of abortifactants, and the person who opposes first trimester abortions but is ok with birth control, are kind of speaking two different languages (see the stem cell debate). And you have positions that don’t fit neatly on the spectrum above – such as those bothered by late term abortions even when the life of the mother is endangered.
No surprise there are some miscommunications.
91 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Yes, pro-lifers are to blame for the actions of one crazy guy simply because we speak out, a constituional right, against abortion. We created that killer, we are to blame.
Is this not essentially the premise of the question…Do we have blood on our hands?
The only people that have blood on their hands are the sadists that support abortion and the 4-5 abortion doctor killers. To try to smear peaceful pro-life advocates (99.99999999% of all pro-lifers) as extremists as “having blood on their hands”, to even pose that question, is insulting.
There is little difference b/t this website and Media Matters.
92 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“99.99999999% of all pro-lifers”
Were this number possible, there would be no debate, since everyone on earth would have to be pro-life.
“There is little difference b/t this website and Media Matters.”
Hmm … quite a compliment to Mr. Frum.
93 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:04 pm
There would be no debate if liberals cared about ethics.
Frum probably does consider it a compliment, as his whole agenda seems to be to smear popular conservatives as does Media Matters.
It was cool how Media Matters just left out Rush’s 3-4 minute monologue about this leftist that falsely claimed in had been in the military so as to have more crediblity in criticizing the war, ie, a phoney soldier. Media Matters had to leave out that rather important portion of the Rush’s program to assert Rush was calling liberals in the military “phony soldiers”.
The fact you like political hacks like that does not speak well of you.
94 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Sorry man – Media Matters documents their stuff far better than Limbaugh does.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200709290002
At the very best, Limbaugh decided to use McBeth as a red herring to avoid discussing the many very real veterans who opposed the Iraq War. Here is the exchange:
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
Now – was Limbaugh wholly ignorant of the very many real veterans who talk to the media and oppose the war? Was he intentionally slurring them? Or was he simply pandering to a caller?
Someone to be taken seriously would have reponded to the caller “no, there are clearly a number of real soldiers and veterans who oppose the war. We disagree with them. But that doesn’t diminish their service.”
But if Rush started talking like that, his audience would start heading for the exits faster than LA Laker fans during the 4th quarter of a blowout game.
95 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:44 pm
See, you did exactly what Media Matters did…you left out the dialogue that immediately followed about McBeth, a leftwinger pretending to have been in the military, aka a phoney soldier.
Media Matters had ther asses handed to them on that smear by Rush. Harry Reid got egg on his face too with his little letter that Rush auctioned off on EBAY for a pile of money.
Media Matters is a leftwing hack website. They still deny John Edwards cheated on his wife no doubt.
96 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm
THe majority of the military votes for the Republican party, so I do find it amusing when leftists seek to use the military and vets as political props.
97 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:55 pm
“See, you did exactly what Media Matters did…you left out the dialogue that immediately followed about McBeth, a leftwinger pretending to have been in the military, aka a phoney soldier.”
You don’t read for content, do you. First, Media Matters notes the discussion of McBeth, but also notes that it didn’t “immediately” follow. Second, by shifting the charge from all soldiers who were speaking in opposition to the war, to solely McBeth, Limbaugh was clearly doing a cowardly CYA move.
You appreciate Limbaugh’s cowardice because you enjoy as wide a broad brush slur of those you disagree with as anyone is willing to paint. Beats actually thinking, I guess.
98 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Ah, so Limbuagh just happened to have the McBeth story at hand so he could slam true soldiers who happen to be Democrat and get away with it.
I see, it’s a conspiracy.
You are a Rush hater….I don’t expect you to be logical here.
99 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Nope – this is using our military as a prop.
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/mission_accomplished.jpg
And this is political cowardice:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4718462.shtml
Using the military as a prop – and then blaming the military when the symbolism goes bad. Gutless.
100 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Tesla, here’s a ‘prop’ for you:
http://votevets.org/index_html
General Wesley Clark, among other vets, is on the Board of Advisors.
101 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Don’t liberals assert that Rush is polarizing?
Yet you have this guy suggesting Rush would do a CYA to avoid controversy.
If Rush wanted to say that soldiers that are Democrats are phony soldiers, he would have stated it and there would be no CYA.
I don’t seem Rush smearing soldiers in general as baby killers and torturers and carpet bombing innocent civilians. I hear Democrats doing that, and I know you are right on board.
102 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Wesley Clark is as leftwing as they come.
For every leftwing vet you can dig up, there are about 50 conservative ones.
Let’s face it, most liberal guys aren’t going to be soldiers. There’s the whole gun thing…libs don’t like the firearms too much.
103 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“I don’t seem Rush smearing soldiers in general as baby killers and torturers and carpet bombing innocent civilians. I hear Democrats doing that, and I know you are right on board.”
Tesla is back.
Strawmanpalooza!
104 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Do you deny that Democrats have smeared soldiers and falsely accused them of things?
105 BoolaBoola // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:05 pm
“Dr.” Tesla (he calls himself Dr! HAHAHAHAHA)
The reason the majority of the military votes Republican is that there is that under the coke-addled “Right Man”, there was a systematic effort to Christianize the military, to convert soldiers to forms of hierarchical Christianity which enable the leaders to program desired political opinions into the minds of the members.
It’s quite well-documented; you can find the documentation through Andrew Sullivan’s site.
106 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Of course you do, you think Media Matters is a honest website.
107 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Liberals can tie everything to the evillllllllllllllllllllllll Christians and/or Big Oil and/or Halliburton/Cheney/Rove.
108 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:07 pm
balcone: by now you’ve figured out Tesla’s MO. There’s one in every bunch.
I’ve found there’s not much point in engaging him- I just smile & nod, and slowly back away.
109 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:08 pm
And 9-11 was an inside job. Bush knew! Steel doesn’t melt!
110 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:09 pm
When has ktward engaged me?
I just see her ad hominem attack. She’s as callow as a college girl who participates in the Vagina Monologues.
111 ktward // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Why Tesla, a lovely compliment. Thank you. That’s almost as good as getting carded.
112 choccity2005 // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:17 pm
DO WE HAVE BLOOD ON OUR HANDS?
Let me end this debate by profoundly saying, HELL NO.
We have no less blood on our hands as O’reilly artfully put it,does NBC NEWS for thier constant berating of soldiers,people who torure and so on and so on.The code pinks who protested outside national recruitment centers and congressman murtha who screamed our troops murdered innocent muslims in haditha,with NO EVIDENCE.
Do they all have blood on thier hands….Hell No.
Why….b/c this is a free country,this is what this country was founded on.Free speech,the right to protest.
The media won’t tell you this man that murdered tiller…was incarcerated before.He used explosives before.It was a failure of the judicial system,it was some activist criminal loving judge who released him.
The system is to blame………Not the people who protest it.I love the fact that O’reilly iddn”t back track.He was tasteful as am I.I did want tiller to stop aborting babys.
I resented the man,But I nor anyone else should murder him and make him some martyr.If anything ….the pressure eventually was going to make him crack and stop.
Though i wish that man had not murdered him,I WILL NOT CRY FOR TILLER THE BABY KILLER.
Nor should any of you.60,000 potential humans he killed.If just 1 of those 60,000 potential human beings were truly viable outside the whom…..Tiller murdered a innocent baby.So i will not and cannot cry for him.But i will not celebrate his death.
ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE.
So the left comes out and is now trying to promote thier agenda,well let them have at it.
Thier are crazies on the left and the right.The polls are changing and they are losing the abortion debate.
That’s why they are scared.Liberals can’t debate conservatives on this issue…..
You can’t say the murder(abortion is murder period)of a innocent 9 month old fetus is ok with you,a fetus with a heart beat,that blinks it’s eyes,that moves it’s arms and legs…and to have it’s head punctured and brains ripped out,for the baby to be discard as trash in a dumpster….awful,simply awful.You can’t say that’s O.K
But then say a 6 month old premature baby,who is living in a incubator has all the rights now of a human being and if you murder that premature baby the same way you get either a life or death sentence.
HOW CAN THAT MAKE SENSE TO LOGICAL BEINGS??
Then they have the nerve to defend 9/11 terroists from not getting waterboarded.People who have murdered thousands and would murder milllions if they could…they deserve more rights,than a 9 month old fetus…..days away from birth.
WHO THINKS THAT MAKES SENSE?
113 Dr. Tesla // Jun 2, 2009 at 10:21 pm
You’d think there were an equal number of abortion clinic bombers as there were Islamic terrorists, the way the Left likes to portray it. Ironically, we are told to conclude all pro-lifers are extremists based on 4 or 5 nutjobs in the past 100 years, but we are Muslim haters if we are the slightest bit concerned about Islamic terrorists.
114 balconesfault // Jun 2, 2009 at 11:00 pm
“we are Muslim haters if we are the slightest bit concerned about Islamic terrorists”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html
“Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques — but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive. “
Richard Clarke
115 BoolaBoola // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:39 am
“Dr.” Tesla, the US Government and the Republican Party and David Frum personally were every bit as involved in the 9111 project as Saddam Hussein was.
(Zero equals zero).
116 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 5:51 am
ktward,
“Franco sez: “I tend to disparage what I consider not-well-considered conclusions.”
In my observations and experience, that encompasses virtually every conclusion you don’t agree with.”
Well you have very selected observations then. I pass on quite a lot.
Second you are quibbling with semantics. I am sometimes disparaging which btw, isn’t against the law, or even impolite in heated debate, and I am often blunt. I didn’t mean to use the terms interchangeably if that was your impression.
“3) When a blogger appreciates and respects (even when expressing disagreement) diversity of opinion as exists real-time on every level of community, and seeks to contribute as well as learn, then it’s a win-win productive outcome on all levels.
This doesn’t mean we won’t encounter ignorance or narrow-mindedness or-indeed!-opinion counter to our own, but how we deal with said encounters speaks more about ourselves than the blogger in our sights.”
I don’t think you really mean this. You don’t respect racism, sexism, lies, anti-semitism, propaganda, I could go on, as “diversity of opinion”. Certainly many of left have concluded, for example, that Ann Coulter’s opinions, or David Horowitz’s opinions, should not be heard on college campuses. They base their actions on the idea that these opinions are vile and cause harm to society.
Whether that is objectively true or not is a whole other debate which also won’t take place. However we HAVE already codified the First Amendment, and these folks apparently don’t think it applies. That is yet another debate that won’t happen.
When they are able to shout down speakers, or intimidate their fellow students from hearing these speakers, they have “won”, because those who already know and agree with Ann and David don’t need more examples of the left’s intolerance, and those who need to hear another point of view are kept ignorant.
Your post and it is typical of those on the near left operates under the illusion that we all need to “get along” and that somehow civil debate will ultimately solve our difficulties with each other. It won’t, and at some point someone is wronged in the debate and left in frustration which can result in a more hardened approach.
However those on the left are quick to frustrate their foes with false statements and citing propagandist websites while claiming they are having a civil debate . They are quicker still to claim victimhood when those sites or falsehoods are unceremoniously disparaged, and they claim the moral high ground. IE Media Matters ? That is a propaganda site if there ever was one.
This is not something I “respect” at all and I’ll be blunt and disparaging.
117 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:03 am
Clinton did absolutely nothing in response to the first World Trade Center bombing in 9-11. He ignored bombings of American embassies overseas by Islamic fanatics. Sudan offered to capture Osama Bin laden, and Clinton turned it down on the silly premise that he didn’t want to “offend” the Muslim world.
Clinton was interested in terrorism at all, he was interested in scoring with interns.
This notion that Bush and Cheney “did not listen” to that wise Clinton and that’s why we didn’t foresee the 9-11 attacks is absurd. Nobody saw the 9-11 attacks coming, and the wall that Clinton’s adminstration built between the CIA and FBI to prevent them from sharing information did absolutely nothing to prevent 9-11 from happening and it no doubt enabled the hijackers to succeed in pulling it off.
Richard Clarke is just a disgruntled person…he had some personal axe to grind with Bush and I hardly think his analysis is objective. I think, in fact, prior to leaving the Bush adminstration, he had criticized much of Clinton’s foreign policy. Regardless, Richard Clarke is not the source authority on foreign policy measures…he’s just one guy with an opinion, and the ABC Road to 9-11 documentary that Clinton and Democrats wanted to censor clearly demonstrated that their “techniqques” played a big role in enabling the success of the 9-11 hijackers.
Bush had only bee in office 8 months before the 9-11 attacks, so it’s much more logical to conclude that the president that served 8 years before him is mostly to blame for being shortsighted on national security and terrorism.
118 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:05 am
BoolaBoola
3:39 AM”Dr.” Tesla, the US Government and the Republican Party and David Frum personally were every bit as involved in the 9111 project as Saddam Hussein was.
This kind of ignorance and kooky conspiracy theories by leftists doesn’t seem to be all that polarizing to the moderates. Why is that?
119 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:07 am
Palin supported drilling for oil in America and supports tax cuts and reducing government spending. Moderates conclude she’s an extremist.
Obama associates with black racists and former unrepetnent terrorists, supports partial birth abortion and even voted for 3 bills that would allow doctors to finish the job on babies born alive after a botched abortion. Moderates conclude Obama is a centrist and one hell of a guy in general.
120 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:11 am
As long as the views of Dr Tesla and his ilk remain the dominant ethos of the Republican party, Obama and the Democrats don’t have a thing to worry about. I often wonder if Frum surf some of this stuff and faces the reality of what he and his fellow right wing apparatchiks created in the modern Republican party, because he’s one of the minor architects…….Tesla is what you created David……Ironic isn’t it.
121 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:17 am
“Moderates conclude she’s an extremist.”
Palin is not viewed as an extremist because of her stance on oil and gas production. This is so silly. She is an extremist on social issues. Abstistence only education. Yeah, that worked out really well for Bristol. Palin is against Plan B which prevents pregnancy, it does not terminate it.
122 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:24 am
BTW, BOR keeps talking about Tiller perfoming 60,000 late term abortions. If this were true, Dr. Tiller would have had to terminate 1,500 pregnancies a year for 40 years. Yet CDC statistics show that the state of Kansas reported 450 late term abortions for the year of 2005 (most recent numbers available). Hey Bill check your facts before bloviating on TV!
123 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:29 am
Tesla: “Bush had only bee in office 8 months before the 9-11 attacks, “
Yep … and I’m sure that if a terrorist attack occurs between now and September, you’ll give Obama a pass.
That’s sarcasm, of course. You’re a self-characature here by now.
124 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:33 am
Obama is doing what he said he was going to do. He never backed off his belief that redistribution of wealth was good. The point that many conservative miss is that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR OBAMA. We need to figure out why Americans support him instead of just railing against Obama for doing what he promised he would do.
125 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:39 am
Chekote
The problem was that after 8 years of Bush, the America middle class started believing that Bush policies were simply another form of redistribution of wealth – upwards.
See attached:
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
126 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:02 am
balcone,
NO terrorist attacks under Bush since 9-11. And don’t think the terrorists didn’t try.
Obama is cool with Iran, the world’s biggest breeding ground for terrorists, having nuclear technology.
127 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:10 am
I don’t see how pro-life can be considered the extremist view, especially in comparison with Obama’s supoprt of partial birth and post-birth abortions.
Supporting life is not radical because even if we are wrong and the fetus as no life as liberals believe or pretend to believe, the only consequence is the woman had to give birth to the baby.
IF liberals are wrong in their beliefe or pretend belief that the fetus has no life, then that means that they supported the termination of life. By default, this is the radical position on abortion.
128 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:12 am
“NO terrorist attacks under Bush since 9-11. “
A great slogan for Bush “Only ONE 9/11 on my watch!”
129 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:13 am
I don’t think Palin has argued for abstinence only education. Liberals think if you support abstinence being brought up at all, you are opposed to birth control also being discussed.
I’m against schools providing sex education in general. I don’t think that’s their role…their job is to teach kids science, math, grammer, etc, and prepare them for careers, and they are not doing that task very well right now.
130 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:14 am
“I don’t see how pro-life can be considered the extremist view,”
All depends on the definition of pro-life. Do you consider someone who favors availability of the “morning after pill” to be “pro-life”?
131 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:15 am
A great slogan for Clinton:
“I ignored the first WTC bombing…and refused to accept Sudan’s offer to capture Osama Bin Laden and give him to the United States b/c I didn’t want to offend Muslims. I also choose to just ignore terrorist bombings of the USS Cole and American embassies overseas. I was hot for interns, so you understand that terrorism wasn’t a big deal for me”.
132 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:23 am
That’s a pretty big bumper sticker. And given that Clinton prosecuted and imprisoned the people behind the WTC bombing, while Osama was never caught, and that Bush ignored the USS Cole bombing as well (or was there a statute of limitations that ran out after 90 days?), you might want to rethink it a little.
133 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:39 am
I don’t think most women are using the morning after pill so I think that’s kind of a strawman.
Most abortions occur when the fetus has a beating heart, brain waves, and an ability to feel pain, as they react violently during the abortion procedure. That doesn’t seem to be the traits of something that has no life.
Yeah, conservative are more about depth, not silly bumper sticker slogans like “Bush Lied, Kids Died”. Liberals are simpletons and that fits their style.
134 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:41 am
Who did Clinton prosecute and impresion for the first WTC bombing? I’d like to see a source for that.
He didn’t pursue OBL, and in fact, opposed Sudan’s offer to capture and hand him over.
135 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:43 am
“I don’t think most women are using the morning after pill so I think that’s kind of a strawman.”
Most women aren’t having abortions, either.
A not so deft avoidance. Particularly given how much attention has been paid to the debate over availability of the pill.
How about you actually answer the questoin – do you consider someone who favors availability of the “morning after pill” to be “pro-life”?
136 jsinger008 // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:53 am
Some important thoughts on this matter from one of the smartest moral philosophers writing for the layman today:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/06/two_monsters.html#comments
137 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:56 am
“Most abortions occur when the fetus has a beating heart, brain waves, and an ability to feel pain, as they react violently during the abortion procedure.”
According to the CDC, In 2005 62% of termination occurred prior to 8 weeks of pregnancy. 17.1% occurred during 9-10 weeks of gestation and 9.3% during 11-12 weeks of gestation. That is a total of 88.4% of terminations. Neurobiologists say that the development of thalamocortical connections (which occurs in week 26) must be present to feel pain. Some neurobiologists believe that the fetus can experience some form of pain at 13 weeks. In any case your assertions are factually wrong.
138 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:02 am
****Some important thoughts on this matter from one of the smartest moral philosophers writing for the layman today:
“That is testimony only to the extreme depravity of contemporary American society”
Were a liberal to utter that phrase, there would be a group condemnation of them as an American hater. Yet that’s offered up as smart moral philosophizing?
139 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:03 am
“The problem was that after 8 years of Bush, the America middle class started believing that Bush policies were simply another form of redistribution of wealth – upwards.”
You are absolutely right. I have seen EJ Dionne and others assets that Bush transferred wealth from the poor to the rich and no one ever questions how Bush accomplished this. I don’t recall him increasing taxes on the poor to give tax credits to the rich.
140 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:17 am
” I don’t recall him increasing taxes on the poor to give tax credits to the rich.”
We do all agree that deficits are just another form of taxes, right? And when one runs large deficits while greatly increasing federal spending sent to DOD contractors and pharmaceutical companies, at the same time granting large tax breaks to the wealthiest of us (and yeah, I got some nice tax savings in the last decade, thank you), is that not a transfer of wealth from future generations to those entities?
I’m constantly flummoxed by people who understand the side of the Laffer Curve that shows that excessive taxation will stymie economic progress and cut tax revenues … but who don’t understand that undertaxing will also fail to raise sufficient revenues to pay for government, and just kick the can down the road.
141 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:22 am
“but who don’t understand that undertaxing will also fail to raise sufficient revenues to pay for government, and just kick the can down the road.”
Statistical data show that lowering of marginal tax rates actually increases tax revenue. The problem is spending, spending, spending. We need to reduce spending. The problem with Bush and others is that they keep increasing government programs so that if the tax revenue goes up $2 they add $4 more of spending.
142 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:48 am
“Statistical data show that lowering of marginal tax rates actually increases tax revenue.”
In the absence of simultaneously running deficits? Show it to me.
143 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:45 am
Chekote,
You are just posting statistics from a leftwing abortion zealot group. I can easily post stastics that run counter to that, and I will do that this evening, when I get home.
Of course you want believe most abortions happen before the fetus has a beating heart….that’s your conscience talking. Doubt.
144 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:47 am
Given the choice, I’d rather a woman take the morning after pill than have an abortion. Common sense rather indicates that most women don’t take the morning after pill, or abortions would have cut by at least 50%. That hasn’t happened. It’s a strawman to avoid talking about the aborting of fetuses with a beating heart, brain waves, and a nervous system.
145 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:07 am
“Given the choice, I’d rather a woman take the morning after pill than have an abortion.”
Good. Do you consider someone who favors availability of the “morning after pill” but does not favor surgical abortions to be “pro-life”?
146 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:28 am
“You are just posting statistics from a leftwing abortion zealot group.”
So now the Center for Disease Control is a leftwing zealot group? Good grief. I hate to say it but Otto is right. As long as the GOP has people like you in its midst it will be very difficult to get itself out the electoral box it finds itself.
147 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:33 am
“As long as the GOP has people like you in its midst it will be very difficult to get itself out the electoral box it finds itself.”
Well, I disagree there. The Democrats certainly have their share of supporters who deny reality.
But I’d agree that as long as the GOP acts as a megaphone for opinions like Tesla’s, it will win only if Obama and the Democrats fail, badly.
148 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 am
“In the absence of simultaneously running deficits? Show it to me.”
Correlation is not causation. Revenue went up but spending also increased. That’s how the deficits were created. Tax revenues under Bush actually increase to their highest levels:
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg
Unfortunately, the spending also increased so deficits were created. Please stop with the zero sum game that some many on the left play. Just because I make money it doesn’t mean that others also don’t make money.
149 Chekote // Jun 3, 2009 at 10:38 am
“But I’d agree that as long as the GOP acts as a megaphone for opinions like Tesla’s, it will win only if Obama and the Democrats fail, badly.”
That’s what I mean. People like Dr. Tesla are the squeaky wheel that get all the GOP’s leadership attention.
150 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:50 am
“but spending also increased”
Exactly. And spending causes economic activity – and we tax economic activity – and thus, tax revenues increase as a result of increased spending.
In other words, you have data which suggests to you that tax cuts result in increasing revenues, but you don’t have the control case to actually prove it.
Thought experiment. I give you 10 dollars. You hand me 3 dollars back. Should I go around declaring I’ve increased my revenues by 3 dollars?
151 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Chekote is as lonely as David Frum. There’s no party for people like him.
152 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Chekote,
I’m going to post some abortion stats for you later tonight. You act as though some government angency doesn’t hire liberals that will skew statistics to show whatever they want to demonstrate. Not quite show how the Center for Disease Control is involved in abortion related matters. Is pregnancy a disease…many liberals seem to think so.
153 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Dr. Tesla – while you’re checking your stats, could you look up which is more common – use of “Morning After” contraception, or late term abortions?
154 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:12 pm
From the National Right to Life website:
Abortion ends a pregnancy by destroying and removing the developing child.
That babys heart has already begun to beat by the time the mother misses her period and begins to wonder if she might be pregnant (about 31 days after the mothers last menstrual period or LMP).
Surgical abortions are usually not performed before seven weeks, or 49 days LMP.
By that time, the baby has identifiable arms and legs (day 45) and displays measurable brain waves (about 40 days).
During the seventh through the tenth weeks, when the majority of abortions are performed, fingers and genitals appear and the childs face is recognizably human.
155 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:15 pm
balcone,
Not sure how we can know how much the Morning After contraception is used. I would it occurs very much or the need for an abortion would have probably been cut in half.
I’m going to focus on the abortion of babies with beating hearts here.
156 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Partial-Birth Abortion
Abortionists sometimes refer to these or similar types of abortions using obscure, clinical-sounding euphemisms such as “Dilation and Extraction” (D&X), or “intact D&E” (IDE) which mask the realities of how the abortions are actually performed. [69]
This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant — or even later into pregnancy.* Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist reaches into the uterus, grabs the unborn babys leg with forceps, and pulls the baby into the birth canal, except for the head, which is deliberately kept just inside the womb. (At this point in a partial-birth abortion, the baby is alive.) Then the abortionist jams scissors into the back of the babys skull and spreads the tips of the scissors apart to enlarge the wound. After removing the scissors, a suction catheter is inserted into the skull and the babys brains are sucked out. The collapsed head is then removed from the uterus.[71]
——————————————————————————–
* Babies born at 23 weeks or more often survive. This procedure eliminates that possibility.[70]
Democrats like Obama think partial birth abortion is acceptable. I don’t hear our precious moderates telling Obama to moderate on abortion.
157 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I would suggest that the problem here lies in the language: “an ability to feel pain, as they react violently during the abortion procedure”.
An ant will react violently to any number of stimuli – and that ant is actually larger, and has significantly more neural connections, than the 0.05 inch long embryo at 35 days. At 42 days we’re up to 0.08 to 0.16 inches. Yet do we say an ant feels pain? Nope – it simply doesn’t have the number of neurons and sensors that we’d associate with pain.
I would say that one solution to Dr. Tesla’s concern over the 7-10 week abortions is to actively promote abortion options to unwed females as soon as they miss a period and test positive for pregnancy. If it became much easier for a girl to find a clinic and undergo a procedure when the fetus doesn’t yet have “recognizably human” features, which seems to be a mental block here, that problem would decrease significantly.
Or, as you keep avoiding, if emergency contraception were more readily available there would be far fewer needs for surgical procedures even in the 40-45 day range.
But the pro-life movement has been far more active in stopping girls from access to emergency contraception, or in hindering their opportunities to explore abortion options early in their pregnancy, than to facilitating those things.
158 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can’t be done until after six weeks.
159 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I think it’s logical to conclude that poking at a fetus with a sharp object indicates that it feels pain given the fetus’s violent reaction. It obviously has a nervous system if it reacts at all.
160 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Diary of an Unborn Baby
Day 1 fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins
Day 6 embryo begins implanting in the uterus
Day 22 heart begins to beat with the childs own blood, often a different type than the mothers
Week 5 eyes, legs, hands begin to develop
Week 6 brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming
Week 7 eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming
Week 8 every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form;
Weeks 9 and 10 – teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown
Week 11 baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation
Week 12 the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester
Week 17 – baby can have dream (REM) sleep
Week 20 the earliest stage at which partial birth abortions are performed
“Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.
– Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League
161 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League”
And I fully endores Mr. Hickman’s right to discourage his family members, and any outsiders who come to him for counseling, from having an abortion!
162 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Doubt.
163 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Mr Hickman works for a pro-abortion outfit.
You need to read before you respond.
164 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Rather or not you personally accept the information that I posted as true, do you not agree that it is not a rather persuasive case against abortion for the majority of open minded people? I do.
Doubt.
165 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I don’t doubt its veracity. I don’t consider it persuasive reasons for a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant to decide she’s going to spend the next 34 weeks carrying a fetus she doesn’t want to raise … or for a family that wants a child, but is provided irrefutable evidence at 34 weeks that the baby will be born with a level of disability that will prevent it from surviving past 2 months to feel compelled to carry the pregnancy to term.
I respect those who make the decision to go through with a pregnancy so they can give a baby up for adoption, or who take on the incredibly daunting responsibility of a baby which will never have more than the brain of a 6 month old (although in the latter case, I do resent to some extent that in many cases a phenomenal amount of taxpayer money will be spent because of their decision).
I’m not going to mandate that people must do things simply so I can respect them.
166 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm
It’s pointless to even debate the issue of whether or not the fetus is human life, as abortionists will support abortion regardless. They just throw out the arguement that it’s not life to convince people that have doubts.
167 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“They just throw out the arguement that it’s not life to convince people that have doubts. “
I look forward to you presenting the evidence that anyone reputable argues that a fetus is not alive.
168 Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I didn’t know most pro-abortionists admitted the fetus had life but that doesn’t matter. That would seem to hurt their cause.
169 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm
At some point in the fetus’ natural development, its brain wave patterns will reach the point of being indistinguishable from those of a newborn infant, even by an expert.
At that point, that fetus is a human baby, as far as I’m concerned. And I oppose aborting it past that point. That point appears to happen somewhere in the middle of the second trimester. Which is why I’m opposed to late-term abortion, except where the fetus has been shown to be unviable.
OTOH, I totally disagree that an embryo is a child, much less a person. Phyllis Schafly’s incessant use of the loaded phrase “embryo children” to inveigh against not only embryonic stem-cell research but even in-vitro fertilization, strikes me as scientifically invalid and politically over the top.
170 BoolaBoola // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:56 am
“Dr” Tesla (HAHAHA) and sinz54,
First of all, a nervous system does not mean you can feel pain. Fruit flies have nervous systems.
Secondly, fetal personhood doesn’t matter. If something is inside my body, then I’m entitled to have it killed, EVEN if it’s a person. Even if it’s an INNOCENT person.
If all the people in the world, including the innocent ones and the fetuses and both of you and David Frum himself, were assembled somewhere insude my body, then I’d be entitled to kill any or all of them, for any reason or for no reason. That’s part of the meaning of the word “my” in the phrase “my body”.
171 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:22 am
BoolaBoola sez: “If something is inside my body, then I’m entitled to have it killed, EVEN if it’s a person. Even if it’s an INNOCENT person.”
Go watch the movie “Fantastic Voyage” (1966) sometime.
172 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:59 am
“Go watch the movie “Fantastic Voyage” (1966) sometime.”
LOL – Raquel Welch in a skin tight suit … worth it just for that!
Sorry. Back to our usual programming..
173 sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:29 am
balconesfault: That’s my point. Who want want to abort Raquel Welch while she was inside another person’s body?
174 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Hmmm… perhaps I just don’t have the right kinks, but I’ve never been particularly interested in having any portion of another person inside any portion of my anatomy. Even Raquel Welch. I put up with it once a year from my doctor, but that’s about it.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that
You must log in to post a comment.