George Tiller: American Hero
George Tiller was a hero to many because of his perseverence in a climate of fear and intimidation.
Tiller, 67, was killed with a single gunshot while his wife and daughter were also in the church. Scott Roeder, a 51-year-old Kansas man with a history of strong anti-abortion views, was arrested hours later. Police said Sunday that Roeder is expected to be charged today with one count of homicide and two counts of aggravated assault.
Tiller’s Wichita clinic is one of the few in the country that performs late-term abortions. The clinic was vandalized in May; it was bombed in 1985; and Tiller was shot outside the building in 1993.
Tiller, an usher at the church, was handing out programs at services at the time of the shooting. His wife Jean, was singing in the choir.
“What I’m doing is legal. What I am doing is moral. What I’m doing is ethical,” he said. “And you’re not going to run me out of town.”
And yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of Tiller as wrong. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry says, “George Tiller is a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not hve time to properly prepare his soul to face God.” Tweeters are calling him “Tiller the baby killer.”
The suspect’s ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder, says it was her former husband’s anti-abortion views that led to their divorce, and that he never kept quiet about his abortion views.
She said her former husband was a member of the Freemen in Missouri and has a criminal history that includes an 1996 arrest for various parole violations and having bomb making materials. She said he did do some time on charges related to those issues, but was released on a technicality.
Besides Randall Terry’s sickening reponse, the Freepers are celebrating with comments like:
Bah…I dont play political correctness…i would no sooner cry for tillman than I would for the jeffery Dalmer…
Good riddence.
Hope he burns in hell….
And how about this piece of loveliness:
as my gandfather used to say…tillamn shot dead?….sucks like dead japs…
I wish it were surprising that a man doing his job legally, helping women who had nowhere else to go was gunned down. Sadly, with the atmosphere in America today, this was a tragedy waiting to happen.
Was that a terrorist act incited by Fox news?
As O’Rielly said “there is incontrovertible evidence
that this doctor is a serial baby killer and he must
be put away.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Sounds to me like Operation Rescue is a domestic terrorist group.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Alan quotes: And yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of Tiller as wrong. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry says, “George Tiller is a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not hve time to properly prepare his soul to face God.” Tweeters are calling him “Tiller the baby killer.”
K: I wish people would get their terms right. Tiller is not a murderer if he lacked ‘malice and forethought’. Both elements are necessary for it to be murder.
K: I pray for his family.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
I like your response, Kregg.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Foxnation and Gretawire are so happy about this, they’re practically giddy. What a bunch of sick phux.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:19 am
But it’s not sick to destroy life vis-a-vis the late-term unborn. Ripping a baby limb-from-limb is purely medical!
deeznuts Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Are you implying Tiller’s murder is justified?
Please explain.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Flap,
Are you willing to say that this murder is justified?
Come on. Let’s hear it. Explain why it was right to shoot a man in a house of God and then call yourself anything but the devil himself.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
If you noobcakes would continue to read, I posted a quote by Robert George of Princeton that summarizes how I feel.
And I know you libs LOVE to tag people as right-wing extremists, but I ain’t one. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing is wrong, whether it be an unborn child or an evil abortion “doctor.”
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Noobcakes……..
That is a good one.
Two wrongs do not make a right, to be sure.
Two wrights do however, make an airplane.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
“Killing is wrong, whether it be an unborn child or an evil abortion doctor.”
“Ripping a baby limb-from-limb is purely medical!”
Connect the dots for me.
If killing is wrong then why are you and the rest of the right wing resounding the nation with your tired old ‘baby-killers’ and upchuck-politics?
Nobody, I mean nobody, is pro-abortion.
MEN who are not directly affected by this make up the strongest resistance and I doubt every single one of your convictions.
Without a clear stance beyond installing religious authority to the state you have domestic terrorists like this coming into your cause and doing murder which is then justified by the Anti-American Media.
Daddio Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
George Tiller was pro abortion. How can you say no one is pro abortion? If everybody was anti-abortion then there would be no abortions.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am
I dream of left-wing American patriots taking up arms in defense of their freedom against the gangs of radicalized rightwing extremists—the true American Taliban—masquerading as “Christians.”
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Rocky said: I dream of left-wing American patriots taking up arms in defense of their freedom against the gangs of radicalized rightwing extremists—the true American Taliban—masquerading as “Christians.”
K: Which makes you every bit as dangerous as the ‘right-wingers’ you love to hate.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:53 am
I disagree with the taking up arms part, certainly.
The masquerading as “Christians” part is extremely troubling to me.
How is this different than the Taliban and the terrorists ?
Different targets is the only difference I see.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
James said: I disagree with the taking up arms part, certainly. The masquerading as “Christians” part is extremely troubling to me.
K : One does not have to ‘masquerade’ as a christian, James. One can easily be a christian with extreme views – just as can an agnostic.
J: How is this different than the Taliban and the terrorists ? Different targets is the only difference I see.
K: The dictionary defines ‘terrorism’ as – “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”
K: One would have to determine the shooter’s motivation before deciding whether he acted as a terrorist or not. I suspect Tiller was actually (presuming the killer’s motives) assassinated. If the killer was trying to intimidate other abortionists by killing Tiller then he could be accused of terrorism AND assassination. If he killed Tiller solely as an act of ‘political or religious’ expediency or necessity he’d still be guilty of murder but would not be a terrorist.
K: Dictionary definition of assassinate -”murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.”
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Tiller was killed in public, in a church. That is without a doubt an act of ‘intimidation.’
At the least, this tragedy may bring to light to disgusting and undemocratic methods of Anti-Choice groups and with hope (and prayer) there will be a day of sanity where people realize they are combating the problem in the wrong way.
If anyone of these so-called ‘moral’ people would give a damn about anyone but themselves for a minute they would see that contributing to social programs and getting off your butt and talking to the kids is the way to get rid of all abortion, forever.
But that’s too hard for zealots and hate-mongers. That would be walking with God. That would be being an American.
Too tall an order for a Republican to fill these days.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The Eric said: Tiller was killed in public, in a church. That is without a doubt an act of ‘intimidation.’
K: Eric, you’re capable of deeper thought than this. By your reasoning every murder committed in public is an act of intimidation. The REASON for the murder is what determines it to be an act of terrorism or not. Actually, if you’d read my dictionary definition earlier his killing is really an assassination.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:02 am
BTW: murder is an offense under state law, and every state’s law reads differently.
The Kansas statutes make no mention of “malice.”
21-3401. Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed: (a) Intentionally and with premeditation; or, (b) in the commission of, attempt to commit, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.S.A. 21-3436 and amendments thereto.
21-3402. Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being committed: (a)Intentionally; or, (b) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
Rocky on murder: (a) Intentionally and with premeditation
K: Uh, Rock? Malice and forethought are the same thing as ‘intentionally and with premeditation…”
Dictionary on malice: – the intention or desire to do evil; ill will : • Law wrongful intention, esp. as increasing the guilt of certain offenses.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
“Doctor” George Tiller was no better than the terrorist who killed him. He was a disgrace to the medical profession and humanity itself. Late-term abortionists are no better than the terrorist idiots who kill them, so I feel very little for this guy. Hope he was right with God and I’m sorry for his family.
You know, Alan, and all you libs, while the suspect was making bomb materials for all those years, and being a right-wing extremist, Tiller was committing infanticide over and over and over and over and over again.
Do you people honestly believe that it’s heroic to kill the unborn over and over again? And keep in mind, it’s hard to be intellectually honest and claim that late-term abortion being murder is just an “opinion.” I’m not talking law, I’m talking reality. It’s clearly infanticide. That’d be like saying that a slaveholder after the Civil War was an American hero for perservering in maintaining slaves despite the illegality of it.
I have a very hard time understanding why so many libs condone late-term abortion. It doesn’t make a bit of sense. I try very hard to see the liberal position on all issues, and I can understand most of them…except this one. How killing is a “right” is beyond my pay grade.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:21 am
As a proud self-professed ‘Lib’, I will only condone a late-term abortion if the mother is in imminent danger of losing her life. You have to first be born to then be murdered, though I wish we never had to have ANY abortions. Abortions are like war and they say ‘war is hell’. Abortions are hell, but people defend war as necessary, therefore, if war can be necessary sometimes, than so can abortion. Both should be avoided at all costs, but a nation should reserve the right to go to war when absolutely necessary as a pregnant woman should reserve the right to abort when absolutely necessary as well.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Abortion past a certain point should not be a right or a choice. It’s clearly taking a human life. THAT is what must stop…the unrestricted “right” to one. If a mother is in imminent danger of losing her life the baby can be delivered. If that is essentially an abortion then so be it. A baby, especially late-term, should not be killed. It’s immoral and should be generally illegal.
Despite what any law says, birth should not be a requirement for murder if we’re talking reality.
Abortion in very, very limited circumstances should be allowed, but not very often. As I’ve said before, if a baby’s condition is 100% incompatible with life, I don’t see that it does the parents any good to be forced to carry the essentially dead baby to term.
And, although I think it’s killing as well, early-term abortions should stay legal. 1st trimester. It’s hard to “prove” that the embryo/fetus is human even though it clearly is a new human life in development.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Flap: “If a mother is in imminent danger of losing her life the baby can be delivered. If that is essentially an abortion then so be it. A baby, especially late-term, should not be killed. It’s immoral and should be generally illegal.”
Well, then when it’s up to you if YOUR relative or friend is in imminent danger, then let HER die and bring the child to life. You should still have the right to choose that though, because you are STILL choosing between lives, one that has had much impact in your life already and one that has the potential to have impact in your future life. There should be a right to choose here, not just a condemantion to the death for the mother.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Vegas said: As a proud self-professed ‘Lib’, I will only condone a late-term abortion if the mother is in imminent danger of losing her life.
K: So, you’d disagree with the popular ‘for the mental health of the mother’ excuse?
V: You have to first be born to then be murdered,
K: Not true. We convicted a local guy some years ago of double murder for killing his wife and his unborn infant son, “Connor”. He’s at San Quentin now awaiting your proof of his innocence… ;-)
V: though I wish we never had to have ANY abortions.
K: We don’t. We make choices as to whether something is important enough to us to kill the fetus in the womb and act on that choice.
V: Abortions are like war and they say ‘war is hell’. Abortions are hell, but people defend war as necessary, therefore, if war can be necessary sometimes, than so can abortion.
K: Abortion is certainly ‘hell’ on the one being aborted. War is necessary for our nation’s self-preservation. What is ‘necessary’ about abortion?
V: Both should be avoided at all costs,
K: “At all costs” would mean NO abortion wouldn’t it? War can be forced upon us by an outside entity but who forces a woman to kill her unborn infant?
V: but a nation should reserve the right to go to war when absolutely necessary as a pregnant woman should reserve the right to abort when absolutely necessary as well.
K; If you liken a ‘necessary’ abortion to a ‘necessary’ war then you’d restrict abortion ‘choice’ to ONLY that necessary to preserve the life of the mother?
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Kregg: “So, you’d disagree with the popular ‘for the mental health of the mother’ excuse?”
Yes. For late-term abortions only.
—–
I said: “You have to first be born to then be murdered,”
K: “Not true. We convicted a local guy some years ago of double murder for killing his wife and his unborn infant son, “Connor”. He’s at San Quentin now awaiting your proof of his innocence… ;-)”
He was convicted of double murder because the baby was probably already developed and the mother had intent for the baby to be born. How come we’ve never convicted a woman of murder for performing a late-term abortion?
—–
K: “We don’t (have any abortions). We make choices as to whether something is important enough to us to kill the fetus in the womb and act on that choice.”
Indeed, and choice is Liberty. A pregnant woman should have the Liberty of aborting early-term. A pregnant woman in imminent danger of losing her life should have the Liberty of choosing if she IS willing to sacrifice her life for the unborn child.
—–
K: “Abortion is certainly ‘hell’ on the one being aborted. War is necessary for our nation’s self-preservation. What is ‘necessary’ about abortion?”
It is only ‘hell’ on the one being aborted if the one being aborted is already developed. Abortion can be necessary for the pregnant woman’s self-preservation.
—–
K: “‘At all costs’ would mean NO abortion wouldn’t it? War can be forced upon us by an outside entity but who forces a woman to kill her unborn infant?”
No. I said it should be AVOIDED at all costs. When I say that I mean you shouldn’t have it unless you deem it absolutely necessary, just like in a decision to go to war. An example of a bad war decision would be W’s decision to go to Iraq. And example of a bad abortion decision would be a pregnant woman’s decision to a late-term abortion when her life is not in imminent danger.
—–
K: “If you liken a ‘necessary’ abortion to a ‘necessary’ war then you’d restrict abortion ‘choice’ to ONLY that necessary to preserve the life of the mother?”
Pretty much, unless it’s early term, when you can’t define the egg as a developed human being.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
“the mother had intent for the baby to be born.”
So it’s only murder if the mother doesn’t want to murder the child. Otherwise, it’s okay if the mother instigates it? That’s not logical.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Kregg prv: “So, you’d disagree with the popular ‘for the mental health of the mother’ excuse?”
V: Yes. For late-term abortions only.
K: So, you are FOR unrestricted abortion ‘for the mental health of the mother’ if done prior to ‘late term’?
V prv: I said: “You have to first be born to then be murdered,”
K: “Not true. We convicted a local guy some years ago of double murder for killing his wife and his unborn infant son, “Connor”. He’s at San Quentin now awaiting your proof of his innocence… ;-)”
V: He was convicted of double murder because the baby was probably already developed and the mother had intent for the baby to be born. How come we’ve never convicted a woman of murder for performing a late-term abortion?
K: The baby was late term. Just like the late term babies Tiller killed. Why would the mother’ ‘intent’ have anything to do with the legal definition of ‘murder’? And, we’ve not ‘convicted a woman for murder for performing a late-term abortion’ because they are currently legal to do.
—–
K: “We don’t (have any abortions). We make choices as to whether something is important enough to us to kill the fetus in the womb and act on that choice.”
V: Indeed, and choice is Liberty. A pregnant woman should have the Liberty of aborting early-term. A pregnant woman in imminent danger of losing her life should have the Liberty of choosing if she IS willing to sacrifice her life for the unborn child.
K; If ‘choice is liberty’ then when do you feel the ‘rights’ of the infant to be born outweigh the ‘rights’ of the mother to kill her fetus?
—–
K: “Abortion is certainly ‘hell’ on the one being aborted. War is necessary for our nation’s self-preservation. What is ‘necessary’ about abortion?”
V: It is only ‘hell’ on the one being aborted if the one being aborted is already developed. Abortion can be necessary for the pregnant woman’s self-preservation.
K; When do you figure a fetus can ‘feel’? When do you figure a fetus should be allowed to survive to term?
—–
K: “‘At all costs’ would mean NO abortion wouldn’t it? War can be forced upon us by an outside entity but who forces a woman to kill her unborn infant?”
No. I said it should be AVOIDED at all costs. When I say that I mean you shouldn’t have it unless you deem it absolutely necessary, just like in a decision to go to war. An example of a bad war decision would be W’s decision to go to Iraq. And example of a bad abortion decision would be a pregnant woman’s decision to a late-term abortion when her life is not in imminent danger.
—–
K: “If you liken a ‘necessary’ abortion to a ‘necessary’ war then you’d restrict abortion ‘choice’ to ONLY that necessary to preserve the life of the mother?”
Pretty much, unless it’s early term, when you can’t define the egg as a developed human being.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Flap: “So it’s only murder if the mother doesn’t want to murder the child. Otherwise, it’s okay if the mother instigates it? That’s not logical.”
It’s only murder if there is intent of malice. I guarantee you that pregnant women wish they never had to have an abortion, but circumstances can sometimes call for that and who are you to say that a fertilized egg is a human being. Late-term abortions should be restricted, for the umpteenth time, to when the woman’s life is in imminent danger. Early-term abortions should be a personal individual choice without government restriction.
—–
Kregg,
I am for all very-early term to early-term abortions. The egg is not a human being, though I wish NO abortions should EVER happen, I am no one to, and neither are you nor they, to deny someone this harmless Liberty. Big government needs to control us the least possible way, especially when NO human being is being harmed. Plus, we only need to legislate justice, liberty, and equality, not religion, morals and values.
—–
Kregg: “And, we’ve not ‘convicted a woman for murder for performing a late-term abortion’ because they are currently legal to do.”
Exactly my point. There’s a reason the guy got a double-murder conviction and there’s a reason late-term abortions don’t get murder convictions (they’re legal). There’s clearly different intents in either circumstance. They’re very much different.
—–
Kregg: “K; If ‘choice is liberty’ then when do you feel the ‘rights’ of the infant to be born outweigh the ‘rights’ of the mother to kill her fetus?”
When the fetus is clearly developed and the mother is in no imminent danger of losing her life if the fetus is delivered. I’m not really one to figure when a fetus can feel pain, but if we knew it CAN then the abortion should not happen, unless the mother is (again) in imminent danger of losing her life. In this case, she should have the choice of chosing who continues on in life.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
If any of you belive that abortion does NOT hurt the unborn child perhaps you need to do furthur investigation. Children in the womb wince and move away from painful stimuli, move in response to voices they recognize, suck their thumbs, open and close their eyes. Once the nervous system develops you feel pain plain and simple.
Saying they don’t hurt is a way for you to feel better about it.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Vegas said: I am for all very-early term to early-term abortions.
K: Fair enough…
—–
Kregg: “And, we’ve not ‘convicted a woman for murder for performing a late-term abortion’ because they are currently legal to do.”
V: Exactly my point. There’s a reason the guy got a double-murder conviction and there’s a reason late-term abortions don’t get murder convictions (they’re legal). There’s clearly different intents in either circumstance. They’re very much different.
K: My point was to the fact that the fetus was recognized as a person in-utero. The law recognized an unborn child as a human being with rights deprived it by it’s murder. The law also recognized that homicide could be committed on an unborn child. Homicide is applicable only to humans recognized as such so the law admitted in this case that the unborn child was, in fact, a human.
—–
K prv: “K; If ‘choice is liberty’ then when do you feel the ‘rights’ of the infant to be born outweigh the ‘rights’ of the mother to kill her fetus?”
V: When the fetus is clearly developed and the mother is in no imminent danger of losing her life if the fetus is delivered. I’m not really one to figure when a fetus can feel pain, but if we knew it CAN then the abortion should not happen, unless the mother is (again) in imminent danger of losing her life.
K: WIKI on the fetus and pain – The existence and implications of fetal pain relate directly to the worn ground of debate about abortion. Much argument-territory here has been staked out since the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Roe v. Wade in (1973). Though many researchers in the area of fetal development agree a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy,[1][2][3] legislation has been proposed by pro-life advocates requiring abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during an abortion procedure.[4]
A review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in JAMA concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[7] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be “impossible to know” when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[8]
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Kregg,
I see your point and am pretty much in agreement that a human being can and does eventually reside in a pregnant woman. When you kill that human with no basis, then it should be considered murder. If the mother’s life is in imminent danger, though, then one of them will die. THAT should be the mother’s choice.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Vegas said: I see your point and am pretty much in agreement that a human being can and does eventually reside in a pregnant woman.
K: If this is so, then we need to determine WHEN a ‘fetus’ becomes a ‘human’ and quit killing humans, don’t you think?
V: When you kill that human with no basis, then it should be considered murder. If the mother’s life is in imminent danger, though, then one of them will die. THAT should be the mother’s choice.
K: Don’t you also think that a woman’s life being in danger is actually a medical issue and NOT a social one and, therefore, NOT an issue of ‘choice’ as is being bandied about on this blog?
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Kregg,
Yes. We do need to determine the earliest probable point the fetus might acquire painful feeling. That should be goal in the abortion issue. We DO need to quit killing humans, though I doubt it happens as often as some portray.
I believe that when there is a certainty that if the mother goes into labor and there IS a certain risk to her life then it IS an issue of choice, between her life and the unborn’s life.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Yes. We do need to determine the earliest probable point the fetus might acquire painful feeling. That should be goal in the abortion issue. We DO need to quit killing humans, though I doubt it happens as often as some portray.
K: Well, this guy was apparently performing such abortions on a regular basis.
V: I believe that when there is a certainty that if the mother goes into labor and there IS a certain risk to her life then it IS an issue of choice, between her life and the unborn’s life.
K: I’d figure if she’s in labor the kid is easy to save – just deliver it. The fact remains that these things are truly medical issues and do NOT fall under the ‘choice’ umbrella of excuses.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Kregg: “Well, this guy was apparently performing such abortions on a regular basis.”
If he was performing late-term abortions on women who’s life wasn’t in imminent danger then I was and am in disagreement that those abortions were done. It doesn’t merit the guys murder in the least, though.
—–
K: “I’d figure if she’s in labor the kid is easy to save – just deliver it. The fact remains that these things are truly medical issues and do NOT fall under the ‘choice’ umbrella of excuses.”
If she can deliver the baby without dying, then a late-term abortion should not be allowed. This is under no so-called ‘choice’ umbrella uf excuses.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Kregg: “Well, this guy was apparently performing such abortions on a regular basis.”
If he was performing late-term abortions on women who’s life wasn’t in imminent danger then I was and am in disagreement that those abortions were done.
K: From Yahoo news – “WICHITA, Kan. – Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.
V: It doesn’t merit the guys murder in the least, though.
K: I wholeheartedly agree.
—–
K: “I’d figure if she’s in labor the kid is easy to save – just deliver it. The fact remains that these things are truly medical issues and do NOT fall under the ‘choice’ umbrella of excuses.”
V: If she can deliver the baby without dying, then a late-term abortion should not be allowed. This is under no so-called ‘choice’ umbrella uf excuses.
K: The current popular excuse is ‘for the mental health of the woman’. Hardly seems a provable life-threatening condition, huh?
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
K: “The current popular excuse is ‘for the mental health of the woman’. Hardly seems a provable life-threatening condition, huh?”
Not provable at all. An abortion can have much more negative mental effects than giving labor, in my opinion. It’s stupid to assume an abortion is going to be better for the mind of the pregnant woman.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Vegas said: Not provable at all. An abortion can have much more negative mental effects than giving labor, in my opinion. It’s stupid to assume an abortion is going to be better for the mind of the pregnant woman.
K: Thats the reason its used. It’s entirely subjective. A woman claims mental health issues if she has the kids, the Dr. agrees, and stabs the kid in the neck with a pair of scissors. Wala! Good mental health outcome, please pay the cashier on the way out….
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tiller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.
— Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Very well stated by professor McCormick.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Thanx for the post Flap.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“And keep in mind, it’s hard to be intellectually honest and claim that late-term abortion being murder is just an “opinion.” I’m not talking law, I’m talking reality. It’s clearly infanticide.”
I can feel a bit of upchuck coming to the back of my mouth…
There is no such thing as ‘intellectual honesty’ in any version of modern conservatism. None.
It’s all ‘holier than thou’ BS and promoting terrorism like this incident and then act surprised when your minions go out and kill my friends and my family.
The Pro-Life Movement is a threat to American security. Not by their views but by the fact that they allow for sick and twisted individuals such as Randall Terry to run their orgs.
I am not talking opinion with you, I am talking about the need for sanity before we set up radical groups on the left with the express designed purpose of dismantling antiabortion groups as they are threats to the community at large.
If you gave ONE SINGLE CRAP ABOUT ANYONE BUT YOURSELF you would be able to see that fighting for the rights of the unborn is not done by fascist rule and imposing moral law on the people. It is done by being a real human being and getting out there and talking to people, making a difference with your life in the life of another.
But oh no! That’s God’s work! that’s not what Anti-Choice groups want. That’s not what FOX and all you hateful Neo-Cons want. You just want a Christian Nation and you could give a crap about the truth and the children of this nation.
If someone is outside the womb they lose all their Right Wing Fans in an instant. But in that womb you are protected from any trouble.
Just wait until those fetus’ form racial identity or political opinions other than GOP-Brand policy … suddenly the right wingers who claim morality want to scream about keeping that moron down and stopping them from enacting their freedoms.
Tiller was a brave man. His murderer is rotting in a pit were he belongs.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Have you had basic biology, EricG? Do you know anything about human development?
All your invective is meaningless…you avoided the whole question. You are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to accept the fact that a late-term abortion is clearly snuffing out human life. You can dance around it, call me a hater, throw all sorts of words around, but reality is reality.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“Do you people honestly believe that it’s heroic to kill the unborn over and over again?”
Spare me the routine, Flap. Do you honestly believe that Bush and Cheney are heroes for killing all the post born children for profit?????
Will you ever show concern for the post born children? How about the post born babies that are left in garbage cans in sub-zero weather? Is that okay with you? How about a mother who didn’t want her baby in the first place and kills it in a fit of rage? No problem, you say?
“You are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to accept the fact that a late-term abortion is clearly snuffing out human life.”
And what is WAR? A walk in the park?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Strange double standard TD,
I see it too.
It’s why I think it is more accurately labeled “anti-abortion” rather than “pro-life” in the case of most coservatives.
They support the death penalty and defend the wars. Death and more death.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
TDRO,
Do you honestly believe that Bush and Cheney are heroes for killing all the post born children for profit?????
…for profit? Left-wing soundbite strikes again!
Obama and his Dem Congress just extended the two wars…
average james Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Jared,
Would you now have them leave in defeat ?
Seems the right is getting what they want and finding something to complain about anyway.
I would prefer a hasty withdrawl from Iraq, a multi-lateral effort to eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. We don’t always get what we want.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
below AVERAGE JAMES,
Nice try…
Would you now have them leave in defeat ?
Hmmm…isn’t that what Obama was advocating during his campaign? “All troops home in 16 months!”
Were you asking this question of him?
average james Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Jared,
Perhaps if you reread my post above,
you would see that I am disappointed in the footdragging withdrawl from Iraq. We don’t always get what we want.
I thought the right has been on the “as long as it takes” bandwagon. You should be pleased that Obama took the advice of Patreaus and extended our stay. Or, don’t you like Patreaus anymore, given the fact that he is against torture.
You seem a duplicitous individual Jared, or maybe you’re just having a rough year.
trees are people too Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
No, James, we are disappointed with left wing anti war rhetoric that was just that, rhetoric……
We knew we had to stay the course, and you also knew we had to stay the course, but that’s not what the left said during the campaign……
So…
Who’s being duplicitous??
The left wing likes war just fine, right?
Where is all the outcry?
June 1st, 2009 at 11:14 am
God is the only one that will know the ultimate fate of George Tiller. People that say sht like,”We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God”, have no clue what God’s end will is for this person. These people are self-righteous and self-centered holier-than-thous and will they themselves find that they have no clue what even THEY’RE own final judgement is.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yup.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
Alan said: And yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of Tiller as wrong.
K: And, yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of unborn infants as wrong.
deeznuts Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
Way to compare apples to Buicks.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Deez said: Way to compare apples to Buicks.
K: Why? Both are killed out of expediency.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
You make a big assumption there, Kregg.
I am not able share someone’s else medical history but I know for a fact that is not true.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The Eric said: You make a big assumption there, Kregg. I am not able share someone’s else medical history but I know for a fact that is not true.
K: Not really.
Dictionary on ‘expedient’ – (of an action) convenient and practical, although possibly improper or immoral :
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
K: “And, yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of unborn infants as wrong.”
TD: And there are fanatics who refuse to see the killing of innocent civilians for profit as wrong”. I think you refer to it “collateral damage”?
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
K prv: “And, yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of unborn infants as wrong.”
TD said: And there are fanatics who refuse to see the killing of innocent civilians for profit as wrong”. I think you refer to it “collateral damage”?
K: If you can show me who the fanatics are, and where they are killing innocent civilians for profits I’d be glad to opine.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
K: “If you can show me who the fanatics are, and where they are killing innocent civilians for profits I’d be glad to opine.”
TD: Where were you for the last 8 years? Living in a cave?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
TDRO
We’ve had collateral damage in the past 3 months. Who’s responsible for that?
BIG difference between adults going to war (they signed up for service ) and unborn children being killed for convenience.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Bliss,
I believe TD is reffering to collateral damage as in civilian casualties, Iraqis, Afghans.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Average James
There has been afghan/iraqi collateral damage since the new administration took over. So where’s his griping about that? Where are his cries about those in charge having blood on their hands like he did when Bush was President?
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“BIG difference between adults going to war (they signed up for service ) and unborn children being killed for convenience.”
Oh so you think that since our soldiers “signed up for service”, they deserved to die? You’re really sick!
“There has been afghan/iraqi collateral damage since the new administration took over. So where’s his griping about that?”
So who started these f**king wars and left office with this giant clusterf**k for the new administration to handle??? Geez. And you come here daily to defend the indefensible.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was trying to be nice to Bliss.
This is a really lame argument on Bliss’ part though.
I tried.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
AJ
The lameness comes from TDRO who has harped and harped and harped about collateral damage for months but won’t do the same now that obama is in charge.
Soldiers who sign up for service know full well that giving the ultimate sacrifice could very well happen, even though TDRO doesn’t seem to think they are smart enough to figure that out when they enlist. Doesn’t mean they “want” to die it means they are willing to die so we can sit around and continue to debate each other freely.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“The lameness comes from TDRO who has harped and harped and harped about collateral damage for months but won’t do the same now that obama is in charge.”
No Blissfully Moronic, the lameness is on your part. Bush & Co. started these two wars, in case you didn’t know.
“Doesn’t mean they “want” to die”
I didn’t say they did or didn’t want to die. It is up to the military to make sure our troops are not put in harm’s way unnecessarily. This is no reflection on the troops whatsoever. They know exactly what they’re getting into and TRUST the commanders to keep them as safe as possible. I did, however, say you don’t seem to care if they are killed. And I wish you’d stop accusing our troops of “not being smart enough”. If anybody is “not smart enough”, it would be you.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
TDRO
Bush & Co. started these two wars, in case you didn’t know.
That Obama and his Dem congress just extended…”in case you didn’t know”
June 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry is a supporter of domestic terrorism as is anyone who jumps to defend this cowardly and sick murderer.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Total nailidge Eric.
That is exactly what he is, a domestic terrorist sympathiser and supporter.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
But it is not cowardly and sick to kill late-term babies, right?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Flap,
I don’t know about cowardly and sick, I just think abortion is flat out wrong. Taking human life is wrong.
I am pro-life. Roeder should not recieve the death penalty either.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Enough death already, life in prison, if convicted.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I don’t support either side of abortion doctors versus domestic terrorists.
I support non-violence.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Yessir Eric,
I’m with you on the non-violence train.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“But it is not cowardly and sick to kill late-term babies, right?”
But it is not cowardly and sick to send others to kill post-born babies when you yourself refused to, right?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Noone is sent to kill post-born babies in this country. That’s stupid.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Any killing of anybody is killing of post-borns. That is TD’s point, that and the fact that Cheney and Bush took deferrments to military service, yet sent our soldiers out to do what they sidestepped, in Vietnam.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Thanks, Average James. I thought I was the only one who thought the Dick (4 Vietnam deferments) Cheney should be the last person to send our children off to die.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 am
TDRO, AVERAGE JAMES,
Hmmm…this is interesting considering your hero Clinton sent troops to Somalia…while he dodged the draft.
Just noticed you forgot to mention that…
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
One more thing…Obama has never served…and he’s “sending our children off to die”.
Where’s your ire for him? Oh, yeah…he’s a liberal…
average james Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Regean never served and sent off troops too !!!
Nananana………..Gimme a break Jared.
You’ve heard all of our arguments against Iraq. Specifically, Iraq. Nice try bro.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Comments by O’Reilly show where the responsibility for Tiller’s murder lies:
* He’s guilty of “Nazi stuff,”
* a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida
* “This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union”
* “operating a death mill”
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Ha, ha, ha…O’Reilly is responsible? That’s hilarious.
O’Reilly’s comments are spot on. Whether you wish to recognize it or not is your problem.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
K: “O’Reilly’s comments are spot on. Whether you wish to recognize it or not is your problem.”
TD: So then, if you think O’Really’s comments are “spot on”, you must think Dubya and the Dick should be tried for war crimes?
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
TD, please stop attributing to me that which I have not said. I did not post the following comment – (K: “O’Reilly’s comments are spot on. Whether you wish to recognize it or not is your problem.)
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Sorry Kregg. My mistake.
Flap, So then, if you think O’Really’s comments are “spot on”, you must think Dubya and the Dick should be tried for war crimes?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
“Yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of unborn infants as wrong.”
Either start living in the 21st century or move to Texas and secede.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
K prv: “Yet there are the fanatics who refuse to see the killing of unborn infants as wrong.”
Rock: Either start living in the 21st century or move to Texas and secede.
K: So, since society has reduced itself to killing unborn babies out of expediency, we should no longer speak out against it because we are in the 21st century?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Killing is wrong, whether it be an unborn child or an evil abortion “doctor”
Flap, you are SICK. Where do you stand on the mother? Do we send her to prison? The man is DEAD. That’s not good enough for you? You still have to call him EVIL?
This is my last post on this topic. As a rape victim, I can’t take the self righteous and sanctimonious right wingnut whack jobs.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
SGL, just because you have been raped doesn’t give you the right to call me names or say that I’m a right-wing nut because I think MURDER IS WRONG.
If believing that killing late-term unborn children is morally reprehensible makes me sick, then so be it.
And you need to continue to debate…don’t call me or other people names and take your marbles and go home.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Be careful, Flap.
This is where the so-called Pro-lifers can’t agree on it themselves. Some say it gets to be ‘okay’ in rape cases and others are purists about it.
I think the whole movement is sick and dedicated to convincing people they are helping anyone, someone, with such insane and illogical stances.
Public health and community involvement … if pro-life groups supported this instead of hateful spewings they might earn a smile from me.
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Flap: SGL, just because you have been raped doesn’t give you the right to call me names or say that I’m a right-wing nut because I think MURDER IS WRONG.
Uh…Yeah, it does.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Sarah said: Uh…Yeah, it does.
K; Why?
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
For any number of reasons. Not only is Flap minimizing rape, he’s attempting to strip her of any right to express anger at his lack of compassion (the right of which, of course, he’s exercised freely himself).
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
How am I minimizing rape?
I call bullshit. I think rapists should probably be castrated (although many libs would be against that) and in some cases executed if the rape is exceedingly violent.
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 am
Sarah said: For any number of reasons. Not only is Flap minimizing rape, he’s attempting to strip her of any right to express anger at his lack of compassion (the right of which, of course, he’s exercised freely himself).
K: Sarah, I don’t get the connection. How is he ‘minimizing rape’ by speaking out against abortion?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Now here’s an an interesting thought that was based on a comment by AJ…do any of you libs think this guy who killed Tiller should get the death penalty?
That’ll probably short-circuit a lot of your liberal minds, because you probably love abortion and especially late-term abortion doctors are saints among men, and so people that murder abortion doctors are lower than scum itself, but the death penalty is wrong, but it’s a right-wing extremist…so he deserves to die…BZZZZZZT….DOES NOT COMPUTE!
(I was kidding in that last paragraph, so please relax.)
June 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Alan,
A hero? I don’t think so, Alan. I’m not going to respond to your bait, with anger.
I am going to say this, a representative of Operation Rescue did come out and condemned the killing of Tiller. This was reported on Fox News website. So, not everyone is cheering the killing of this guy.
I found it to be of interest that this guy attends a Reformed Lutheran Church and sings in the choir. This got my attention and some prayer for the leaders there. Yes, I did pray for Tiller’s family.
Do I consider what was done to Tiller, murder? Yes, I’d rather see Tiller experience a change of heart and strive for a better solution to unwanted pregnacy then abortion.
EricG Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Hateful Anti-Choice Americans like yourself should really take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror.
How many homeless people haev you taken in?
How many babies will YOU adopt?
How many?
Hypocrites running from their own principals. All of you.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
How many have you taken in Eric G? And I love how you play the anti-choice card. On the same blog where we have folks angry at a mother who chose NOT to put her son through chemo, on the same blog where you have posters who call bush and cheney murderers, on the same blog you have people calling this guy a HERO. A hero. He murders infants, and he is a hero?
If you aren’t sure whether or not you want a child, you shouldn’t wait til month 4,5,6,7,8,9 to “take care of it”. Better yet, how about practicing some of that responsibility I have seen so many on here rant about and NOT get pregnant to begin with? THat’s a novel idea. A choice that doesn’t hurt anyone.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Well said, blissful. I love Alan but to call a scumbag like Tiller an “American Hero” is so extreme I don’t know where to begin.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Barry,
Thoughtful post. I would hope that most of the pro-lifers(I include myself) could respond in kind.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Does anybody else see the similarity of Roeder’s actions to the EIT/torture debate ?
The conservative right’s way of thinking seems;
Terrorrists wish to strike again, to take human life.
We must extract possible info from terrorists by any means necessary to prevent future loss of life. These are terrorists, that don’t deserve any sort of “human rights” protection.
Tiller wishes to perform more abortions, to take human life.
We must do whatever is necessary to prevent future loss of life. Tiller is a murderer and doesn’t deserve any sort of “human rights” protection.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Who is talking about human right’s protection for the babies being murdered? Deafening silence from the left.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Fair point Bliss.
Two wrongs still do not make a right, however.
What about the similarity of logic question ?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
You were doing fine if you had stopped at the first sentence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because it’s legal now doesn’t make it okay. Doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong, doesn’t mean it isn’t painful for the unborn baby, doesn’t mean we should continue doing it.
You can throw rape in there if you like. A brutal act was done so the answer is another brutal act?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Bliss,
Perhaps you are unaware that I am a pro-life liberal.
I am curious as to yours, and others thoughts on the similarity of logic question that I posed above.
In a nutshell, does the end justify the means?
Tiller is dead. One less late term abortion provider, via murder.
Intel is gained. One less terrorist threat to worry about, via torture.
Both objectives achieved through human rights violations. Both solutions involved bad guys, that do not warrant human rights.
I see a similar logic, a pattern.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Blissy: “If any of you belive that abortion does NOT hurt the unborn child perhaps you need to do furthur investigation. Children in the womb wince and move away from painful stimuli, move in response to voices they recognize, suck their thumbs, open and close their eyes. Once the nervous system develops you feel pain plain and simple.
Saying they don’t hurt is a way for you to feel better about it.”
Then if the fetus has developed a nervous system, the abortion should be restricted, again, unless the mother’s life is in imminent danger. In this case, she should be the one who decides who continues on in life.
If the fetus is still an egg, though, such as in very early-term and early-term abortions, then no one is being harmed and thus there should be room for choice. Choice is Liberty. Government should intervene in our lives as least as possible.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Very, very rarely are abortions done to preserve the life of the mother. Technology is such that babies who weigh less than a pound can we saved. That’s an excuse.
Abortion should not be used as birth control or an Oops convenience.
“government should intervene in our lives as least as possible”….so in other words, obama is wrong for telling companies how much to pay their workers,wrong for chastising all those CEO’s for flying on private jets, wrong for telling us how we should live regarding our finances and spending practices, wrong for telling us which cars we should buy or drive, wrong for telling that mother that her son had to have chemo, wrong for telling us where our thermostats should be set, wrong on so many accounts i can’t list them all here.
Thanks for making my argument that our government is already tooooo big and only getting bigger, and that they are the problem NOT the solution.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
(;
Blissy,
Many conservative’s perspective of ‘big government’ only pertains to monetary freedom and less financial intervention. This isn’t the only thing that government should intervene the least in our lives though.
You say: “Very, very rarely are abortions done to preserve the life of the mother. Technology is such that babies who weigh less than a pound can we saved. That’s an excuse.”
Well then, in those ‘very, very’ rare cases there should be room for choice. What excuse am I suggesting? I only say that in these cases a late-term abortion should be the woman’s choice.
—–
“Abortion should not be used as birth control or an Oops convenience.”
I agree. I, personally, wish abortion would never happen, but when you legislate something like this which is hurting NO ONE, you’re likely only legislating religion, morals, and values, not Liberty, Equality, or Justice. Liberty being the main issue here.
—–
Blissy: ““government should intervene in our lives as least as possible”….so in other words, obama is wrong for telling companies how much to pay their workers,wrong for chastising all those CEO’s for flying on private jets, wrong for telling us how we should live regarding our finances and spending practices, wrong for telling us which cars we should buy or drive, wrong for telling that mother that her son had to have chemo, wrong for telling us where our thermostats should be set, wrong on so many accounts i can’t list them all here.”
I knew you would take what I said the route of monetary and financial freedom and throw Obama in the mix, cause he’s a ’socialist’, right?
Obama’s not telling companies how much to pay their workers. He didn’t chastise the jet-flying CEO’s. If anything that was the media.
He’s not ordering me how to live regarding my finances and spending practices. At the most, he’s suggesting and giving advice.
He’s not ordering me which car I can drive or buy. I’m pretty sure I still have the car that I wanted when I bought it. I’m still sure I can go and buy a car I want if I want.
I don’t think Obama decided the Chemo one, but I am a bit weary when someone is forced onto something like that, though maybe the Judge was right. Maybe ‘parental tyranny’ was prevented in this case? It’s more complicated than I am capable of judging.
My thermostat is set where I want it.
I made no contribution to your argument, except for the fact that sometimes it shouldn’t really intervene, as when religion, morals, and values are trying to be legislated… or, also, in many cases, when our financial freedom is being intervened on for the wrong purposes.
If I recall well, though, GM came to the government pleading for intervention to their demise. If government intervenes (or tries to intervene) in my demise, I would appreciate the help of my government. I believe GM should have gone bankrupt before we gave them all this money though, but see why we tried to avoid that. WE LOVE OUR AMERICAN CAR COMPANIES. GM is an American iconic brand. “The Heartbeat of America.” Why do you hate American car companies so much to where you would just want them to die off with no government intervention? We now have no more Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, or Saturn. Three of these being American names. That makes you happy?
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I know you are young and full of ideas vegas. It isn’t the government’s job to fix the economy OR to save companies. Poor busines plans equal death of a company. that is why bankruptcy is built into our system. I find it even sadder that the government will own these companies. I find it sad that everyone I talk to, myslef included will NOT buy a GM vehicle ever again. Period. The iconic thing pretty much went down the tubes months ago in case you hadn’t noticed.
Would it make you happy to NOT have a free market? I guess so. What makes you hate the other car companies who choose to change with the times so their company stays afloat?
And if you think our laws don’t legislate morals you are sadly mistaken. Can you steal from your neighbor? Can you murder someone? Can you extort money? Can you not pay your taxes? Can you drive over the speed limit and not get penalized? Can you burn things down and not get in trouble? OUr laws DO legislate a set of morals. Most of them are biblically based.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
If we pay for the government, why shouldn’t it pay us back when we need it’s help. It continually NEEDS our assistance. I don’t like that the government is going to own GM, though we will still be able to buy GM vehicles.
I would absolutely NOT make me happy to not have a Free Market. That would be suicide. We have thrived as a nation because of the Free Market. I don’t hate the companies that are still afloat. I’m very proud of Ford right now and wish GM could have gone the same route, but GM had been in the crapper for way before today and where never capable of coming back.
Our laws should NOT legislate morals, values, and religion.
Stealing from your neighbor hurts your neighbor. Murdering someone hurts and kills who you are murdering.
Extorting is equivalent to stealing, someone else hurts or loses from it.
Not paying your taxes is stealing as well. Someone else suffer’s a loss here as well.
Driving over the speed limit has the potential of hurting or killing someone else.
Burning someone else’s stuff down hurts the proprietor of what you burned down, but government should not intevene if you want to burn your OWN property.
What morals? The fact that all these things hurts OTHERS is why they are legislated. Not because of religion. Not because of morals and values.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“Our laws should NOT legislate morals, values, and religion.”
Then what do we base them on? Popular opinion?
Why is hurting others wrong? That is somehow intrinsic, inborn knowledge that we codify into law?
June 1st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
There’s a special place in hell for those who stand with anti-choicers seeking to limit access, education, and affordability of contraceptives. But they won’t fry harder than everyone who yells about adoption as an alternative, but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Sarah said: There’s a special place in hell for those who stand with anti-choicers seeking to limit access, education, and affordability of contraceptives.
K: Are your ‘access, education, and affordability’ comments about contraceptives or about abortion?
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
K: Are your ‘access, education, and affordability’ comments about contraceptives or about abortion?
Both, unfortunately. Hopefully the latter won’t be as necessary, if the former is improved.
That’s why I wish, with all the heavy-lifting of the anti-abortion movement, they’d:
1) Concentrate on preventing abortions by increasing contraceptive education, access, affordability (I’m torn about parental notification…If the kid’s old enough to have sex, they really should have been schooled by the parents long before that time, but then this ain’t a perfect world);
2) Focus on the importance of public outreach to men and the role they play in perpetuating abortion;
3) Encourage foster care and mental health services for kids in the foster care program.
Oy, I could go on and on.
But I guess it’s a lot easier to hold a sign and pay oneself on the back, than to champion any of the above projects. Which is why I might start contributing to NARAL again.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
How many men are notified prior to an abortion, and if the man didn’t want the woman to have the abortion so he could raise the child what then?
If you don’t have kids yourself, then you don’t have a dog in the fight about parental notification. Period.
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
You don’t have a dog in any fight I might choose to have, “Blissful” Idiot.
As long as I have to pay for things like welfare and incarceration of fathers who fail to pay child support, I guess I do have the right to an opinion.
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Both, unfortunately. Hopefully the latter won’t be as necessary, if the former is improved.
That’s why I wish, with all the heavy-lifting of the anti-abortion movement, they’d:
S: 1) Concentrate on preventing abortions by increasing contraceptive education, access, affordability (I’m torn about parental notification…If the kid’s old enough to have sex, they really should have been schooled by the parents long before that time, but then this ain’t a perfect world);
K: What would you have everybody do that isn’t already being done? It seems to me that – absent a moral imperative outside the ‘uh, just don’t do it – there is little reason to curb teenage sex. If parents did the big nasty as teenagers what valid reason or moral high ground do they operated from when counseling their kids to NOT have sex? We ‘anti-choicers’ ARE yelling at the top of our lungs to NOT HAVE SEX until the participants are ready to raise whatever they create but we get criticized for doing so.
S: 2) Focus on the importance of public outreach to men and the role they play in perpetuating abortion;
K: You really think men in general are ignorant on this topic?
S: 3) Encourage foster care and mental health services for kids in the foster care program.
K: You mean in regards to sex counselling?
S: Oy, I could go on and on. But I guess it’s a lot easier to hold a sign and pay oneself on the back, than to champion any of the above projects. Which is why I might start contributing to NARAL again.
K: I don’t hold a sign nor do I pat myself on the back. What I HAVE done is teach my kids that God wants them to abstain from casual sex and to keep such an eventual relationship within the bounds of marriage. It seems to have worked.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I don’t remember seeing anything in the Bible about people going to hell who don’t condone murdering innocent unborn babies.
Contraceptives can be obtained free of charge in cases where you can’t pay at your local health dept. Heck, schools hand out propholactics on a daily basis. Kids are educated but most have the attitude of “it can’t/won’t happen to me just this once”.
I can count on two hands off the top of my head friends that I have who had adopted or fostered unwanted children. For you to act like those who are against abortion do squat about the problem is a pretty uniformed and ego-centric statement.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“I don’t remember seeing anything in the Bible about people going to hell who don’t condone murdering innocent unborn babies.”
Wow. Listen to the warhawk lecturing us on what it does and does not say in the bible. Priceless!
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Read it lately? If so, show me the scripture that proves what sarah alleged. Waiting.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
You’re the one that brought it up Blissy. You point to the verse in the bible where it says murdering unborn babies is a sin. Note: the key words here are UNBORN BABIES – as in, not born yet.
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Isn’t it, TDRO? Have a great evening.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
There’s a “special place in hell” for those who try justify murder of unborn children based on contraceptive or privacy rights. Two can play at this game!
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
No Flap, you have that wrong. There’s a special place in hell for those who condone the slaughter of post-born children in a war (or a “crusade”, if you will) that the commander-in-chief at the time claimed was authorized by God.
Talk about using the Name of the Lord your God in vain!
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
No TDro, there’s a special place in hell for people who obfuscate the premeditated killing of the unborn with a war debate. They’re two separate issues. I’m not a huge supporter of the Iraq War anyway. I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up.
War in some cases is morally justified. Some killing is justified. Abortion is not.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 am
TDRO,
There’s a special place in hell for those who condone the slaughter of post-born children in a war (or a “crusade”, if you will) that the commander-in-chief at the time claimed was authorized by God.
That the current commander-in-chief has just extended.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
Stop with the adoption is mandatory rhetoric. It’s sick.
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Pino, your discomfort is obviously in direct proportion to adoption’s relevance in the pro-choice argument. Thanks for your reply. It proves this beautifully.
“We want children carried to term…..” and then the silence is…how did Bliss put it?…deafening.
blissfulconservative Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Sarah
The only pro-choice movement you are in favor of is the continued use of abortion as a means of birth control. We aren’t any better than the chinese who limit the amount of girls you can have to control the population.
How about a woman’s choice to be smart and NOT get pregnant in the first place?
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“Blissful” (ha!) Conservative: “The only pro-choice movement you are in favor of is the continued use of abortion as a means of birth control.”
I’ve never had the entertainment of knowing such a consistently agitating, miserable human being. Congratulations on a new low.
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“We want children carried to term…..” and then the silence is…how did Bliss put it?…deafening.”
Oh come now, Sarah. The right is constantly complaining about high taxes. You know, to support all those babies they demanded be carried to term?
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
TDro, would you support the killing of newly born infants? That would really help trim all the suffering of children and there’d be less adoption necessary.
We could have large post-birth abortion chambers at hospitals where infants could be gassed. And until all war stops, we should continue that practice. I mean, it’s a family’s CHOICE to kill their infant, and no rightwing extremist has a right to interfere with that!
TDro319 Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
F: “TDro, would you support the killing of newly born infants? ”
TD: This coming from someone who supports the killing of post born children. My mistake, you refer to it as “collateral damage”.
F: “We could have large post-birth abortion chambers at hospitals where infants could be gassed. ”
TD: So was your hero Hitler? Is that where you got that idea from?
F: “I mean, it’s a family’s CHOICE to kill their infant, and no rightwing extremist has a right to interfere with that!”
TD: You actually believe that??? You’re sicker than I thought. You need help immediately.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
How the hell do I support the killing of post-born children? Is ANY war EVER justified, TDro? If so, then you support killing.
What’s wrong with gassing infants? How is that different than abortion? Quit thrusting your personal religious morals on society!
June 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
So, should they give the murderer of George Tiller the death penalty??
If the murderer does 10 to 20 and gets paroled somewhere along the way will that satisfy the need for justice??
How many years in prison should he do??
Do you realize that murderers get paroled in this country?
We have had a considerable discussion about the legality of abortion on here before………
I want to know what you liberals want in terms of justice concerning this murderer………
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
No death penalty. Govenment should not have the power to were it can kill someone. That power can lead to tyranny. We would only do him a favor in that case, too, since everyone dies. Instead, LIFE, without parole, and very limited access to outside communication.
trees are people too Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
So should all murderers receive life without parole sentences??
Why or why not??
Are some murders more acceptable than others?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
No death-penalty. Ever. No exceptions.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
All murderers ? No. Case by case.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
There’s obviously different circumstances in every murder. 1st degree’s life without parole no matter. After that, as AJ said, case by case.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Yup.
Vegas is on it.
trees are people too Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Life in a living hell should be his punishment, is that what you’re saying??
Life in eternal separation, with little or no contact with the outside world?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Life in prison.
Time taken from you. Time to think. Time to get right with your maker.
Freedom taken from you as a consequence of the life you took from someone else.
Yes, if convicted, life in prison.
VegasLib Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Ditto, James. Life. Till you die.
flap Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
And in prison, the people who are gonna be there for life can kill others without fear of retribution. I agree that there are huge, huge problems with the administration of the death penalty, and it should only be limited to extreme and/or slam dunk cases. But never? Timothy McVeigh?
Are you claiming that an eye-for-an-eye is NEVER valid punishment? Maybe you’re right, but I see some instances where it’s very appropriate.
trees are people too Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Should he have library privileges, internet access, cable t.v., visitation, etc….
Should we as a society attempt to rehabilitate him through the penal system, should we monitor this process and if he indeed becomes rehabilitated should we then return him to society?
If he is ever going to be returned to society don’t we need to keep him connected to the world?
Or should we lock up all of the murderers forever and throw away the keys???
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
All murderers ? no. Case by case as to whether parole should ever be considered.
Rehabilitation would be ideal in all inmates. The betterment of any and all humans everywhere is a goal of societies in general.
All prison priveleges sure, if allowed/permitted by the warden/authorities.
Releasing murderers back into society is an entirely different issue.
trees are people too Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
OK, so this is a case that merits the possible consideration of parole.
This man may in fact be innocent, and subsequently acquitted.
He has the right to a fair trial.
Regardless of the outcome, he may not be a lost cause, and must receive consideration as to the possibility of parole.
He should not be tortured in any way if found guilty, which means he is to be provided with any and all tools and resources that anyone else who is incarcerated has access too.
You can not subject him to any environment that is unduly uncomfortable, or causes any form of mental anguish, as this will be considered to be torture……
He is to be treated with respect and kindness with the end goal being rehabilitation and release back into society.
Correct?
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Ideally, yes, absolutely.
Agreement all the way through Trees.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
No death penalty. Ever. No exceptions.
That’s my opinion.
Sarah Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Props to ya, AJ. Have a good week.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
You too Sarah,
I gotta get off this thing and do some manual labor now.
Check back later.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The Foxy news has let out those right wings extremists
by their outrage promotion of such acts.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Pierre said: The Foxy news has let out those right wings extremists
by their outrage promotion of such acts.
K: So, you figure Alan has not ‘promoted’ such acts by capitalizing on it for his blog?
pierre Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hey Kregg, Alan is no Hate Monger just like your
rep. friends.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Pierre said: Hey Kregg, Alan is no Hate Monger just like your rep. friends.
K: You are exactly right. He is a different kind of hate monger altogether…
pierre Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Alan is a pussy cat.
Kregg Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Pierre said: Alan is a pussy cat.
K: There’s no cat in the description of Alan.
pierre Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Oke Kregg, he is just a pus..y ; you can have it.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
…..but won’t become a teach themselves have no right to speak about Education reform.
but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
…but won’t run for election have no right to speak about politics.
but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
…but won’t enlist have no right to speak about the US policy on war.
but won’t adopt or foster any kids themselves.
…..but won’t subject themselves to water boarding have no right to speak about EIT.
average james Reply:
June 1st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Good point….s Pino.
Silly argument.
Every american is free to speak their mind, and we are all free to consider the source.
Sarah Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
It’s easy, Pino. All the anti-abortion screamers let on like they adore the innocent little children, that every fetus is a gift from God, and women are evil if they abort a kid they can’t/won’t take care of, or might possibly die if they carry it to term. Some are single-issue voters because of their love affair with fetuses.
But their care and compassion often stops at actually DOING something for the already-born, unwanted kids of the world. It’s really disgusting.
No one’s limiting your right to speak. Any a-hole can have an opinion.
But the words of care and compassion for fetuses seem to stop abruptly once the kids come into the world. Then, they’re often deemed a drain on society.
To me, that’s about as disgusting as abortion, if not more.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
No one’s limiting your right to speak. Any a-hole can have an opinion.
Obviously
Kregg Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sarah said: It’s easy, Pino. All the anti-abortion screamers let on like they adore the innocent little children, that every fetus is a gift from God, and women are evil if they abort a kid they can’t/won’t take care of, or might possibly die if they carry it to term. Some are single-issue voters because of their love affair with fetuses.
K: Sarah, you almost seem to be supporting the concept that abortion to eliminate a child that the mother ‘can’t/won’t take care of’ is appropriate. Am I hearing you correctly?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
KREGG<
What I find interesting is that SARAH continues to lecture the pro-life crowd for what she calls a failure to provide for the children who are born into poverty…but she has yet to identify what she’s doing…other than advocating killing them pre-birth, of course…
June 1st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Was that a terrorist act incited by Fox news?
So, anyone think that the soldiers being shot in Arkansas was inspired by KOS or MoveOn.org?
June 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
[...] Rescue co-founder Randall Terry, speaking at the National Press Club, reiterated his statement that George Tiller was a mass murderer, and added that he reaped what he [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
[...] His ex-wife said Roeder’s obsession about abortion led to their divorce. [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
helping women who had nowhere else to go
Okay, so serious. We keep hearing “late term abortion”. In this exact specific Dr’s case, what did that mean? Did he really perform late term abortions? And if he did, why?
From the quote above, it doesn’t sound like it was health of mother. But, I admit, that may be my bias.
Did this guy really abort babies that, if born premature, would live?
June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
[...] getting more and more difficult to find responsible debate in this country on almost any topic. Alan Colmes says Dr. Tiller was an American Hero. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry says that Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer. But is this [...]
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
First and foremost, my condolences to Mr. Tiller’s family. Secondly, his killer should be given the death penalty, completely justified in this instance, brutal, premeditated and plenty of witnesses.
And lastly, Alan lost a huge amount of respect in my estimation by tarnishing the title of hero on this man.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 am
“George Tiller: American Hero”–Alan Colmes.
Only a liberal like Alan could make a man like Tiller out to be a “American Hero”. While Tiller did not deserve to be murdered on one hand, all those babies Tiller murdered did not deserve their fate either.
TDro319 Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“All those babies Tiller murdered did not deserve their fate either.”
And all those innocent men, women and children Cheney murdered didn’t deserve their fates, either.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
TDRO,
And all those innocent men, women and children Cheney murdered didn’t deserve their fates, either.
…That Obama and his Dem Congress will now that they’ve just extended the two wars…
You know…I couldn’t for the life of me understand why constantly bring this up, TDRO…but since I’ve been doing it…I know:
No thought required…
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 am
For all of you who want conservatives to be waterboarded to prove how bad it is. What if you liberals have a hole cut in your head and your brain sucked out with a vacuum? I’ll take that trade anyday. Also, there are about 150,000 adoptions in this country every year at about a 30,000 price tag.
bobfrommadison Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
For all of you who want conservatives to be waterboarded to prove how bad it is. What if you liberals have a hole cut in your head and your brain sucked out with a vacuum?
All for the low, low price of $5000.00 a “pop”…forgive the mental picture.
TDro319 Reply:
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“For all of you who want conservatives to be waterboarded to prove how bad it is. What if you liberals have a hole cut in your head and your brain sucked out with a vacuum?”
Probably the way a soldier feels when he sees his life flashing before his eyes just before he’s blown to bits by a car bomb, or the way he feels when he loses his hearing, eyesight or his limbs, etc.
Maybe the same way parents feel when they’re told their child, who they’ve raised, cared for and loved for 19 years, has been killed in Iraq.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
June 5th, 2009 at 5:18 am
TDRO…we have an all volunteer military at the moment, let me know the next time a baby volunteers to be aborted.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am