Rachel on Monday: The Assassination of Dr. Tiller


Rachel Maddow’s entire show on Monday, October 25, 2010, at 9:00 pm EST will be devoted to a special on the assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in 2009, entitled: The Assassination of Dr. Tiller.

A preview of the special is here

I was interviewed for the special, as Dr. Tiller was a personal friend and colleague. From seeing the preview, it looks like they have also gotten interviews with some of the more controversial anti-abortion figures, including the always nutty Randall Terry.
True to Rachel’s history and character, I expect this to be a telling expose of the “connections” between Scott Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s convicted assassin, and the various anti-abortion groups who terrorized and harassed Dr. Tiller, his family, his staff, and his patients for years.

“How many lone wolves does it take to make a pack?”

That was my money quote that I kept repeating because law enforcement and the public have always dismissed any link between the various anti-abortion assassins and bombers over the years and any wider conspiracy.

“Lone wolves” committed all these assassinations…yeah, right.

Assassinated Abortion Providers:

5/2009 – George Tiller MD
10/1998 – Barnett Slepian MD
1/1998 – Officer Robert Sanderson
12/1994 – Clinic Worker Shannon Lowney
12/1994 – Clinic Worker Leanne Nichols
7/1994 – John Bayard Britton MD
7/1994 – Escort James Barrett
3/1993 – David Gunn MD

We have recently learned though that the FBI is presently delving deeper into Scott Roeder’s associations and there is allegedly a Federal Grand Jury investigation.

Those of us in the abortion rights movement have long known that these anti-abortion zealots talk amongst each other and whip people up into such a frenzy over abortion, abortion clinics, abortion workers and abortion patients that many incidences of violence and murder have taken place over the years.

Bill O’Reilly even joined in the fray with his incessant “Tiller-The-Killer” taunts.

Here is a complete list of acts of anti-abortion violence from the National Abortion Federation.

This is no coincidence.

And, I’m sure that if these kind of events had taken place at McDonald’s over the years that it would have been stopped by now.

I also don’t think that it’s any coincidence that most all of these events of major violence took place during the “pro-choice” administration of Bill Clinton. Note that on the other hand, during the “anti-abortion” George W. Bush 8 years, there were no major incidents. Then, just 3 months after “pro-choice” Barack Obama takes office, Dr. Tiller is assassinated.

This seems to indicate that the violent fringe anti-abortion domestic terrorists resort to major acts of violence to compensate when they are not in political power.

This is truly a daunting scenario, and reflects some of the concerns with the broader violent right-wing fringe movements currently dominating the political discourse.

They are all implying that if they don’t get their way through the political process that they will resort to acts of violence.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Ann Rose on twitter: @AbortionClinics

  • crowepps

    Husband confronts abortion protesters

     

    We’re used to seeing videos of anti-abortion activists spewing venom in front of women’s clinics, but rarely do we get to see the tables turned. Thanks to Aaron Gouveia,  now we do.

    He and his 16-weeks-pregnant wife went to a women’s clinic in Brookline, Mass. for an abortion after discovering that their baby had a congenital deformity with no chance for survival. On their way in, they were confronted by images of dismembered fetuses and two women yelling, “You’re killing your unborn baby!” Enraged, Gouveia decided to confront the protesters while his wife was in surgery, and he caught the whole interaction on his cellphone. In an essay for The Good Men Project, he admits to feeling a bit “foolish for getting so heated” in the moment, but who can blame him? Not to mention, any foolishness on his part is overshadowed by the Christian protesters’ decidedly un-Christ-like behavior.

    http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/10/25/abortion/index.html

     

  • beenthere72

    That’s awesome.  Thanks for posting that, Crowepps.

  • crowepps

    I admire him very much for going out and confronting those women who made things so much tougher for his wife, particularly since as a consequence they were GONE when his wife’s procedure was finished and she didn’t have to listen to them again.

     

    It just boggled my mind that one of the protestors rejected his statement that it was a medically necessary abortion and tried to justify her previous comments with something about ‘those don’t happen at this clinic’.  How would she know?  The clinic sure isn’t going to share people’s private medical history with HER.

     

    Almost all the comments under his post were very supportive, but there was a series of them from one troll using exactly the lame bumper sticker stupidity that we see here (‘didn’t give medical science a chance to save’) that makes it clear how absolutely IGNORANT the average ‘ProLife activist’ actually is, since he was unable to grasp the total disaster inherent in ‘fused legs, no kidneys or bladder’ and ‘diagnosed not to be a survivable defect’.

  • andenakker

    He and his 16-weeks-pregnant wife went to a women’s clinic in Brookline, Mass. for an abortion after discovering that their baby had a congenital deformity with no chance for survival.

    So, why was an abortion “necessary” in this case?  Perhaps there are some relevant facts from the story that you forgot to include in your quotation.

  • prochoiceferret

    So, why was an abortion “necessary” in this case?  Perhaps there are some relevant facts from the story that you forgot to include in your quotation.

     

    There certainly is an absence of relevant facts here, but it’s not in the above article.

  • colleen

    So, why was an abortion “necessary” in this case?

     

    If you listen to the video this fine young man explains to your ‘pro-life’ brethern why the abortion was necessary. I might add that neither you nor they have any right at all to judge and sneer at this couple or anyone else seeking an abortion or (gasp!) using effective contraception. Indeed you’ve no more right to know why they had an abortion than you have a right to try to force us to obey the ‘moral’ dictates of your child abusing, woman killing clergy.

     

  • andenakker

    Of course, the one that really takes the cake is his comment about not wanting his wife to “deliver a stillborn baby,” right after taking her inside to do just that.  I realize that the vast majority of people abhor the prospect of actually thinking, but golly, you gotta step outside your comfort zone once in a while.  Sheesh.

  • arekushieru

    Golly, you gotta step outside your comfort zone once in a while, and realize there is actually a WOMAN around the whole fetus and pregnancy thing (once in awhile).  Sheesh.

  • ronstriathlon

    One of this operation rescues tactics is to intimidate and terrorize people into submission. This terrorist organizations members  should put on the terroist watch list and taken to Guantanimo Bay with the orther religious extremests. Either that or arrested and tried as members of a terrorist organization and for their support of terrorism.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Thank you ronstriathlon! “Submission” you have that correct. The southren baptist christian republican men, and some women I grew up with were fixated on women being submissive. And any who were not deserved to be beat by her husband, but the southren baptist try to keep that on the hush, hush. What better way to keep women submissive then to keep her pregnant and the poverty stricken mother of ten. ~

  • beenthere72

    And for how long would you expect your wife to carry her dead baby around inside of her?   You’re comfortable with that thought?  How disturbing your thought process is.  

  • ldan

    If you lack the empathy to understand the horrorshow of walking around with your dead or dying baby still inside your body, there really isn’t much more to say to you. I suppose in your world it isn’t ‘necessary’ until the fetus finishes dying and begins to rot, thus imperiling the mother. Utterly sick.

     

    I mean seriously? In a single post you’ve driven home the point that you’re pretty much just here to see how much attention you can get.

     

    While I understand the drive to argue and snap back at the ridiculous comments (as I am obviously doing), after this one, I’m just going to avoid feeding the trolls around here. The greyed out comments don’t deserve reading or responding to. This post simply drives that point home.

     

    You aren’t here to have a real conversation. Go home and grow up.

  • prochoicekatie

    Fetuses with severe anomalies pose incredible risks to the mother during pregnancy. When the outcome between continuing the pregnancy or having an abortion will be exactly the same for the fetus but the outcome for the woman may be substantially different, then I would agree with the medical community in coming to the conclusion that the abortion was the right MEDICAL choice.

     

    There I go, thinking about things. Funny how we pro-choicers analyze the entire situation, understand the reasoned conclusions of others, and still at the end of the day believe every woman should have the right to make the choice that is best for her, regardless of our opinion.

    For pro-choicers, examining and understanding the complexity of any situation and trusting women IS OUR COMFORT ZONE. Sheesh.

  • andenakker

    And for how long would you expect your wife to carry her dead baby around inside of her?

    Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t remember hearing him say that their baby had already died.

  • andenakker

    I realize there is a woman involved – and apparently one who wanted a baby.  What I don’t realize is how having an abortion can be less of a negative experience for her than having a baby stillborn or that survives only a few hours.

  • andenakker

    If you lack the empathy to understand the horrorshow of walking around with your dead or dying baby still inside your body, there really isn’t much more to say to you.

    Who says I lack empathy?  But once you find out that the baby you wanted has little to no chance of living, is there anything you can really do to make the situation better?

     

    I suppose in your world it isn’t ‘necessary’ until the fetus finishes dying and begins to rot, thus imperiling the mother. Utterly sick.

    I would never suggest that someone forego monitoring such a condition or taking action to protect a mother’s life.

     

    You aren’t here to have a real conversation. Go home and grow up.

    If you’re offended by nothing more than mere questions, perhaps it’s someone else who needs to grow up.

  • prochoiceferret

    What I don’t realize is how having an abortion can be less of a negative experience for her than having a baby stillborn or that survives only a few hours.

     

    Oh, not to worry. That’s a perfectly normal side effect of being an emotionally stunted penis-bearer.

     

    You can alleviate the symptoms by listening to what women have to say. However, it has to be a pretty heavy dose—you can’t just pretend to listen, and then go with your original preconceptions anyway.

  • andenakker

    Fetuses with severe anomalies pose incredible risks to the mother during pregnancy.

    Is there any reputable medical organization, association, group, hospital, etc. that has determined that mothers whose babies are severely deformed should have an abortion for reasons of the mother’s physical health or life?

  • colleen

    But once you find out that the baby you wanted has little to no chance of living, is there anything you can really do to make the situation better?

    Yes. And this couple was doing it.

     

    If you’re offended by nothing more than mere questions, perhaps it’s someone else who needs to grow up.

    “mere questions”? This is what I mean about your lack of intellectual integrity.

  • rebellious-grrl

    he admits to feeling a bit “foolish for getting so heated” in the moment, but who can blame him? Not to mention, any foolishness on his part is overshadowed by the Christian protesters’ decidedly un-Christ-like behavior.

     

    I don’t think he sounded foolish, he sounded rightfully pissed off at these wack-nut jobs. I may have said much much worse to the antis. I’m glad he confonted their un-christ like behavior. Good for him.

  • prochoiceferret

    Who says I lack empathy?  But once you find out that the baby you wanted has little to no chance of living, is there anything you can really do to make the situation better?

     

    Not dragging out the situation, and avoiding needless further medical risk, seem like good places to start.

     

    I would never suggest that someone forego monitoring such a condition or taking action to protect a mother’s life.

     

    Suggesting that someone undergo extended emotional trauma and senseless medical risk for a fetus that won’t be able to live if born, on the other hand, is just peachy!

  • rebellious-grrl

    opps posted in the wrong place

  • rebellious-grrl

    Did you watch the video?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEFWDYB0rWo&feature=player_embedded
    andenakker it is NOT for you to decide!!!!! It is between her and her doctor and her family.

  • mechashiva

    I want you to clear your mind and really imagine that you are a pregnant woman. Use your imagination.

     

    You are 4 months pregnant with a baby you wanted when the tests come back showing that there is absolutely no hope. The longer this pregnancy continues, the more risk there is for you and your future fertility. Consider how you think of a wanted pregnancy. You think of it as “the baby.” You think about giving life. The hard work of gestation and labor is worth it, because of the end result… a live baby. Isn’t this what pro-lifers are always arguing?

     

    Now consider that you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that what you have is not a “pre-born baby” but a “pre-dead baby.” Imagine carrying around that “pre-dead baby” for five more months. Imagine it growing, getting heavier inside you. Imagine the strain on your body, the aches and pains… the swollen joints. Imagine going to sleep at night with this non-life in your belly, perhaps feeling it kick or thrash reflexively even though it will never really live to need those muscles. Imagine going to countless doctor’s appointments to monitor this “pre-dead baby” and the impact it is having on your body, constantly checking to see if your risks have suddenly elevated due to “actual” fetal demise. Imagine wondering if you felt movement that day, and trying to not freak yourself out with the idea that maybe your “pre-dead baby” died between now and your last appointment. Imagine wondering if your baby is rotting inside your womb while you attempt to fulfill all your other responsibilities, like work or caring for the children you already have. How much “pre-natal bonding” do you think you’d have with this pregnancy? No, more likely those five months are filled with constant anxiety and dread. There’s nothing to look forward to, because you know what the birth will result in. Imagine going into labor and delivering this mangled, non-viable, vaguely baby-shaped lump of flesh that will never live.

     

    Why would you put yourself through all of that? Most people would prefer not to prolong the inevitable. Most people would prefer to minimize their risks, so that they could feel more able to care for the children they have or might have in the future. Yes, you still have to grieve your loss, but having an abortion means that you don’t have to endure the last half of your doomed pregnancy and all of the emotional/psychological and physical suffering that goes along with it.

     

    I will not bother speaking to you if you still don’t understand. If you are that callous, there’s no point in further conversation.

  • arekushieru

    No, but then the woman was still alive and would likely going on being so.  Apparently, you would put your OWN wife through this torment, because you don’t believe that a pregnancy, and a non-VIable pregnancy, at THAT, affect a woman.  Because you don’t believe women are human beings/persons.  Have you told your (future?) wife that?

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ This is pro-rape Kevin, he does not give a shit about women.~

  • mechashiva

    Is there any reputable medical organization, association, group, hospital, etc that has determined that it is beneficial to mothers to continue a pregnancy that will result in a dead baby?

  • mechashiva

    Seriously, I think the guy is a sociopath.

  • beenthere72

    I’m losing track of who is who.   I think Kevin is more apt to argue that the baby should be carried to term so it can be properly baptised or something.   Bei (Brandon/Born?) is the one that seems to take more pleasure in making women suffer under all circumstances.   

     

     

  • crowepps

    Gosh, it’s hard to imagine anybody not being able to realize what the difference is, but I’ll attempt to explain it:

    Let’s start with the announcement of the bad news – Sirenomelia, severe fetal anamoly, is diagnosed.  Here is the father’s testimony:

    “Hell is sitting next to the person you love most and listening to her wail hysterically because her heart just broke into a million pieces. Hell is watching her entire body convulse with sobs because she’s being tortured with grief. For as long as I live and no matter how many children we have, I will never forget that sound.”

    At this point the fetus is less than 5 inches long and weighs approximately 3.5 ounces.  Removal through abortion is safe and easy.

     

    The woman will no longer look pregnant.  She will no longer feel her doomed fetus moving.  People will not pat her fondly on the belly, or ask her if she wants a boy or a girl, and make little jokes about her sex life.  She will not have to endure an additional SIX MONTHS of pregnancy or be wary of the various complications which are more likely as the size of the fetus increases and the stress on her body increases.  She will not have to go through labor, or delivery, or be at risk for the complications thereof.

     

    But the thing that makes a real difference, an absolutely HUGE difference, is that she can start honestly GRIEVING for the loss of her child instead of being stuck in the horrible no-man’s land of knowing the loss is GOING to happen without having actually happened yet.  That is a torture no one should have to endure for no good reason.

     

    Just as no one in that situation should ever, EVER, not even once by accident because ‘we didn’t know’, have to look at a sign held by some self-righteous busybody that says “God is ProLife” or hear “You’re killing your unborn baby.”  If God was ProLife their fetus would be healthy.

  • saltyc

    He had some good lines too, like “you’re taking people on the worst day of their lives and making them feel even worse.”

    And they are hypocrits for not wanting to discuss it when they’re yelling at strangers. They should be accountable for their own very public actions.

  • crowepps

    They seemed rather taken aback when he approached them, as though their form of ‘street theater’ didn’t consider it possible that the ‘audience’ might express an opinion.  They were also upset that he was recording the interaction.  Don’t know for sure, of course, but  found it interesting that the cops showed up and ASSUME that the protestors called for protection because they felt threatened by being confronted.  Ironic, considering that many women entering the clinic find the presence of the protestors threatening.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ The man is my “hero” I think he is “super” attractive! ~

  • squirrely-girl

    But once you find out that the baby you wanted has little to no chance of living, is there anything you can really do to make the situation better?

     

    … you could leave that decision to the individuals directly involved. See, crazy talk I know, but the grief process isn’t “one size fits all.” 

  • luishoward

    1.  Natural law is very clear on the sanctity of human life, and everyone, including the most rabid pro abort, knows this.  The pro aborts justify abortion with flimsy excuses, but in the great majority of cases, the reason girls and women give on the abortuary form is convenience.

    2.  Congenital problems are an infinitesimal percentage of the reasons for abortion, yet they justify the killing of 3,000 babies each day, in this, the greatest country in the history of man.

    3.  Abortion causes breast cancer as well as higher incidences of suicide, alcoholism, drug use, divorce, but the abortion industry fights informed consent with the millions of dollars that it has gotten from abortion.  It is a joke that the millionaire abortionists do their filthy work “for the women”:  They do it for the money.  The question is, how can they sleep at night.

    4.  We will win this war:  We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Females have the right not to have extreme vagianl pain against their will, females have the right not to be terrorized for nine months with horrific worry of future vaginal agony against their will, females have the right to say “NO” to their bodies being used against their will. You and your pro vaginal agony on women, little girls, and pregnant rape victims do not get to offer pregnant females up for extreme vaginal pain against their will.

    “4. We will win this war: We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.” If you mean guns and bombs, that is true.

    If you mean terrorist like this, that is true, Justin Carl Moose describe “himself” as the Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden. Moose wrote: “I have learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics.”

    Forced birth and forced pregnancy is Christian sharia law on females.

    I am an atheist, and I do not have to have my atheist body subjected to Christian sadomasochistic rule.

    Each year about 890,000 women have abortions in Pakistan, and every day 10 women die because they had an unsafe abortion. Some 560,000 Filippina women have unsafe illegal abortions every year, with 90,000 suffering complications from the procedure and 1,000 dying. Pro choice cares about these females, pro-force does not! ~

  • panhandler

    I am an atheist, and I do not have to have my atheist body subjected to Christian sadomasochistic rule.

     

    That makes very little sense.

  • prochoiceferret

    1.  Natural law is very clear on the sanctity of human life, and everyone, including the most rabid pro abort, knows this.  The pro aborts justify abortion with flimsy excuses, but in the great majority of cases, the reason girls and women give on the abortuary form is convenience.

     

    Yes, I suppose having ownership of one’s body is “convenient,” much in the same way that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are “agreeable.”

     

    2.  Congenital problems are an infinitesimal percentage of the reasons for abortion, yet they justify the killing of 3,000 babies each day, in this, the greatest country in the history of man.

     

    How can we be the greatest country in the history of man if we aren’t above inflicting torture on our prisoners? I suppose you could say, “the country that, in the history of humankind, is at least no less great than North Korea.”

     

    3.  Abortion causes breast cancer as well as higher incidences of suicide, alcoholism, drug use, divorce,

     

    No, actually it doesn’t. People who know what they’re talking about tend to agree.

     

    It is a joke that the millionaire abortionists do their filthy work “for the women”:  They do it for the money.

     

    Yes, those abortionist playboys sure like to live it up in their beachfront mansions and fancy cars!

     

    Oh, wait a second. They don’t. I guess they prefer to enjoy their millions of dollars by living like ordinary middle-class citizens… save for little luxuries, like bullet-proof windows.

     

    4.  We will win this war:  We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.

     

    I’ll certainly admit, the amount of ignorance and bigotry your side has shown is pretty hard to wrap our heads around.

  • prochoiceferret

    That makes very little sense.

     

    Just pretend that people around you decide to have your Christian body subjected to Islamic Sharia rule. Then it should make a lot more sense.

  • dawn9476

    4. We will win this war: We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.

     

    You won’t win anything. What you will get is thousands of women and young girls taking matters into their own hands and killing themselves  because they can’t bear the thought of having the baby of their rapist. You will have women take scissors, knives, or whatever sharp object they can get their hands on and sticking in their stomachs to get the baby out of them.  You will have women drinking themselves silly so their baby dies of fetal alcohol syndrome.

    Winning your so called on “war” on abortion will get nothing but women dying because they took matters into their own hands and gave themselves a self afflicted abortion.

  • beenthere72

    Oy,  Luis.   Smarten up.  Don’t believe the hype.  Come back to reality.   Love women, don’t punish them.  

     

    And #4 sounds like a threat.   I hope your IP address has been logged.    This is not a war.    This is about not forcing women to be your puppy mills.    It is abusive and inhumane to make living, breathing women suffer, forced to give birth against their will, because all you care about is the potential person building inside them.   

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Women have the right to bodily autonomy. They have the Goddess given right to decide when and if to have children.

    You don’t scare me and neither do your threats of violence. Women’s right to bodily autonomy will prevail because it is right and moral.

  • crowepps
    Natural Law 1. (Philosophy) an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation
    2. (Philosophy) a nonlogically necessary truth; law of nature
    3. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and indeed that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority
    1. If “natural law” was clear on the sanctity of human life, there would be no murders and no wars and if natural law made fetal life and children sacred soldiers would never under any circumstances attack pregnant women or kill children.
    2. I agree that congenital problems are a unique issue.  If you agree that congenital problems place the decision about abortion entirely in the hands of those actually involved, there isn’t any need to discuss them. 
    3. There is no evidence whatsoever that abortion causes any of those things, and ‘informed consent’ has never included distributing absurd propaganda.  Abortion doctors aren’t rich — the rich doctors are plastic surgeons and oncologists.
    4. You may win the war you are actually fighting — the one to force women back into the home, to take away their freedom and keep them under male control.  In the individual battles, of course, women can still escape through the phyrric victory of suicide.

     

    It is a really sad commentary on the ProLife conception of masculinity that their version of a ‘real man’ is somebody so selfish, irrational, uneducated and abusive that any woman with a mind would prefer death to living with one.  I’m sure your well of hatred and violence is bottomless, but that’s no recommendation for letting you run anyone else’s life.  It’s more an indication that you should join the other ‘real men’ in the nearest prison, so that society could be safe for everyone else.

  • arekushieru

    And, further to that point, if ‘natural law’ is paramount, then women can still have abortions otherwise nature wouldn’t have placed the majority of the reproductive burden on the woman.

  • colleen

    We will win this war:  We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.

    What war would that be, cupcake?

  • panhandler

    Just pretend that people around you decide to have your Christian body subjected to Islamic Sharia rule. Then it should make a lot more sense.

     

    It just goes to show how out-of-touch (some) pro-choicers are. But that’s perfectly fine by me.

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Then you mean you AREN’T ProLife?   Because, of course, if you were you would understand how your movement tries to impose their (mainly) religious beliefs on other people.  Or, does that just show how out-of-touch YOUR movement is?  Hmmm….  Yup. 

  • prochoiceferret

    It just goes to show how out-of-touch (some) pro-choicers are. But that’s perfectly fine by me.

     

    Well, I’m pretty sure that as far as your Christian body is concerned, most people—and not just pro-choicers!—want to stay as far out-of-touch as possible.

  • panhandler

    Well, I’m pretty sure that as far as your Christian body is concerned, most people—and not just pro-choicers!—want to stay as far out-of-touch as possible.

     

    Not most people. Just the small contingent of (vocal) pro-choicers who continue to assert that most people think the way those pro-choicers want them to think, even though they don’t, and even though it’s empirically provable that they don’t. But as I said, you’re free to remain out-of-touch. It makes arguing against you that much easier.

  • panhandler

    Really?  Then you mean you AREN’T ProLife? Because, of course, if you were you would understand how your movement tries to impose their (mainly) religious beliefs on other people.  Or, does that just show how out-of-touch YOUR movement is?  Hmmm….  Yup. 

     

    So should I be allowed to kill you if my own personal beliefs dictate that I be allowed to? Or would you argue that regardless of what I personally believe, I shouldn’t be allowed to do to you as I please? That’s a rhetorical question, because you will answer, if you would answer the question at all, that I should not be allowed to do to you as I wish, which would mean that the whole “not imposing one’s (mainly) religious beliefs on other people” line is nothing more than hot air. Pro-choicers only use this response in regards to abortion– nothing else. Do you know why that is?

     

    Edit: And speaking of being out of touch, you simply won’t find any poll in any country where the majority, or anything close to it, supports unrestricted abortion. 

  • ahunt

    It just goes to show how out-of-touch (some) pro-choicers are.

     

     

    Yeah…Colorado Amendment 62 being a case of “in-touch,” rational, pro-liferism.

  • ack

    I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting, for you to come back with a comment that indicated an INKLING of empathy, or sympathy, or even fucking pity for the couple (not that they want or need your empathy, sympathy, or pity).

     

    Epic fucking fail on your part, andenakker. Epic. Fucking. Fail. You don’t get to have a single question about this couple’s situation. 

     

    You used to provoke mild interest. Now, I’m only completely disgusted, and worried that if we can’t agree on THIS, we cannot agree on anything.

  • ack

    If I found a way to live inside you, or if I were in some way hooked up to your organs in a way I needed to survive, I say you have every right to kill me.

  • ack

    “4.  We will win this war:  We have Resources that the pro aborts simply can’t imagine.”

     

    Well, crap. He capitalized “Resources.” Clearly, they’ve got zombies. We’ve got brains. We are unfortunately easy targets.


  • purplemistydez

    Your comment sent chills down my spine.  That situation is a real possibility if abortion would become illegal.

  • arekushieru

    Oh, so you’re going to also assert that Catholics, one of the two major Christian organizations ISN’T ProLife.  Just like you’re going to assert that ProLifers aren’t trying to push their OWN BELIEFS ON OTHERS, by asserting that others should do what THEY believe, while ProChoicers are trying to do so by asserting that persons should be allowed to make their own decisions for themSELVES.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, you will.  Never heard of Canada, obviously.  Besides, I see you still can’t distinguish between what someone would personally prefer and what they would support publicly (but you can get help for this problem of comprehension that it is very apparent you have).  Or between peoples different interpretations of what ProLife and ProChoice mean. 

    But what does it matter if they would or would not support unrestricted access to abortion, anyways, since that has NOThing to do with whether or not one is imposing a (irrational) belief of theirs on others, after all? 

  • arekushieru

    PLEASE look up negative rights.  (Which I thought you argued as Born, maybe you just [FINally] realized that they hinder rather than HELP the ProLife movement?  Whatever the case may be, it’s annoying that you continue your rhetoric while falsely accusing US of it.  Such as, [also] ignoring posts that are relevant to your own so you can continue making the SAME. INVALID. POINTS. OVER. AND. OVER. AGAIN.)  I have the negative right to kill you, in order to prevent YOU from killing ME.  There is NOT a zero % chance that I will die from pregnancy, after all.  Which means, that a fetus, which directly causes pregnancy because it implants its portion of the placenta into the uterus, can and DOES kill pregnant women (unLESS you are going to argue that a fetus CAN’T kill because it isn’t the actual pregnancy, but, then, that just makes you, as I’ve always suspected you to be, a hypocrite, since abortion just deals with, y’know, the actual pregnancy, too.  OR, you are going to argue, that a fetus isn’t ACTively drawing upon the woman’s sustenance, which means that a woman isn’t ACTively denying sustenance to a fetus, in the case of abortion.  Because inactivity in one situation = inactivity in another and because you can’t have it both ways, ‘sweetheart’), by your OWN logic.  A negative right to kill, and the definition of killing, being two things I’ve alREADy addressed numerous times.

    AS for the rest, see ack, above.  Addresses your comment, once again, however, I have doubts that you will actually READ it, because you’ve failed to do so every *other* time….     

  • panhandler

    It looks like you didn’t take the time to look things up regarding your own country.

     

    But what does it matter if they would or would not support unrestricted access to abortion, anyways, since that has NOThing to do with whether or not one is imposing a (irrational) belief of theirs on others, after all? 

     

    And how do you determine whether or not a belief is rational or irrational?

  • panhandler

    PLEASE look up negative rights. 

     

    I do believe you need to take your own advice.

     

    I have the negative right to kill you, in order to prevent YOU from killing ME.

     

    FALSE. Negative rights do not entail the right to act, but the rather the right to not be acted against. In other words, it means that you have a right to be left alone by others. Self-defense, on the other hand, is a positive duty sometimes required to uphold one’s negative rights (i.e., a police officer might be allowed to act in a certain manner to prevent someone else from killing you, or you might be allowed to act in a certain manner in order to preserve your life). The following is taken from the Encyclopedia of Ethics, Volume 3 (pg. 1,554)–

     

    The right of self-defense is a positive right directly to resist, ward off, or repel unjust harm. This positive right depends on there being a moral asymmetry between oneself as an unoffending person, and someone who poses a threat. …Someone who is an unjust agressor is commonly said to forfeit certain rights. This forfeiture is often taken as crucial to the justification of the use of force against a person in self-defense.

     

    In other words, you’re wrong.

     

    There is NOT a zero % chance that I will die from pregnancy, after all.  Which means, that a fetus, which directly causes pregnancy because it implants its portion of the placenta into the uterus, can and DOES kill pregnant women (unLESS you are going to argue that a fetus CAN’T kill because it isn’t the actual pregnancy, but, then, that just makes you, as I’ve always suspected you to be, a hypocrite, since abortion just deals with, y’know, the actual pregnancy, too.  OR, you are going to argue, that a fetus isn’t ACTively drawing upon the woman’s sustenance, which means that a woman isn’t ACTively denying sustenance to a fetus, in the case of abortion. Because inactivity in one situation = inactivity in another and because you can’t have it both ways, ‘sweetheart’), by your OWN logic. 

     

    There isn’t a zero percent chance that someone will kill me tomorrow. Should I be allowed to kill them before they kill me and claim self-defense, or even before they even make any indication that they’re going to kill me? Should I be allowed to kill someone because they are placed in a situation of which they had no control over and claim self-defense, not necessarily because they are posing a risk to my life? Should I be allowed to kill someone simply because they exist? This is the biggest problem with your argument. You, in effect, argue that someone can be killed even without posing any threat to your life or that they can be killed solely because they exist. Again I reference the Encyclopedia of Ethics, Volume 3–

     

    Self-defense is most often characterized as the use of force in warding off an attacker or an aggressor. Justified acts of self-defense are typically like this characterization. However, it is possible, as an aggressor, to defend oneself against someone who is retaliating in self-defense. Paradigmatically, acts of self-defense involve the use of force in resisting, warding off or repelling a direct active threat. Thus, the use of force in self-defense is distinguishable from other acts of self-preservation (e.g., taking another’s blood or food supply in an emergency) in which the use of force is essentially aggressive rather than defensive. Force used in self-defense is also distinguishable from force use against a nonthreat in the course of self-defense (where, e.g., I deflect a missle to a bystander or use a bystander as a shield). Nevertheless, disagreement can arise over the conditions under which someone is a thread such that the use of force against them is self-defense. For instance, acts of self-defense are commonly held to repel present force, and “present” us usually interpreted so as to allow for anticipation of a blow. But it is open to dispute just how imminent the threat must be for anticipatory for to be self-defense, as distinct from a preemptive strike. Further, self-defense is possible against a conditional threat (e.g., one posed by duress); by the use of preventative force against in direct threat (e.g., against the institutate of a “contract” on one’s life) would not normally be regarded as self-defense. There is general agreement that one acts in self-defense in warding off an involuntary active threat (e.g., an insane person wielding a knife). But the use of force against a passive threat– someone who threatens one not as an agent, but as an object might– is problematic. It seems natural to say that I act in self-defense in, say, deflecting someone who has been thrown at me or who will crush me by falling on me. This may or may not also extend to my repelling someone who is suffering from a highly contagious disease. But the of force in removing someone who is, say, stuck in an escape route, can seem insufficiently a case of resisting, warding off, or repelling its subject to be self-defense. The use of force against someone whose mere existence or presence endagers one (e.g., a competitor for limited air suply) is highly dubious as claimed self-defense. 

    You keep telling me my points are invalid, but you don’t even respond to them, quite possibly because you don’t understand them. Hell, you don’t even seem to understand your own arguments (in this case, you don’t understand what negative rights are or what self-defense is or what it entails). You just keep rambling on, sure in your own wrongness.


    A negative right to kill, and the definition of killing, being two things I’ve alREADy addressed numerous times.

     

    Yet again, no. Since you obviously don’t care to read the very things I take the time to type out, why not use the internet so you can actually make sure the things you’re typing out are actually correct?

     

    AS for the rest, see ack, above.  Addresses your comment, once again, however, I have doubts that you will actually READ it, because you’ve failed to do so every *other* time….  

     

    It doesn’t address my comment. It just begs the question which, I’ve noticed, a lot of people here love to do.

  • arekushieru

    You are the one with the claim that more people are ProLife than ProChoice.   No one even made the reverse claim until YOU brought it up, after all.  So, it is up to you to prove it.  Of course, I forgot, you didn’t take that part of Logic 101.  Since you’re the one who says that WE have to prove our criteria for  personhood doesn’t include the fetus when YOU are the one who made the original claim that your criteria for personhood DOES include them. 

    Either way, good luck proving that more people approve of the Pro’Life’ position, AFter taking into account the political rather than personal position as WELL as those who prefer the ‘morality of lifesaving’ over the morality of choice. 

    I have addressed your last point, before, if you would care to read.  I am not talking about a rational vs irrational belief, AS I said.  I am talking about imposing rationally vs irrationally.  You get sidetracked very easily, don’t you?  After all, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have focussed on the one phrase that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.  Besides, we have explained how (your) beliefs, themselves, can be irrational.  Over. and. over. 

  • arekushieru

    some party ‘A’ has a negative right to x against another party ‘B’ if and only if ‘B’ is prohibited from acting upon ‘A’ in some way regarding x;

    Oh, look, I’m right!  And Panhandler is wrong, again.  According to Panhandler (but using conSIStent logic) some party A (the woman) has a negative right to kill against another party B (the fetus) if and only if (the fetus) is prohibited from acting upon (the woman) in some way regarding killing.  The right to self-defense IS a positive right (I never said it wasn’t), the effect that comes from USing lethal force is the negative right, something YOU’VE just supported via THIS statement, “Self-defense, on the other hand, is a positive duty sometimes required to uphold one’s negative rights”.  In other words, self-defense is a positive right that is required to uphold one’s negative right to kill.  But, should I have still known that you would misinterpret something SO simple…? 

    If I have the right to be left alone, then the fetus CAN’T use my body.  Thanks for proving my point with the same old regurgitated argument, Panhandler.

    In other words, I’m right.

    Your lateral thinking skills are lacking, too.  If a fetus isn’t killing me, because  it is the products of conception (pregnancy) that directly affect me, then I am not killing a fetus via abortion, because it is the products of conception that directly affect me.  So either BOTH are killing or neither is killing. 

    They’re not in the process of infringing on your right to life OR any other right are they?  That is the problem with YOUR argument.  You equate a specific scenario with all and sundry in a desperate attempt to reclaim ground that you lost a long time ago.  And when we point this out you whine about how we’re not addressing your comments when we’re actually trying to point out how YOU are not addressing OUR comments.  Cases in point: You ignore the infringement on one’s rights in the original discussion and go on to equate that with completely irrelevant scenarios.  OR you attempt to deny an action on the part of the fetus while attempting to accuse the woman of a similar action, even though both the fetus and woman partake in the action, in the same way. 

    You keep telling me my points are invalid, but you don’t even respond to them, quite possibly because you don’t understand them. Hell, you don’t even seem to understand your own arguments (in this case, you don’t understand what negative rights are or what self-defense is or what it entails). You just keep rambling on, sure in your own wrongness.

    Oh, that’s hilarious!  You respond to the part of my argument that has nothing to do with the original discussion, but when I address your comments about killing diRECtly, you accuse ME of not responding correctly?  R. O. T. F. L. M. F. F. A. O! 

    Oh, and I was right.  So, maybe that statement about being ‘sure in your own wrongness’… was talking about yourself?  Hmmm….  Wouldn’t be surprised, anyways.

    Yet again, no. Since you obviously don’t care to read the very things I take the time to type out, why not use the internet so you can actually make sure the things you’re typing out are actually correct?

     

     

     

    Yet again, yes.  I’m pretty sure I know the things I ‘typed out’ better than you.  As you can see (and for the THIRD time) I was correct.  And, for a second time, I addressed your comments, directly.  After all, if you don’t think providing a lateral scenario equivalent to the one YOU are talking about to prove you wrong, addresses your comments, that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with denial.

    Yeah, continue to falsely accuse others of doing the same thing you are doing, and you’ll keep proving me right about your inability to read our actual comments.

  • panhandler

    Oh, look, I’m right!  And Panhandler is wrong, again.  Some party A (the woman) has a negative right to kill against another party B (the fetus) if and only if (the fetus) is prohibited from acting upon (the woman) in some way regarding killing.

     

    I suppose this is to be expected when your knowledge of what you’re trying to argue is limited to what you read on Wikipedia. Now, since you want to run to Wikipedia, then I’ll point out to you the part you blatantly ignored and utterly misconstrued for your purpose. Like the following, which was part of the quote you cut off–

     

    For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A'; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

     

    Notice how when ‘A’ has a negative right against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from acting against ‘A’, whereas if ‘A’ has a positive right against ‘B’, that ‘B’ is required to do for ‘A’? Notice how when ‘A’ has a negative right against ‘B’, that ‘A’ doesn’t act, but rather ‘B’ doesn’t act against ‘A’? Notice how you went and changed the condition from not be acted against to the right to act, which makes the issue not of negative rights, but of positive rights? Of course you don’t, because you don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. You really have no Earthly idea what you’re rambling about. It’s nothing short of maddening.

     

    And, again, just to point out for you what a negative right is and isn’t, as you still don’t seem to know–

     

    Negative rights are typically rights to not be subjected to certain conditions, such as a right to freedom of speech or autonomy.  Negative rights are often some varietal of a right to non-interference.  They impose duties on others to leave you alone and let you do things that are important to you, like speak your mind or make your own decisions. 

     

    http://everyday-ethics.org/2009/05/positive-and-negative-rights-what%E2%80%99s-the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter/

     

    Put simply a negative right is the right to be left alone. Specifically it is the right to think and act free from the coercive force of others. Free from muggers, fraudsters and restrictive laws and taxes. A negative right is an absolute. You are either free from the above or you are not. even the slightest violation breaks this right. Imagine that a man stops you in the street once a week and forces you to stand still for one minute – hardly a life changing violation – yet your right to be free of the coercion of others is being broken. The degree to which this right is violated changes from place to place but I know of no country where it is not routinely violated by the state.

    Remember that a person cannot claim this right while violating the same in others. A mugger cannot claim a right to be left alone whilst mugging people.


    http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/rights.htm

     

    The right to self-defense IS a positive right (I never said it wasn’t), the effect that comes from USing lethal force is the negative right, something YOU’VE just supported via THIS statement, “Self-defense, on the other hand, is a positive duty sometimes required to uphold one’s negative rights”.  Self-defense is a positive right that is require to uphold one’s negative right to kill.  But, should I have still known that you would misinterpret something SO simple…?   

     

    Dear Lord. There really are no words to express my reaction to the above. You said there is a negative right to kill. This is false, because not only can there not be a negative right to act, as this would completely violate the idea of a negative right, but there is no right to kill, period. The closest thing to a “right to kill”, and only if you stretch it, is the right to self-defense, but for you to invoke the notion of self-defense, a few criteria have to be met, henceforth the aforementioned things I quoted, which you went on to ignore. 

     

    If I have the right to be left alone, then the fetus CAN’T use my body. Thanks for proving my point with the same old regurgitated argument, Panhandler.

     

    This is how I know you’re trying to argue above your level. If you have the right to be left alone, then so does the unborn, which means that the unborn has no right to infringe upon your life, and you have no right to infringe upon the life of the unborn. As it stands, you want to claim that a woman can act in a manner she choses and then not be “burdened” with the consequences, even if allowing her to do so would thereby bring harm to another, even though those consequences derive from her actions. You have no valid “point”, as your “point” rests solely on the idea that negative rights entail the right to act, regardless of how it affects another– a “point”, mind you, which is false.

     

    They’re not in the process of infringing on your right to life OR any other right are they?  That is the problem with YOUR argument.  You equate a specific scenario with all and sundry in a desperate attempt to reclaim ground that you lost a long time ago. Cases in point: You ignore the infringement on one’s rights in the original discussion and go on to equate that with  completely irrelevant scenarios.  OR you attempt to deny an action on the part of the fetus while attempting to accuse the woman of a similar action, even though both the fetus and woman partake in the action, in the same way. 

     

    Even though I’ve asked this of you time and time again, could you explain to me what right is ranked higher than the right to life? While you come up with a way to not so skillfully evade that question, I would like to point out to you that the majority of abortions are not done because the unborn is infringing upon the life of the mother. They are done, and I use the term lightly, as an expression of her liberty. But last I checked, the right to liberty (the right to act in a manner you see fit) does not trump the right to life (the right to not be killed). Or does it? And if it does, then why isn’t murder legal, for the right to act in a way one sees fit should trump the right of another not to be killed. Take all the time you need answering this question.

     

    Your lateral thinking skills are lacking, too.  If a fetus isn’t killing me, because  it is the products of conception (pregnancy) that directly affect me, then I am not killing a fetus via abortion, because it is the products of conception that directly affect me.  So either BOTH are killing or neither is killing. 

     

    Who said anything about the unborn not killing you because it’s the product of conception? Straw men really aren’t cool. 

     

    Oh, that’s hilarious!  You respond to the part of my argument that has nothing to do with the original discussion, but when I address your comments about killing diRECtly, you accuse ME of not responding correctly?  R. O. T. F. L. M. F. F. A. O! 

     

    When I state that you’re not responding to any of the arguments I make, I really do mean that you’re not responding to any of the arguments I make. You just typically go on some kind of “derrr…” spree and think  you’ve responded to the things others have typed out. As it is, notice how you didn’t address, nor did you even attempt to address, any of the things I bolded in the exceprt from the Encyclopedia of Ethics I quoted.

     

    Oh, and I was right.  So, maybe that statement about being ‘sure in your own wrongness’… was talking about yourself?  Hmmm….  Wouldn’t be surprised, anyways.

     

    No, you were, and still are wrong. And, yes, I was talking about you.

     

    Yet again, yes.  I’m pretty sure I know the things I ‘typed out’ better than you.  As you can see (and for the THIRD time) I was correct.  And, for a second time, I addressed your comments, directly.  After all, if you don’t think providing a lateral scenario equivalent to the one YOU are talking about to prove you wrong, addresses your comments, that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with denial.

     

    Just because you type something out, doesn’t mean you understand what you’re typing out. I can type a couple of paragraphs on quantum physics, but that doesn’t mean I’ll understand anything that I typed out or even have it make sense. And, yes, you are in denial.

     

    Yeah, continue to falsely accuse others of doing the same thing you are doing, and you’ll keep proving me right about your inability to read our actual comments.

     

    The problem is that I can read and understand your comments. On the flip side, while you might be able to read my comments, you sure as hell don’t seem to understand them.

  • panhandler

    You are the one with the claim that more people are ProLife than ProChoice.

     

    False. On this thread I’ve said nothing of the sort, and you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.

     

    No one even made the reverse claim until YOU brought it up, after all.  So, it is up to you to prove it. 

     

    You’re the first one to bring it up.

     

    Of course, I forgot, you didn’t take that part of Logic 101.

     

    If this isn’t irony, then irony doesn’t exist.

     

    Since you’re the one who says that WE have to prove our criteria for  personhood doesn’t include the fetus when YOU are the one who made the original claim that your criteria for personhood DOES include them. 

     

    I’d like to know what you’re reading. By all means, point me to the post where I’ve made some kind of claim as to fetal personhood. On the flip side, I can point you to a few posts where people have claimed that the unborn aren’t persons, at which point I ask them “why not?”.

     

    Either way, good luck proving that more people approve of the Pro’Life’ position, AFter taking into account the political rather than personal position as WELL as those who prefer the ‘morality of lifesaving’ over the morality of choice. 

     

    I don’t even know what this means.

     

    I have addressed your last point, before, if you would care to read.  I am not talking about a rational vs irrational belief, AS I said.  I am talking about imposing rationally vs irrationally.  You get sidetracked very easily, don’t you?  After all, if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have focussed on the one phrase that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.  Besides, we have explained how (your) beliefs, themselves, can be irrational.  Over. and. over. 

     

    Ah, yes. I remember now– “because you don’t agree with them”. That was the gist of your response. The fact of the matter is that not only do you realize your “it’s wrong to force personal beliefs on others” line is wrong, but that you can’t even justify your justification as to why it’s only sometimes wrong, as your criteria for what you consider rational and irrational is what you agree and don’t agree with.

     

    And on a side note, I notice how you constantly gripe about me focusing on statements that have nothing to do with the ‘actual discussion’, yet this begs the question as to why you continue to make statements that have nothing to do with the actual discussion if you’re going to get mad at people for responding to them? Perhaps you should take that Logic 101 class you were going on about earlier.