Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pro-Life Killers

I am pro-life and I’ll kill anyone who disagrees with me.

This seems to be the philosophy of many religious-right people. Some are so self-righteous they go out and do the killing. Their less self-righteous leaders egg them on by spewing venom, hatred and curses.

After years of harassment and attacks by so-called "pro-life" people, abortion doctor Tiller was assassinated as he entered the door of his church. At the church! I suppose the shooter, Scott Roeder, figured this killing was a worthy sacrifice to honor God.

Of course, Roeder thinks he did the right thing. Every tyrant thinks he is right. Hitler thought he was right. Stalin thought he was doing the right thing. Osama bin Laden thought he performed honorably when he killed 3,000 of our countrymen on 9/11. He and his acolytes believed they will be surrounded with beautiful maidens in Paradise because they killed infidel Americans.

Like these tyrants, Roeder is a terrorist. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him disagrees with God and should be destroyed. His God is not Allah, but what difference does it make? He is an American terrorist.

And who is training these American terrorists? Hate-spewing radical-right leaders, pundits and commentators. A gruesome example of a commentator that for years has called Tiller a "baby killer,' is Bill O'reilly:

Tiller, O’Reilly likes to say, “destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000.” He’s guilty of “Nazi stuff,” said O’Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. “This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union,” said O’Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

Here is but a few samples of how righteous-right followers of O'Reilly and other hate-mongers reacted on Twitter to the killing:

I'm happy Tiller's dead.
Doctor George Tiller was aborted today in his 204th trimester - aren't paybacks a bitch
God bless the gunmen who hopefully won't be caught.

You can find a lot more of this hateful stuff on the Internet. Disgusting! And they spout this stuff in the name of God!

There are many on both sides of the abortion issue that feel strongly about their position. But to kill for it? Why can't we argue the merits of our cases in a respectful way? Why can't we seek common ground and work to reduce the number of abortions, as President Barack Obama exhorts us to do:

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.

Instead of killing those who disagree with us, let's work together for the enhancement of ALL life.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 2, 2009 3:59 PM
Comments
Comment #282357

There are nut cases on both sides Paul. Yes we do need to work together and agree to disagree.

Posted by: KAP at June 2, 2009 4:13 PM
Comment #282359
This seems to be the philosophy of many religious-right people.

Define ‘Many’.

If you mean ‘an extremely tiny but vocal minority’ then I might agree with you.

But let’s not forget the number of people who wanted Bush and Cheney dead. Or who cheered when Tim Russert passed away. I was listening to a liberal talk show that night when I heard things like “Finally, now we just need to get Bush and Cheney” and “Ding Dong, the witch is dead”, etc.

At no time did O’Reiley suggest that anyone harm this doctor and has made it clear that he does not support this type of thing. But some on the left, apparently, feel no remorse in using his death as a political opportunity to attempt to ‘shut up’ anyone who disagrees with them. As you have attempted to do here.

The doctor was doing a very VERY controversial procedure, a procedure that only 3 clinics in the country can and do perform. He was not ‘just an abortion doctor’ as you are attempting to portray.

But worse, there appears to be an atempt to use this event to block political speech that you find disgusting. Good luck with that, I will make sure to fight against it whether or not I believe or agree with their point of view.

Apparently some of us take the right to free speech a little more seriously than others.

(and yes, I am pro choice, more-so than most liberals, because I think it applied to more than just s*e*x, and *I* am not defending the killer but am defending OReiley).

Oh, and if you want to hear ‘hate’, go listen to liberal talk radio for a while, but listen to the vitriol as if you were who they were targetting… I can’t stand to listen to any of it anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 2, 2009 4:30 PM
Comment #282363

Rhinehold and all:

I hate to hear the “hate” speech from both sides. It disgusts me.

Someone help me out here, how many extremist lefties have killed someone in this manner? Or extremist leftie groups have targeted a specific group, i.e. abortion doctors?

Seems to me that that kind of rhetoric goes into being inciteful. The fact that someone else does the killing falls under “plausible deniability” and the inciter can claim they were against this kind of response.

This abortion doctor killing has been going on for a while now. Just wondering if there isn’t a pattern somewhere.

Could be just me.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 2, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #282364

I am very tired of them calling them selves “prolife” and no one calling them on it (i.e. the mainstream media). They are anti-abortionist. You can’t be for war, for torture, and for the death penality and be prolife.

Posted by: Carolina at June 2, 2009 7:02 PM
Comment #282366

woman
What comes to mind is the extremist gays after the election in California when the marriage ammendment passed. They haven’t killed anyone YET and that’s a big YET.
Carolina
I consider myself ptolife yet I don’t condone war unless all measures have been exausted, torture,NEVER, death penalty,that has to be an extreme case.

Posted by: KAP at June 2, 2009 7:21 PM
Comment #282367

Murder is wrong. If we find someone who supports this crime, you can argue with him/her.

Roeder is indeed a terrorist, but he is evidently a nut case. There are nut cases all around.

I am environmentalist, but that doesn’t mean I have to take blame for the unibomber.

My beliefs on abortion are nuanced like the majority of Americans. I believe it is wrong but that it has to be the choice of the woman involved. My opinion about Dr Tiller is equally nuanced and I believe in tune with the vast majority of Americans. Doctor Tiller was making a lot of money performing a service in demand. He certainly was no hero, but he also should not have been murdered.

Posted by: Christine at June 2, 2009 8:27 PM
Comment #282369

the only one responsible for this murder is the nut job that commited it.

womanmarine

what about the puerto rican terrorists that clinton pardoned? how about the bombings commited by the weather underground, or bill ayers if you like. extremists come in all followings. to try and make this out to be strictly a right wing phenomenon is nonsense. we should all agree that this type of behavior, no matter who commits it, will not be tolerated.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #282371

Rhinehold-
I think the right needs to stop stoking the loonies and stop now. Whatever political differences we have in this country, the rule of law must stand, and that means nobody has the privilege of killing for their political beliefs.

You might as well condone the murder of a death row guard, or a recruiter, or a soldier, or anybody else whose job might be seen as causing death to the innocent, or to somebody’s sacred cow. Hell, throw in those who perform experiments on animals or work in industries where livestock or fur-bearing animals are slaughtered.

Most Democrats never alleged that Bush deliberately screwed things up badly to harm the country. DKos has a policy against those who peddle 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories. The thing is, the things Democrats get paranoid about Bush about are things he’s actually done: Warrantless searches and wiretaps, torture, the creation of legal black holes like Gitmo.

Mostly what people on the right talk about Democrats doing are things they say the Democrats are going to do, or that their policies would lead to. This allows them to cite civilization/Democracy/Freedom ending outcomes far in the future, and stoke their followers into believing that opposition to the Democrats, Liberals and others is a life and death fight.

I know most Republicans don’t want real blood on their hands, and don’t condone murder, bloodshed, and lawlessness. But the rhetoric of those in charge is allowing some to take the brakes off of just being as vicious and abrasive as they can be, and for a rare, but dangerous few, off their need to observe law and order in their actions.

After all, they’ve been told Obama’s in league with terrorists. That he’s going to take the guns that protect them from the Government’s Jack-Booted Thugs. That he’s engineering America’s conversion to a Soviet Economy. That he’s going to take their freedoms. That he’s going to kick all the whites out of their well-earned jobs and put minorities in their place.

While most of the time, when this works, it’s scaring people to the polls, there are going to be individuals who are inspired by this scary rhetoric to take the appropriate actions that one would take if such things were actually true. The folks who by inclination, ignorance, or just plain stupidity take this talk seriously start seeking to undermine the rule of law, the peace, law and order of the very country they often claim to be Patriots of.

People hated Bush. But did their party incite and provoke members to seek the means of force, or extralegal methods to oppose him? No. We did not tell people that it was alright to kill people, or that these people had it coming. We did not, as a political movement, put taking back control at all costs as our goal.

We made political persuasion our goal. We didn’t put the fiercest partisan in charge of our party, but the canniest stragegists, the most innovative thinkers, the most eloquent representatives. The destruction of the Republican party wasn’t necessary. It’s defeat was sufficient.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have bought into a system of thought that puts the premium on complete destruction and crippling of the opposition. No rhetoric is to excessive, no lie in the service of the party is too petty or egregious. The mechanisms of government are turned to partisan ends, and every fight is fought as if its another step to the apocalypse if the fight is lost.

The Republicans have lost the sense, as a party, of the necessity of being able to live with Americans who don’t agree with them. They need to be able to sit down and have lunch with a neighbor and still be able to smile as you pass the rolls and potato salad. They have to get to the point where political differences are just that, and don’t expand into chasms of separation that are personal as well as partisan.

They’ve got to have more faith in America’s ability to moderate itself, and not subscribe to the philosophies of loonies, pundits and charlatans who insist that its the end of the world if they don’t get their way.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2009 9:25 PM
Comment #282375

Stephen,

Thanks for making my point for me.

Let’s go through this piece by piece so I can help others see.

I think the right needs to stop stoking the loonies and stop now. Whatever political differences we have in this country, the rule of law must stand, and that means nobody has the privilege of killing for their political beliefs.

No ‘republican leader’ or anyone in the media is ‘stoking loonies’. And your picking on one side and not the other needs to be addressed. Are you telling me that there are no people ‘on the left’ stoking loonies?

What about the story of an army recruiter who was killed because of ‘what gitmo did to muslims’. Even Glenn Beck and OReiley defended Olbermann when people wanted to blame him for ‘stoking the loonies on the left’ that was responsible for the murder. It’s a shame that those on the left are more interested in making political points.

You might as well condone the murder of a death row guard, or a recruiter, or a soldier, or anybody else whose job might be seen as causing death to the innocent, or to somebody’s sacred cow. Hell, throw in those who perform experiments on animals or work in industries where livestock or fur-bearing animals are slaughtered.

Name one person who is ‘condoning’ the murder? Anyone? A list here will be a welcome sight.

Most Democrats never alleged that Bush deliberately screwed things up badly to harm the country.

Most? Do you want me to list the people ON THIS SITE that asserted that all of the time?

The thing is, the things Democrats get paranoid about Bush about are things he’s actually done: Warrantless searches and wiretaps, torture, the creation of legal black holes like Gitmo.

Oh, I’m sorry, was the doctor NOT performing late-term abortions to the tune of over a million dollars a year?

Mostly what people on the right talk about Democrats doing are things they say the Democrats are going to do, or that their policies would lead to. This allows them to cite civilization/Democracy/Freedom ending outcomes far in the future, and stoke their followers into believing that opposition to the Democrats, Liberals and others is a life and death fight.

I’m sorry, but this is devoid of reality. Of course they do that and have done that for years. It is part for the course. And it is free speech, protected by our constitution, just like the 911 truthers that you say aren’t allowed on DKos, as if that means ‘democrats don’t assert that sort of thing’. Please.

I know most Republicans don’t want real blood on their hands, and don’t condone murder, bloodshed, and lawlessness.

Except you are asserting that very thing just a few sentences ago…

But the rhetoric of those in charge is allowing some to take the brakes off of just being as vicious and abrasive as they can be, and for a rare, but dangerous few, off their need to observe law and order in their actions.

Just as on the left. Remember the individual who throw a hand grenade into the army tent at the beginning of the Iraq war? Remember the actions of the environmentalists and other left leaning organizations?

The fact is that they weren’t responsible for the actions of those individuals just as no one on the right is responsible for the action of this murderer.

After all, they’ve been told Obama’s in league with terrorists. That he’s going to take the guns that protect them from the Government’s Jack-Booted Thugs. That he’s engineering America’s conversion to a Soviet Economy. That he’s going to take their freedoms. That he’s going to kick all the whites out of their well-earned jobs and put minorities in their place.

And the left told (and tells us) that Republican candidates are starving children, throwing old people out into the cold, enacting fascist policies, etc. Again, you keep trying to paint a picture that isn’t true.

While most of the time, when this works, it’s scaring people to the polls, there are going to be individuals who are inspired by this scary rhetoric to take the appropriate actions that one would take if such things were actually true. The folks who by inclination, ignorance, or just plain stupidity take this talk seriously start seeking to undermine the rule of law, the peace, law and order of the very country they often claim to be Patriots of.

And it happens on the left as I pointed out. What is your solution, not talk about these things? Sorry, but that alternative is not going to happen if I have anything to say about it. It’s sad that you are willing to attempt to push through this idea of ‘unvalid rhetoric’.

People hated Bush. But did their party incite and provoke members to seek the means of force, or extralegal methods to oppose him? No. We did not tell people that it was alright to kill people, or that these people had it coming. We did not, as a political movement, put taking back control at all costs as our goal.

And no one on the right has done this either. You are making up an unfactual vision that doesn’t exist.

We made political persuasion our goal. We didn’t put the fiercest partisan in charge of our party, but the canniest stragegists, the most innovative thinkers, the most eloquent representatives. The destruction of the Republican party wasn’t necessary. It’s defeat was sufficient.

blah blah blah partisan rhetoric blah blah…

The Republicans, on the other hand, have bought into a system of thought that puts the premium on complete destruction and crippling of the opposition. No rhetoric is to excessive, no lie in the service of the party is too petty or egregious. The mechanisms of government are turned to partisan ends, and every fight is fought as if its another step to the apocalypse if the fight is lost.

Sounds vaguely like what happened in 2002, 2004, 2006… give me a break.

The Republicans have lost the sense, as a party, of the necessity of being able to live with Americans who don’t agree with them. They need to be able to sit down and have lunch with a neighbor and still be able to smile as you pass the rolls and potato salad. They have to get to the point where political differences are just that, and don’t expand into chasms of separation that are personal as well as partisan.

They’ve got to have more faith in America’s ability to moderate itself, and not subscribe to the philosophies of loonies, pundits and charlatans who insist that its the end of the world if they don’t get their way.

Seems to me that is the way of the ones not in charge. Do you really want me to pull up the rhetoric of the ones on the left doing the very same type of things? It will be a long response if I do…

The fact is you are trotting out partsian rhetoric in order to score points against people you don’t like, suggesting that they have done things that they haven’t and are ‘just evil’, when those very same people DIDN’T do the same thing when they could have just recently.

Makes me want to puke to be honest. A man is dead and all that many on the left can think of doing is trying to bulid their powerbase, feeding this garbage to the ignorant in their party.

Try someone else, I am not buying it.

Posted by: rhinehold at June 2, 2009 10:08 PM
Comment #282378
Someone help me out here, how many extremist lefties have killed someone in this manner? Or extremist leftie groups have targeted a specific group, i.e. abortion doctors?

Weathermen
The O
ELF
Earth First
Earth Liberation Army
Animal Liberation Front
Speak
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Two people who plotted to use firebombs at the RNC
Reclaim The Seeds

The fact is that those who are targetting abortion clinics and doctors are usually religious in nature. Not political. Yet so many want to push their ideology that they can’t help themsevles. :(

Posted by: rhinehold at June 2, 2009 10:32 PM
Comment #282386

Rhinehold-

No ‘republican leader’ or anyone in the media is ‘stoking loonies’. And your picking on one side and not the other needs to be addressed. Are you telling me that there are no people ‘on the left’ stoking loonies?

Two categorical statements in one sentence. You’re making this too easy.

Go back and re-read This post of mine. It basically starts with One of Beck’s many “Marching Nazi Armies in the background” screeds. Oh, and just put Michele Bachmann, Tom Tancredo, and a number of other names into Google, and see what comes up. Oh, try Rush, too. He’s always good for a dropped jaw. Hannity lists Liberalism as a threat to survival of the American way of life right alongside fascism and terrorism. Ann Coulter… Well, finding such language out of her is like shooting fish in a barrel.

The way the Republican line goes, the Democrats cannot even be given an inch on policy You cannot agree with the Democrats in public, even in part.

It’s an ugly reality, but a reality nonetheless.

Daily Kos, by the way, issued an immediate condemnation of the killing of the recruiter. Kos, as it is, is a veteran himself, a man who served his country.

Most? Do you want me to list the people ON THIS SITE that asserted that all of the time?

We didn’t say he did it deliberately to harm teh country. We just said that despite whatever intentions he had, his actions were harmful to the country. And we could show actual harm.

Oh, I’m sorry, was the doctor NOT performing late-term abortions to the tune of over a million dollars a year?

I was talking in general about the Democrats. But I guess if you want to play on that field, I’m game. The Republicans use rhetoric that essentially amounts to Democrats taking children from the womb and dashing their heads on the floor. This despite the fact that most Democrats would not be big fans of such kinds of abortion being done on demand. As it is, the main reason they typically take place is if the mother’s life is in danger, or if the fetus is more or less dead already.

I’m sorry, but this is devoid of reality. Of course they do that and have done that for years. It is part for the course. And it is free speech, protected by our constitution, just like the 911 truthers that you say aren’t allowed on DKos, as if that means ‘democrats don’t assert that sort of thing’. Please.

Devoid of reality? Just look at Eric Simonson’s writings, across the way. What’s not par for the course is the way this rhetoric has gradually escalated, the way the party has gone further and further to the right. What once was the language of John Birchers and other extremists is now common rhetoric. When I was young and Republican, we took pride in Bush’s master of the UN, Reagan’s diplomatic successes over the Soviet Union. Nobody of any credibility spouted the kind of anti-UN, anti-international law BS the GOP does now. Now it’s almost de rigeur.

One example there.

I know most Republicans don’t want real blood on their hands, and don’t condone murder, bloodshed, and lawlessness.
Except you are asserting that very thing just a few sentences ago…

There are always more people willing to say than willing to do, and not every Republican takes the rhetoric as seriously, or with as much agreement as the extremists.

Just as on the left. Remember the individual who throw a hand grenade into the army tent at the beginning of the Iraq war? Remember the actions of the environmentalists and other left leaning organizations?

I don’t recall that soldier’s political leanings being the major contributing factor, nor many Liberals celebrating the deaths of the soldiers, and most Democrats and Liberals have little sympathy or stomach for left-wing violence.

And the left told (and tells us) that Republican candidates are starving children, throwing old people out into the cold, enacting fascist policies, etc. Again, you keep trying to paint a picture that isn’t true.

I seem to recall the Republicans going after the child, Graeme Frost, who spoke on the Democrat’s behalf for the expansion of S-CHIPS, trying to paint his parents as well-to-do freeloaders. I also seem to recall that the Republicans have been very quick to favor the end of government intervention in the housing and job markets. Maybe that’s not the same as being there directly to do it, or wanting to do it, but the GOP as a party claims such callousness against the needs of the public as a badge of honor.

As for enacting fascist policies? I don’t know. Police State Surveillance? Check. Torture? Check. Assertion that the executive branch can deny habeas corpus, hold people incommunicado? Check. I can go on. But the point is, the Republicans did some rather nasty things that earned them a fascist reputation on the substance of their activities.

Makes me want to puke to be honest. A man is dead and all that many on the left can think of doing is trying to bulid their powerbase, feeding this garbage to the ignorant in their party. Try someone else, I am not buying it.

This isn’t about political cynicism here. The Democrats are watching the behavior of the Right with Anxiety. Remember Waco. Remember Oklahoma City. Until 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on American soil was committed by a right-wing fanatic. Left-Wing fanatics pale in comparison to their Right Wing analogues nowadays.

I remember the rhetoric of the right back then. It was one of may reasons for splitting with the Republicans.

I’m not saying that Democrats wouldn’t use this against the Republicans and the Far-Right folks leading the party. But things are more complicated than simple partisan politics. We genuinely do believe that the Far Right in this country is capable of violence, and we have horrific proof in the previous decade to the current one of just how far they’re willing to go, and how far they can depart from the mainstream.

The Republicans have been reckless. The governor of my State threw the idea of secession out, trying to please a bunch of people at those tea party rallies. Instead of quickly and roundly condemning the notion as the party of Lincoln should do, They flirted with the idea, then spun some rhetoric around as a smokescreen under which they retreated from the idea.

That’s what makes me sick. These guys are openly flirting with visions of armed rebellion, trying to intimidate liberals into letting them keep what they’ve had in terms of power, but they’re recklessly encourage people whose vision of “restoring” America would seem like its destruction to most reasonable people.

Might makes right, rather than rule of law. No problem about losing an election, we’ll just incite an atmosphere of desperation and potential violence so you’ll back off.

The Republicans will only fully return to people’s confidence when their sense of shame becomes stronger than their sense of political expedience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2009 12:39 AM
Comment #282387

I believe civil rights should apply to the unborn. I believe civil rights should apply to gay/lesbian couples. (I am opposed to gay marriage but thing in the name of all human decency these citizens deserve most protections the rest of us take for granted.

Call me a fascist, it’s the liberal way now adays.
Oh, and yes I believe war is justified in times of national defense. And I think to believe in war implies belief in torture under certain times, as when it saves lives, or prevents greater human suffering. If waterboarding “in theory” were to save the lives of 100,000 people through the information given, then that is ok with me. In Craig’s mind if you can’t do that mental homework on waterboarding, then the correct position should be totally anti war even in the case of self defense.

Count me as a Christian who is opposed to abortion, believes war can be justified when we are defending ourselves, and believes that under certain circumstances waterboarding and other extreme measures should be legal. This case is when the techniques prevent greater human suffering.

Torture in my mind is inflicting intentional pain and suffering with no intentional gain for humanity, (as in saving innocent lives). If I were in charge and knew that a 9/11 like incident were imminent, and had a person in custody, and that this detainee had information that could prevent 9/11, I personally would participate in the waterboarding as a Christian in order to save lives.

My family also has been told that if I’m in a situation like 9/11, I’m not coming home, I’m going into the buildings to bring the innocent out.

The key between all of these positions is protecting innocent life, whether standing up for the unborn, waterboarding to get information to stop a terrorist or going into falling buildings to bring out the innocent. It’s because the lives of the innocent are more important to me than my own life.

I’m a fascist, right wing hypocrite. But given the choice if you were in the building as it was coming down, I would give my life for you.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 3, 2009 12:41 AM
Comment #282390

A Muslim shoots soldiers at a recruiting center. A Christian shoots a doctor. Pardon me for noticing the obvious, but these murders occurred because maniacs had access to guns.

American culture is so drenched in violence, we don’t even notice the guns.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2009 1:32 AM
Comment #282391

The guns are not the problem, phx8, they only expose the real issue, which isn’t an inatimate object. If they didn’t have a gun they would have used something else, like homemade explosives?

I am surprised you didn’t point out the more obvious problem, religious intolerance…

Posted by: rhinehold at June 3, 2009 2:10 AM
Comment #282397

Craig Holmes-
It’s a thorny issue to apply civil rights to the unborn, in no small part because most laws were designed to work with living, breathing persons, rather than unborn children, who even minus the possibility of induced abortion, miscarry or are stillborn. Birth has long been the traditional beginning of a person’s civil rights for that reason.

Folks on the right get called fascists because they support the things that fascists support: torture (though some don’t dare call it by that name), military aggression as the solution to all international problems, blind submission to leaders of their own party, justified subversion of those from others, even at the country’s expense; concentrated power in the executive, the ability to disregard the oversight of the legislature, and the authority of the courts, the ability to keep prisoners incommunicado, and so on and so forth.

If there is a lesson that the Republicans ought to be learning, its that you can’t, and shouldn’t, try to win all debates. In trying to defend Bush against his detractors, the Republicans have rationalized and taken on powers that even most of them would have rejected ten years ago.

9/11 doesn’t help. Fascism is nothing so much as a political philosophy of insecurity, where the political subversion of all others, in the name of the greatness of the realm, is held paramount. The fascist attacks without to destroy enemies, and within to destroy those they see as subversives. Problem is, not all disagreement with them inside is subversive to the good fortunes of the nation, and war and aggression often backfire abroad, making the nation more vulnerable.

War does not imply torture. War is taking the fight to somebody who has the ability to fight you, to defend themselves. Torture is the torment of somebody in your custody to make them even more helpless before you than they already are. There isn’t any commonality between the two, and there shouldn’t be for any nation that fights for defense, and not for conquest.

A lot can be justified in the name of protecting the innocent, including potentially harming the innocent in the process of defending them. People rationalize things out of insecurity that a few moments thought would show them to be false avenues of policy.

Torture is unreliable.

It has a nasty reputation for snaring innocent folks in, and forcing confessions out of them. Such confessions are worthless for our defense; they can only lead us astray.

It also has a terrible reputation for producing unreliable results, even from the guilty, because the suggestive state leads the interrogated prisoner to confabulate to suit the direction the interrogator’s leading them.

The techniques in question were not designed to attain intelligence, but to bring compliance, to get people to agree to say or do things they would not otherwise do. Their physiological effect is to create some of the worst possible conditions for somebody’s recall of people, places and events.

I don’t doubt that your motivations are good, but so are those of many of the folks who are drawn by their leaders to support bad policy. The truth is, torture is inferior to regular interrogation in gathering intelligence. There’s no point in interrogating a person just to get bad information. People will die if that’s what we rely upon, more than if we use regular techniques. It is better to outwit our prisoner and get good info, than to torture them and get bad information that we mistakenly put greater faith in.

I don’t doubt you’d give your life to protect your fellow Americans. I commend you for it. But are you also willing to lay down a belief proved false for them, to end a practice that has brought us mostly shame and bad leads?

Torture is not defined so much by the intentions of the interrogator, but by its means. And those means should be rejected, as they do not work as promised.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2009 8:10 AM
Comment #282399

Interesting comment Rhinehold, you write: “But let’s not forget the number of people who wanted Bush and Cheney dead.” Then you clearly try to imply that some liberals held this position.

Can you support this view with any liberals that ever stated such a thing? Anywhere, anytime? Of course you can’t, it’s just more of the typical right-wing extreme bs to try to make a point.

Wish Bush and Cheney were gone? Of course. Killed? Sorry, but you’ve once again made a rdiculous point to somehow justify your own position.

We can find lots of references to those wishing Tiller was dead. That is a fact.

Posted by: Boomxtwo at June 3, 2009 8:44 AM
Comment #282400

Craig,
Was it OK for Japan to torture our soldiers to find out where we’re going to attack so they can protect their Innocent. Or is it OK for us, but not for the other side?

I also think abortion is wrong, and should never happen; maybe to save the life of the mother (which is very rare). The trouble comes when you try to make it illegal. For 230 years life was defined as staring at birth. In the late 18th century this was obvious common sense.

What makes me mad is the Republican Party. I like to ask my religious friends why are some republicans calling for an amendment to the constitution to make flag burning illegal? But when it comes to abortion they’re going to appoint judges that change the constitution themselves. It don’t work that way. (From my understanding of “conservative”) The more conservative a judge is the more they’ll stick to the constitution and past decisions. Republicans just want you to vote for them forever. If they were serious about making abortion illegal, they would try to amend the constitution.

But then do we want to make every thing that’s bad illegal? I dare say adultery breaks out more families than almost any thing else. But should it be illegal? Every time we try to legislate morality it doesn’t seem to work. Give to the father what is the father’s, and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at June 3, 2009 8:46 AM
Comment #282402

RH

The list you gave of left organizations is not correct. I do no know all the groups but Earth First,ELF and pretty much all except the Weathermen haven’t a clue as to left political philosophy. Just because the women don’t shave their armpits does not mean the left wants them.

SD
In your explanation of fascism to CH you left out an important factor,that is corporatism. The Reps tended to leave corporation alone to assert largely unregulated power all over the world.

Posted by: bills at June 3, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment #282405

bills-
I don’t think corporatism is a fascist element by necessity. I think any time you get a corrupt, non-democratic system in place, corporatism is going to rear its ugly head. Just look at European Colonialism.

We see the indulgence of corporate interests in countries we could fairly call Communist, in the overseas colonialism of Democracies, Parliamentary Democracies, Republics, and Constitutional monarchies, and in the absolute monarchies of places like Saudi Arabia.

Corporations like sure profits. Governments that can produce arbitrary outcomes with their policies, instead of uncertainty and complication, are attractive to those who want sure results.

So, therefore, I don’t consider corporatism anything other than the symptom of an arbitrary government that can produce arbitrary results.

What is common among fascist governments is the totalitarian attitude towards dissent and restrictions on the power of the party’s leaders. I believe with fascism there is a special emphasis on a jingoism, ethnic supremacy, and national militarism. This is often the product of a certain level of insecurity on a national, ethnic, and military level.

Which, I guess, explains why I don’t just let this trend among the Republicans go. I think left unchecked, the party might become something America will come to regret.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2009 10:32 AM
Comment #282406

Rhinehold,
Sure, religious intolerance plays a big role in a lot of violence. The problem is that in this country, guns make murder easy. Most weapons that could be used for murder have multiple uses, such as a baseball bat or explosive. They require either close proximity or are difficult to use or to target. Guns have only one use. It’s doubtful the Muslim or Christian nutjobs could have pulled off their murders without guns.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2009 11:20 AM
Comment #282409

phx8

it’s doubtful that without free speech that they would have known that these incidents that stoked thier anger were happening, so lets take the rights away from the majority because of isolated incidents, and a few lunatics. freedom has a price, and sometimes it’s innocent lives. does that mean we throw it out so we can have the illusion of saftey?

BTW it looks like one of the biggest leftwing bomb throwers is about to become the senator from minnesota. maybe rush should run for the senate in florida.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2009 11:43 AM
Comment #282412

Jeb Bush would have been a better choice dbs he’s more like pop instead of “JR” Ewing Bush.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 3, 2009 12:12 PM
Comment #282413

It is a gross error to call these people “pro-life”…they are simply interested in controlling every aspect of people’s lives. They love war, hatred, racism, and hate anybody who does not subscribe to their twisted “religions” and warped view of the world.
They ought to simply be called what they REALLY are…”ANTI-CHOICE”

Posted by: capnmike at June 3, 2009 12:44 PM
Comment #282416

The left is more anti-choice than the right ever dreamed of being.

Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2009 1:45 PM
Comment #282419

Hold it…hold it! This horrid exchange between Democrats and Republicans is not what I wanted to do when I wrote this message. Both Democrats and Republicans do good and bad things.

Yes, I decried the killing of an abortion doctor. I thought that the hate speech of some brought about an atmosphere that encourages such killing. I did not use the word Republican or Democrat even once.

My main message is that we should try to avoid blistering attacks between pro and anti-abortion people. My main message is the message of President Barack Obama that I cited:

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

Let’s not scream at each other. Let’s discuss common ground.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 3, 2009 3:15 PM
Comment #282421

If Adolph Hitler rescued someone from a burning building, would you forgive him all his other sins?

The hyperbole is thick in this column.

I believe in the case of Roeder, it looks like the FBI may have fallen down on the job.

Those that cheer this murder should rightly so be the targets of terrorist investigation. Those aiding or encouraging terrorism should be prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

Believing in war is a statement that makes me wonder about one’s thought process. What exactly does that mean? One believes that war’s exist? Well, of course they do. One believes that war is just? Which war? What cause? Or do you believe all war is just? Someone saying that seems to simply be saying that they agree with any all American aggression or “defense” irregardless of the circumstance.

Believing in torture demonstrates a distance and ignorance on the subject. If you’d bother to listen to experts on the subject, there is no need to use torture. Cheney has even backed off his statements about the efficacy of torture.

Words have power. It’s easy on this site to say radical things. I’m guilty of that. It’s easy to believe that it’s a tough world and that a tough attitude is needed. It is. But simply being a hard ass is not truth or reality. It’s a simplistic appeal to an attitude. The world is more complex than that.

Posted by: gergle at June 3, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #282427

Murder is wrong, I believe that we all agree on this. I’m solidly and consistently pro-choice, and I marvel that the actions of those that are pro-life are as restrained as they are most of the time.

For those that disagree with this statement, put yourselves in those that are most rigidly pro-life for a moment. These people beileve that the govenment and the country have allowed the murder of innocents to go on without punishment and are instead lauded as hero’s by those that are pro-choice.

The fact that millions of people in this country believe this and have chosen to demonstrate peacefully and respect the rule of law is one of the things that makes America great. The fact that it gets away from us on either side and degenerates into usually small random acts of terrorism and not full out civil war over this and other issues is a testament to our political process as divisive as it may seem at times, to our people who as cynical as they may seem who ultimately still believe in our political process, and our sense of self and country.

The fact that we punish those that transgress the law for political reasons just as we do those for personal reasons is a sign of our maturity as a nation.

Posted by: Rob at June 3, 2009 9:01 PM
Comment #282428

Stephen & BillS

I don’t think you are using the word corporatist the right way.

Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where social groups or interest groups, such as business, ethnic, farmer, labor, military, or patronage groups, are joined together under a common governing jurisdiction to try to achieve societal harmony and promote coordinated development.

This is a lot more like the liberal group-based vision of society.

BillS
You mention that Rhinhold’s list of lefties is not valid. The same goes for your list of righties. We all tend to define the nuts out of our own and into the other ideology.

At the risk of starting an acrimonious debate, my husband tells a story about when he worked with a group of gay men. One of them was assaulted. The group surrounded my husband and asked him why straight men were so cruel. The described a pretty violent confrontation. And they added the final indignity was that the assailants raped him. My husband told them that it was a terrible assault, but that it didn’t seem like a straight man was the assailant. His gay co-workers were aghast. Evidently they don’t accept anybody like that. I agree. This is a bad guy. But they certainly cannot blame people like my husband.

BTW – Bill O’Reilly immediately condemned the killing of Tiller, just as you mention Kos did re the recruiter.

Gergle

Indeed those who cheer the murder are at least morally suspect. When you are debating with one of those people, you can bring that up. On the face of it, I think the guy deserves the death penalty.

BillS, Stephen etc

BTW - the corporatism defined above also describes fascism, which is a subspecies of corporatism. That is why I am suspicious of group rights.

Posted by: Christine at June 3, 2009 9:15 PM
Comment #282433

Being a right wing fascist and all. You know, a republican. One of the people the head of your party says “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for”. That’s me.

On Abortion, I’m apposed to Roe v Wade and think it should be overturned. I think the states should handle it. Where I live, Washington state the law would stay the same. Next door, in Idaho I presume Abortion would be illegal. So what? The issue is then decided by the people, much like gay marriage is being determined. Just as Gay people are fighting for their rights, I would like to fight for the rights of the unborn.

Again being a right wing fascist and the left is so ugly these days, I sat on a school board for 10 years, adopted our daughter at age 8, (we are her fourth family), give over 10% of my income to charity, have a son in the military. My son was just named by the faculty of his public college as student of the year, for fighting in the state legislature to protect college funding.

But you liberals hate me. You paint with one brush and build straw men to knock down with your arguments. Where did liberalism become so hateful and ugly? Why the hate?

You never clean up your own. I still am bitter over Reid saying the war was lost when my son was on his way to Kuwait as part of the surge. His feet were not on the ground yet and your party was using the war and my son’s service to his country to get political point. Now Obama reverses course and adopts the very policies you all marched against just a year ago. It’s ok now because you have gained power.

I will tell you what I am going to to. To hell with the lot of you!! I’m going to keep working with children, keep giving to the poor, keep serving and teaching my children and grandchildren to serve. Even through your hate, I will continue to serve.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 3, 2009 11:21 PM
Comment #282434

Craig:

Even through your hate, I will continue to serve.

Just as many of us on the left do. The hate is on both sides. The right has called us traitors. You ask when we (liberals) became so hateful. Ever think some of it is in response to the hate we received? That said, I don’t hate you or Republicans.

I don’t think Roe V Wade should be overturned. Keep up with your work with the poor and your children and grandchildren, and keep working to make abortion not wanted and necessary, instead of against the law. That is my wish for me and you. :)

Posted by: womanmarine at June 3, 2009 11:42 PM
Comment #282435

womanmarine:

What has become of us?

Imagine the head of a political party saying “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for” and keeps his job!!!!!!!!!!! No outrage from the left.

Ok, so now obviously I’m not going to every be a part of what you all do on the left.

You know seven years ago, a church called me because a staff member had committed a crime with a child. he went to jail, and served his time. Some friends and I don’t think much of our social justice system. It too 15 months for the court system to catch up with my friend. They it was jail time plus probation. Then they were gone after three years of total involvement with this person. You know what? Us hated right wingers have met with this man every sunday am for seven years to help me so that our children can be safe.
Government cannot solve all our problems. It has taken seven years of hard work for no pay.

I only say these things because we have become very very ugly. I’m done with the political thing.

Obama basically lied to get into office. He created all these arguments against the war, only to completely reverse himself and adopt the same after the war. Now it’s health care. He had no intention of keeping his promise not to raise taxes. Right now they are admitting that there isn’t money, so they are considering doing away with tax deductions for medical insurance. Lies lies lies. But they are democratic lies so they are ok with the media.

I even support gay rights, (well most of them).

But it’s just over. Good bye political rhetoric. You are destroying the country I love, but at least as America goes down you will all be convinced you are right and the other side is evil. God help our children.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 4, 2009 12:19 AM
Comment #282438

Craig Holmes

” Next door, in Idaho I presume Abortion would be illegal. So what? “

So What? So what if Idaho decides to outlaw any church besides the approved one or decides that teaching evolution is a crime or that the state can confiscate the property of anyone that votes a certain way? They cannot do that because the protections of the Constitution override the power of individual states,period. RvW legally recognizes the inherent right to privacy in the Constitution regarding procreative decisions. Its settled law. States no more have the power to override it than freedom of speech. And if they did, what would happen? Would troubled women travel to Washington to terminate pregnancy? Would Idaho prohibit American citizens from travel?Would more troubled young women resort to the coat hanger or suicide? The idea of leaving it to the states is just one more red herring.

Posted by: bills at June 4, 2009 1:30 AM
Comment #282440

bills:

The benefit of the states deciding is that it would be decided by the people and not the supreme court. We wacko fascist extremists feel about the same way on RvW as you do about the first Bush election.

So if RvW is overturned an there is a constitutional amendment putting the right in the place, then no problem. The issue is that the people never gave that right, the Supreme Court gave the right and took it from the unborn.

But, to label each other with broad brushes is a bunch of crap.

Remember I’m the adoptive father. And we have helped raise a beautiful granddaughter born out of wedlock. Her mom graduates from college next week and is getting married in August. One more example of how terrible the far right is!! My daughter ended up with a college education, and we have an incredible granddaughter!!

Just a part of the hated right!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 4, 2009 9:55 AM
Comment #282445

Craig Holmes

A little late to overturn the first Bush election and at any rate states did not get to decide whether or not to accept it. Nor was the peoples decision honored but I understand your point. There is a big difference. RvW recognized an inherent right in the Constitution and applied it to law. States can no more deny that right than deny women the vote or re-segregate schools. Perhaps the change would have been less divisive if it had been originally left to them. As it is now it is settled law. IMO the best course forward is to adopt policies to reduce the number of abortions.
I generally have little patience for abortion foes. Most haven’t thought it through and very few have,in my book, the moral standing to even have a relevant opinion. My personal standard for that moral standing is whether they have adopted an unwanted child. You have my respect in that regard and bless you,O hated one. I am going to be in Wenatchee for stateside vist this July. It would be fun have a beer or two with you.

I am living in the Philippines now. This country has about 95-100 million people. Abortion is prohibited in the Constitution. NGOs estimate that around 500,000 illegal abortions occur every year with approximately 2,500 maternal fatalities per year. Direct extrapolation with the US is specious. There are hundreds of factors to consider.For example,the RP is a very poor country,contraceptives are harder to obtain, the population is somewhat younger etc. All of these will have some effect on abortion statistics but with a population nearly 4 times as large it is a credible assumption that if abortion was made illegal across the board the US would have at least a million illegal abortions a year with the maternal loss of life at around 5000.That is a conservative estimate. If it was the same rate as the RP the numbers would be staggering.The point I am trying to make is that outlawing abortion will not get rid of it any more than outlawing guns would get rid of guns. Its just not workable.We can do some things to make abortions rare tragedies and people from different political sides can help with the solution. For Heaven’s sake, if there is anywhere we should get together it is around that goal.For example, as one that went through the adoption process, is there some way too make it easier and still protect the child? Is it possible to reduce the expense or remove some nonsense red tape?Why can’t we do this? This is one liberal,pro-choice Dem that would accept a requirement that abortion providers tell those seeking an abortion that if they carry to term, their child will be placed in a loving home. We cannot honestly say that now,can we?

Posted by: bills at June 4, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #282447

wow, rhinehold, i didn’t know people cheered when tim russert died. shocking, sad.

i have said many, many things about bush and cheney, but never wanted them dead. and to think that what they did to the country was deliberate is also news to me. i thought they were just incompetent, lacked proper knowledge, and basically should have done the opposite of what they did. but never did i think it deliberate.

and you can not think of any fear stoking on behalf of the repubs? watch any commercial aired prior to the election. watch any palin speech prior to the election. her saying obama’s middle name at every given time wasn’t to stoke some kind of fear in americans? very short memory - must help you get through the days.

Posted by: bluebuss at June 4, 2009 4:12 PM
Comment #282453

I don’t know what those who are bringing up the fact that there are also nutjobs on the left are trying to prove. This isn’t about some animal rights activist killing someone or anything like that. This is an person who felt justified going into a church and killing someone who provided a legal service to women. If there is a case of someone on the far left murdering someone who has been vilified by Keith Olberman or Air America or something like that then I think you might have a point. Just pointing out that there are nutjobs on the left serves no purpose and is not relevant.

The same doctor was called “Tiller the Killer” by Bill O’Liar and has been vilified personally by many other right wing media personalities. To say that these people have no culpability is very convenient.

I believe in the Constitution and the rights it spells out. However, these people did everything but call for someone to kill Dr. Tiller and now someone has done just that. While they are probably not legally or civilly culpable they are at some level morally culpable for helping to create an environment where someone felt the need to go into a church and murder someone in cold blood. After all, where did this person learn of Dr. Tiller? Did he know him personally? Probably not, he probably heard of Dr. Tiller in the right wing media. You can’t just say anything you want and think that you have no responsibility for what you say especially over the public airwaves. These yahoos who have radio shows feel that they are not bound by logic, reason, or the truth and can just say any outrageous thing that the drooling masses that listen to that blather lap it up like starving dogs and repeat it verbatim as if they thought up that ignorance themselves.

The left are not the ones listening and repeating lies by those “entertainers” the left isn’t the one like the head of operation rescue going as far as his lawyer would let him in saying that Tiller’s cold-blooded murder was justified because he performed a legal service for women.

The sad irony of the abortion issue is that the right has done a great disservice to their cause by being psychotic on the issue. If they would take a Valium and calm down for a second and think clearly they would find a way to do something that actually does some good. I don’t think that there are very many people who think of abortion as equivalent to taking a birth control pill or using a condom on either side of the issue. There are a lot of things we can do with simple education to greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. But they insist on the failed abstinence only education. We could do something like providing some kind of national child care so that when women are faced with the reality of raising a child alone they won’t make the choice to terminate a pregnancy because they can’t afford day care. But that would require a civil debate and as long operation rescue and similar groups are active and as long as people like Bill O’Liar call doctors performing a legal service (did I mention that he was performing a legal service?) “Tiller the Killer” that is not going to happen.

Posted by: tcsned at June 4, 2009 8:49 PM
Comment #282460

It is a sad thing that happened to that doctor. I am not going to say I am pro life and I am not going to say I am pro choice. What I am going to say however is this:

Unfortunately for third parties this killing brings this issue, “the issue”, back into centerfield. And this is an issue that the two parties cover very very well. They are very different on this issue, and because they have so few differences, those are the issues they want us to focus on.

I do not mean to demean this issue, it is a very important issue. However, it has been blown way out of proportion by the two major parties, and like the blood sucking creatures they are they will each use this poor man’s death for their own political gain.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at June 5, 2009 1:31 AM
Comment #282462

All
As several have pointed out ,there are positive steps can be taken to reduce the number of abortions. I would ask that we start a Watchblog dialog to discuss options on all three columns if our distinguished contributers agree. Any takers?

Posted by: bills at June 5, 2009 2:08 AM
Comment #282475

Bluebuss,

wow, rhinehold, i didn’t know people cheered when tim russert died. shocking, sad.

Very sad, yes.

i have said many, many things about bush and cheney, but never wanted them dead.

Most on both sides of the aisle don’t want that. But I don’t remember the outcry from the left when Morrisey said in a concert that he wished Bush was dead, or the lunatics on the left that write those things on their blogs and in newsgroups, etc.

and to think that what they did to the country was deliberate is also news to me. i thought they were just incompetent, lacked proper knowledge, and basically should have done the opposite of what they did. but never did i think it deliberate.

Easy to say now, at the time I remmeber hearing ‘for the oil companies’ and ‘to institute a dictatorship’ arguments, even on here.

What Bush did was because he was doing what he felt was best, as I stated then and was shouted down on. He knew, it was deliberate, new world order, etc… Just because You don’t say it Now doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…

and you can not think of any fear stoking on behalf of the repubs?

I can think of a lot, in fact I wrote about it on here just a few weeks before the election. http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006100.html.

very short memory - must help you get through the days.

Good luck with that playbook, just hope you don’t run into too many non-hypocrites/non-republicans with it…

Posted by: rhinehold at June 5, 2009 11:13 AM
Comment #282483

Rhinehold, who cheered when Russert died? I did not hear that anywhere and I follow the news. I did not like Russert but never wished him harm. I wanted Bush and Cheney out of office but never wished them harm.

Seems to me there is a difference between wishing someone dead or cheering and killing them. Just how many democrats, prochoice, liberals, progressives, or left wingers have killed someone. Stick to the present time. No need to go on about the weather underground. That is long past.

I certainly would not be sad or cry if Limbaugh dropped dead of a heart attack but am I going to go out and get rid of him-of course not. I am not a DOMESTIC TERRORIST and that is exactly what the extreme prolifers are. What they do is against the law (whether you agree with it or not)and our gov’t needs to enforce the law.

Lets see if we can start a discussion about how to decrease the number of abortions-here is my idea. Let’s make the morning after pill more available to all women. It could be paid for by insurance and be made available to all low income women at no charge.

Posted by: carolina at June 5, 2009 5:34 PM
Comment #282498

Christine said,

Gergle

Indeed those who cheer the murder are at least morally suspect. When you are debating with one of those people, you can bring that up. On the face of it, I think the guy deserves the death penalty.

I thought that was the subject of Paul’s piece. Who knew you couldn’t bring up the theme of the thread in the thread. I guess I’ll have to reread the Rules of Participation and a logic book or two.

Posted by: gergle at June 5, 2009 11:03 PM
Comment #282502

Gergle

I realize that my word order may have been confusing. The guy who deserves the death penalty is the guy who murdered Tiller, since it was evidently premeditated. Murder is wrong and should be punished.

I believe the point of most of the conservative posters here is that Paul’s argument is a straw man. None of us condone the murder. Neither do people like Bill O’Reily, who has specifically condemned it.

Of course, we repeat his condemnation of the act. We all have been doing it. It is the other side that implies or says outright that we are somehow not on that side.

I think we can agree that what Tiller did to make money was morally questionable, but legal under the applicable laws. His late term abortions SHOULD have been illegal, but murder was not the answer.

Some people have tried to equate opposing what the man did with advocating violence against him. That kind of idea is a fundamental threat to free speech.

Posted by: Christine at June 5, 2009 11:44 PM
Comment #282506

Christine - while Bill O’Liar is not legally culpable what he participated in by singling out Dr. Tiller the way he did helped to create an atmosphere that vilified a man and he was indeed murdered. He did play a part of it even though he issues a half-hearted condemnation after the fact. I’m sure Dr. Tiller’s family is very comforted by his condemnation.

Also, I would agree that using late term abortion frivolously is very morally questionable. The problem is that the issue isn’t as black and white as you paint it. What do you say to a teenager who has been raped by her father and doesn’t escape his control until she is 7 months pregnant - “sorry, you now have to raise this baby?” Or to someone who finds out that the baby has some kind of deformity that will make survival impossible? Or to a woman who finds out she has terminal cancer? Those cases are not so black and white. Oversimplifying a very complex issue makes makes it easier to choose sides but potentially does a huge injustice to someone. We are just coming out of the end of 8 years of oversimplifying complex problems and we are paying a huge price for it now.

Posted by: tcsned at June 6, 2009 1:32 AM
Comment #282507

What Dr. Tiller did was just a medical procedure, from his public record,late-term abortions or anything else, there’s no truth to the claim that he was going left and right giving away late-term abortions every day. Every case, as every pre-natal medical practitioner does, HAS to be carefully reviewed, and the doctor and the patient both go through a rigorous process to make sure she, the patient, know all the risks if she chooses to have the abortion or not to.

By their own ideology, the women that have had abortions “should” be guilty as Dr. Tiller. Yet only the doctors who perform the service are demonized by the anti-abortion platform. What they don’t understand is IF abortions are made illegal, women will STILL try to abort fetuses, it’s a practice dating back to Greek and Roman times, where medicinal herbs, some poison, were taken to prevent childbirth.

So yes, some may find what he did wrong, unholy, whatever. The truth of the matter is, if even one of those women who was Dr. Tiller’s patient, did not have that available to her, you may have read stories about more “bathroom” babies, or “trash bag” babies.


Posted by: Jon at June 6, 2009 1:44 AM
Comment #282509

Jon - exactly. That is why this black and white thinking is doing no good. It does nothing to convince a woman see a pregnancy through and it does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Doing ridiculous things like staging protests of birth control pills doesn’t help either.

Posted by: tcsned at June 6, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment #282512

RH
Any feed back re. my above suggestion. Your input would be of value both now and if it happens.

Posted by: bills at June 6, 2009 9:35 AM
Comment #282516

tscned

I can think of lots of exceptions to lots of things. We recently had the torture debate with lots of them. I don’t think the situation you refer to would come up very often and it is unlikely any of the thousands of abortions this guy did were like that.

However, even in that extreme case, there is a moral - if not legal problem with killing the baby for the sins of the father.

I am not absolutist on this. That is why I say it is a moral dilema but should be the woman’s choice. For example, if you learn your baby is terribly handicapped, maybe you would make the hard decison to abort.

My only point in this debate is that you cannot equate free speech with violence. O’Reilly never advocated violence. He wanted the law to be applied.

There are legitimate objections to what Dr Tiller did. Pointing them out does not advocate murder.

Most Americans believe abortion is morally questionable, but should be legal with some restrictions. This is the reasonable conclusion the political process would produce if left alone.

There are nuts on both extremes. Some want to treat abortion as a mere choice, like chosing a college. They even worry that Sotomeyer might not be proabortion enough. They are wrong. Some want to make it a never to be done murder. They are wrong too.

Posted by: Christine at June 6, 2009 11:34 AM
Comment #282577

Chrstine

You are batting a thousand. NO there is not extremist on both sides. There are no sides re abortions. There are only troubled women seeking seeking a dreadful alternative to what is happening in their lives. The choice is theirs. That is the law. Should we put them in prison? Would that help?
The extremism is entirely from the right.The rest of us are just trying to get by.At some point the effects of the availability of RU40 will come in to play and the the right wing propagana mills will have to find another whipping boy to rally the idiots that support them.

Posted by: bills at June 7, 2009 7:45 AM
Comment #282581

Question:

If this is illegal, why aren’t more of the fringe of the anti-choice movement in jail?

Posted by: gergle at June 7, 2009 10:38 AM
Comment #282607

BillS

Most Americans disagree with you. A majority of Americans, for the first time according to Gallop, favor the pro-life postion. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx.

I, like most Americans, consider it an extreme position to support abortion on demand with no conditions, just as it is extreme to ban it.

We may disagree about the nature of life. You do not have the right to kill your baby the day it is born, even if it premature. You do have the right to kill it the day before. I am sorry, but this presents a moral problem to me.

As I wrote, I take the same position most Americans do. Abortion is morally suspect but should be the choice of the woman with some restrictions. It looks from the polls that my position is becomming less mainstream as attitudes move in the pro-life direction.

Posted by: Christine at June 7, 2009 8:03 PM
Comment #282629

Christine:

It IS a moral choice, and should remain so, not become a legal issue at all. Once you start allowing some restrictions, it opens the door to it becoming something else entirely.

All you folks with moral issues with abortion need to work much harder. Education, support, put your religions to work and make abortion less seen as a necessity. That is the right response to this moral choice.

There is no way I want the government involved in any choices I make for myself as far a medical concerns go. Either at conception, or at the end of my life, like Republicans already tried to do.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 8, 2009 9:03 AM
Comment #282632

womanmarine - exactly! - Education is the way to go - while there is no way to put an end to unwanted pregnancies, the number can be reduced. Abstinence only doesn’t work. Being real and truthful with kids is the only way. Start lying to them about one thing then the assume nothing you say is true.

The war on drugs has been unsuccessfully waged using a similar misinformation campaign and that has been totally disastrous. Protesting the birth control pill, resisting the distribution of condoms, and other activities of those trying to put restrictions on abortion only increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of aborted pregnancies. They are too caught up in their desire to be right and feel like they are more moral than others that they are causing problems to get worse.

Here’s a novel idea - how about universal childcare? if you really care about every baby being born, how about doing something to help these children have a fighting chance once they are in the world? Or does your concern for life end in the womb?

Posted by: tcsned at June 8, 2009 10:27 AM
Comment #282949

Netanyahu accepts limited Palestinian state”” saying it would have to be disarmed. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians “”“Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and he declared that the solution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be “outside Israel.”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 14, 2009 2:32 PM
Comment #283342

Im Pro Life…Anti War…Anti Torture…And believe in Be and Let Be…YET…to say because i believe in the Death Penalty means i cant be pro life for a innocent child’s life is beyond my understanding…If Someone was to rape and murder your child…Should They be allowed the same rights as my daughter did before she was born…Nah infact being Anti death Penalty and Pro Choice states you believe That Murder would have more rights than your unborn child…

Posted by: Big C at June 21, 2009 12:02 AM
Post a comment