Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
As I have stated many times I am not somebody who embraces the idea of abortion, but I certainly support the crazy idea that a woman should be in charge of her own body. I am also not one of those who considers the idea of terminating a pregnancy constitutes murder.
However using a gun to murder a doctor offers no such moral quandary.
Nor should it to anybody who truly considers themselves a "pro-life advocate."
Exactly. I guess we should be calling those folks "pro-murder."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/
ReplyDeleteThey care about the fetus, not the human being. Once they pop out, they could give two shits about whether or not that baby is loved, fed, clothed or educated.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't these people advocating murder arrested for domestic terrorism? That is exactly what it is.
ReplyDeleteDr. Means is a brave, brave woman, and Rachel is to be congratulated for this expose of terroristtic tactics by the American Taliban.
I have never understood this. They also don't give a crap about the baby after it's born. How many anti-choice people do you know who've adopted through dss? Yeah, I don't know any either. Pathetic, intolerant assholes.
ReplyDelete(and good morning!)
T
I remember what the late great George Carlin once said about the pro-life movement: They're not "pro-life, they're ANTI-WOMAN!"
ReplyDeleteHe also said the very true statement: "If you're preborn, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked."
The "pro-life" movement doesn't care about the child once he or she is born. All they seem to care about is that they make women subservient again and shove us back in the kitchen (which is where I am usually found, but that's MY choice. No one forced me to choose the role of stay at home Mommy, and that makes all the difference.
Crap - the comment from Aaron was me - my husband was still signed into his account and I didn't notice! *lol*
ReplyDeleteIf only these "people" would invest equal time, effort and resources in stopping child abuse, sex offenders who target children, and the required provisions for the true educational, mental, physical and emotional well-being of children NOW HERE, then abortion would not be the necessity it appears to be for some. Since they do not...I do not believe abotion is really their business in any forum.
ReplyDelete>>http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/
ReplyDeleteJust look a little more deeply and you'll find Joseph Farah of World Net Daily is the one behind this publication. He's been fearmongering about our President since the beginning. He is known for his outrageous lies and tries to get attention all the time for promoting that Mr. Obama isn't legitimate. He's a MAJOR birther. Seems they're ramping things up in time for 2012. Orly Tate and he are big buds.
My tax money goes to pay for torture and abuse of human beings. My tax money goes to white phosphorus that killed and maimed the people of Fallugia.
ReplyDeleteThere is more to LIFE than a clump of cells.
Why don't women own their own bodies the way that men do? Why doesn't HIPAA protect their privacy?
ReplyDeleteAnd shouldn't we be anti-viagra considering that the users of such are more able (and willing) to spread their sperm around, thus contributing to unwanted pregnancies?
Why are we so anxious to protect the fetus, then when they're 18, send them off to kill and be killed?
Curious mentality some folks have.
ACT NOW: Stop Right-Wing Attack on Family Planning Funding
ReplyDeleteJust in time for Valentine’s Day, right-wing extremists are continuing their assault on women’s health care, reproductive rights and the ability of families to plan when, and if, they’ll expand.
This week Congress will vote on a bill to eliminate funding for Title X — a program that provides women with birth control, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and more. Extreme conservatives want to completely eliminate this crucial funding. Doing so would cut off millions of women from care they can’t afford, leaving them at increased risk of sickness and death.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/act-now-stop-right-wing-attack-on-family-planning-funding
It's predominately men who kill abortion providers. There is some kind of sick reason, that has nothing to do with pro-life, at work here. I do believe the so-called pro-life movement is anti-women. It has to do with women choosing to end a pregnancy. Some men simply cannot handle that a woman would have that much autonomy.
ReplyDeleteMy home town (Buffalo) was under siege for several months by Randall Terry and his group. A fine doctor was assassinated (Dr. Bernard Schelpian) and the assassin was hidden and aided in his escape by these people.
They are domestic terrorists.
while I find it easy to join in the chorus on this, I don't feel that it is helpful to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the argument is that the killing of an abortion doctor is the killing in protection of an innocent life. I beleive there is such a doctrine in the law. You are allowed to step in and kill someone causing harm to your children/neighbor/even stranger. I believe the doctrine requires IMMINENT harm (like conking someone on the head when they are choking someone else, which may end in the choker's death), and most of the abortion doctors were not in the middle of an abortion. But to not understand their thinking is to not be able to discuss with them.
One fallacy I have with the anti-abortion folks (there are probably numerous) is the idea that abortion is somehow a different kind of killing. If I were in philosophy class, it would seem to me that either abortion is murder, and should be prosecuted as murder or it isn't murder. As best I can tell from their rhetoric, it isn't some kind of special kind of murder, it's just the killing of an innocent life - the definition of murder.
Lucy
From the comments I've read on the wingnut sites, killing an abortion Dr. is eliminating one more liberal. So, for them it is win/win. How sad our society is.
ReplyDeleteWhen you kill people for purposes of general intimidation, it's called terrorism. The right is supposedly so afraid of terrorists they want to curtail civil liberties, yet they endorse terrorism themselves.
ReplyDeleteNow we have a state trying to make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions:
ReplyDelete"A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions."
Full article at:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers
Lucy 5:56 AM wrote: If I were in philosophy class, it would seem to me that either abortion is murder, and should be prosecuted as murder or it isn't murder.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that if she had been paying attention in philosophy class she would know about the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle—and perhaps even understand its application to this issue.
Lucy - murder is accepted by most civilized societies all the time. We just use different names for it.
ReplyDeleteSoldiers kill and we don't call that murder - even when they kill "innocents" (non-combatants) unless someone choses to make it a scandal and the evidence is horrendous as it has been in Viet Nam and in Iraq and other war zones.
Police kill, but it's not usually regarded as murder, even when they accidentally shoot the wrong person. We try very hard to find evidence to exonerate police - as we should because their lives are at stake every day as they work, assigned to protect us.
The law allows defenses against the charge of murder: crime of passion, temporary insanity, self-defense (even sometimes defense of property or others).
But the taking of a life is the taking of life philosophically. We simply make exceptions according to the current societal norms.
At one time, it was not against the law for a man to kill his wife. After all, she was his property. This law still prevails in some cultures.
The concept of taking a life gets even more bizarre when people cannot agree on when life begins. Heck, we can't always agree when life ends.
There are not that many abortions to begin with, and the doctors who perform them also do other life-saving work.
Even if abortions were outlawed and no doctor or nurse performed them, I doubt the "pro-lifers" will be satisfied. Look at their angry opposition to birth control and condoms.
Will the "pro-life" people go after women who abort themselves (if they survive), whose bodies spontaneously abort, or who were even rumored to have been pregnant. What about women who use birth control - that, in some minds, is killing life by simply denying it. The mind boggles.
Haven't you ever wondered why it is that the pro-lifers never ever seem to get riled up over the males who impregnate the women? Very telling, that.
Ted - perhaps you could enlighten me about the FAllacy of the Excluded middle. When I listen to the anti-abortion talk, I don't hear a special case for abortion is murder because of.... I hear abortion is murder because the fetus is a life. That sounds like the murder statutes to me. The only reason I can think of for calling it abortion, rather than murder (which they frequently do call it) is to make it more palatable (to some, others don't care, and others find it unpalatable either way). If they really called it murder, it would make sense to charge moms and doctors - and I don't see most (but not all) of the anti-abortion folk having the stomach for that - plus I think it would create a huge backlash from people who don't care a lot one way or the other right now. But that's calling it abortion for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to get past what felt like an intended insult, although perhaps I misunderstood your intention. I wasn't trying to anger anyone who regularly visits this board - and didn't expect to anger anyone but trolls. I don't understand the insulting nature of your response.
BTW - it appears to me that people have taken offense at my argument, while I think my argument highlights the hypocrisy and/or cowardice of the anti-abortion folk.
Lucy
Anonymous 8:58 AM wrote: The concept of taking a life gets even more bizarre when people cannot agree on when life begins.
ReplyDeleteAbout 3.5 billion years ago (though some people might vote for 6015 years ago). Since that time, conditions have pretty much precluded generation of life from non-life, as Pasteur established in the nineteent century. Anyone doubting this is invited to try putting a dead sperm together with a dead egg.
Some 20+ years ago an article was published Ms which had been written by a young Catholic priest.
ReplyDeleteAs a young and idealist priest the was anti abortion and he wanted to do something to try to stop women from having abortions.
He approached an abortion clinic and reached an agreement with them that he would be allowed to speak with women if they wished to have his counsel.
The reason his article ended up in Ms. is that there was no women who he talked to who did not have a compelling reason to end her pregnancy and he was unable to justify in his mind that any of them should be prohibited from having an abortion.
Idealism and realism really are not the same thing.
I have looked for this article and can't find it through Google but someone who has lexus nexus or some similar subscription search engine probably could.
Lucy 10:38 AM wrote: Ted - perhaps you could enlighten me about the FAllacy of the Excluded middle.
ReplyDeleteThe various forms of fallacious argument are pretty basic to the study of philosophy. Apparently my inference from your reference to "philosophy class" that you had studied philosophy was mistaken. My apologies for the misunderstanding—implying that you weren't paying attention in class would only be appropriate if you had actually taken the class.
Having said that, I would prefer that you learn about the topic from a source that you consider to be neutral.
Lucy: … I think my argument highlights the hypocrisy and/or cowardice of the anti-abortion folk.
It should be noted that anti-abortion folk, for example Scott Roeder, have a history of ending the lives of adult human beings, for example George Tiller
It actually bothers me more that these people tend to be pro war, in which many innocents, including children, are killed.
ReplyDelete