Situation normal
Donald Douglas notes the much lower volume from our friends on the left at this particular outrage, far less condemnation than we heard concerning the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller:
Muslim Terrorist Kills U.S. Military Recruiter: Where’s the Outrage?
Well, where’s the outrage on the left today? In what looks like an ideologically-driven attack on U.S. military personnel, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam who was “upset with the military,” is alleged to have killed one and injured another at a U.S. Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock.Check
USA Today and KATV-TV for the story. Interestingly, the KATV story notes, “the gunman targeted the military but was not believed to be part of a broader scheme.”Well, don’t bet Abdul Hakim wasn’t part of a “broader scheme.” The fact is that the antiwar left has been
targeting military recruiting stations for years. Unlike the unhinged leftists in response to the George Tiller murder, conservative bloggers were very measured in their response to the Little Rock shootings. As Say Anything noted this morning:… we could jump to the conclusion that this man was motivated by a hatred for the military (or something along those lines) and then blame groups like Code Pink and Media Matters and MoveOn.org for fanning anti-military, anti-Iraq war passions for years. We could, much as the left has with people like Bill O’Reilly in the George Tiller murder claim that those groups have blood on their hands.
But we won’t. Because that’s stupid. This murder, whatever the motivation (it’s not clear at this point), was committed by a murderous thug who acted of his own volition. Not because he was compelled to by liberal dissent.
Murder is murder. Let’s mourn the dead, condemn the guilty and move on.
Let’s be honest here: no great condemnation from the left was expected when Pvt William Long, 23, was killed and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, was wounded by a poor, misunderstood Muslim convert, obviously deeply upset about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thomas Tallis:
So our expectations of anti-abortion activists should be the same as our expectations of Muslim terrorists? Cool, I have the memo now, appreciate it, will legislate accordingly
2 June 2009, 12:19 pmPerry:
Thomas makes the point quite well, Dana. But I feel the need to make further comment.
Is there some kind of a thermometer we can use to measure outrage? So right, your post poses an issue with no significant debate possible, except to object to the ridiculous premise posed here.
Moreover, this is hardly a left-right matter as this piece tries to make it. Everyone is against murder and killing, whether it is Tiller or the young soldier, but for most people, only certain murders and killings are forbidden, while others are acceptable. I reject this!
And then the author invokes the usual straw man, assuming the Muslim convert and perp to be part of some kind of a terrorist plot. Could be, but the author gives us no evidence.
Speaking for myself, of course I feel outrage at this murder, as I do at Dr Tiller’s, as I do at any taking of human life, foetus, baby, child, adult, collateral war killings, excutions, you name it, because I am pro-life all the way.
I have yet to hear you say the same, Dana. When you do, I’ll feel credibility from you on this pro-life issue. But as long as you continue to cherry pick who lives and who dies, with some religious doctrine thrown in at the right moment, you have little credibility with me!
2 June 2009, 12:52 pmpgwarner:
LOL
Hey, I heard we tortured. Is that true? Did you hear that? If it is lets just stop right now.
You and your “evidence”! OH THE HORROR.
This has been a personal attack. Quid pro quo baby!
2 June 2009, 1:50 pmpgwarner:
Apparently not; someone killed them.
2 June 2009, 1:53 pmpgwarner:
Who said that, I mean besides you?
2 June 2009, 1:53 pmPerry:
Well pgwarner, your attempt to articulate a counter to my points here is not impressive.
Incidentally, instead of “everyone”, I should have said that we have laws against murderers, like the young Muslim’s alleged act. However, we do not have laws against Dr Tiller’s medical practice.
People like Dana who are want to label Dr Tiller a murderer are totally wrong. In the eyes of the law, he was not a murderer. If Dana is in favor of such a law, then he will have to also hold the aborted woman to the same law, and the service providers as accomplices, so that they all end up in jail. This is where the radical rhetoric meets the road and fails.
Thus abortion needs to be maintained as a woman’s choice, while simultaneously offering women contraception choices (men too), counseling, care, assistance and streamlined adoption processes. To me, this is the humane approach to minimize abortion and maximize loving care.
I am convinced that dropping Roe will take us back to the dark days without medical services and without compassion.
2 June 2009, 3:42 pmpgwarner:
You made a point? I mocked your approach only - that was my only “point”. As for your attempted points on life I really could not care less. I did not advocate anything. You make assumptions.
Don’t argue Dana to me, argue Dana to Dana. I will say that I do not see where he advocated killing Tiller. That renders your protestations to the contrary silly.
I do find it funny that you seem to think that because something is not against the law it makes it right. That is what you are arguing. Regardless of “laws or rights” it is an inalienable truth that is abhorrent to kill a pre-born human life in the 8 month of pregnancy.
LOL Ok Perry, help a brother out, how is this not happening? Funny thing though; abortions keep going up Perry.
CHEERS
2 June 2009, 5:13 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
The soldier who was killed wasn’t harming anyone; Dr Tiller had slain thousands, and, had he lived, would have killed again. It was wrong to just shoot him, but I cannot get more upset at the slaying of Dr Tiller than I do when a criminal shooting at the police gets cut down. To murder him was wrong, but the world is a better place without him.
2 June 2009, 6:16 pmThomas Tallis:
Dana, is it fair to say “look, the recruiter was sending young men off to be slaughtered for no reason whatsoever, so while I don’t condone the actions of the killer, I understand his rage?” I mean, that’d be totally legit according to most pro-life voices and their reactions to the murder of Dr. Tiller, right?
2 June 2009, 6:19 pmThomas Tallis:
wait wait lemme guess - Sharon thinks that’s “disgusting,” and so the (completely on-point) comparison gets to pass without comment, correct?
2 June 2009, 6:20 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
The soldier who was killed wasn’t harming anyone; Dr Tiller had slain thousands, and, had he lived, would have killed again.
The soldier who was killed was part of an organisation which has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in a war which is illegal under international law. Tiller never killed a single person under US or international law.
See how the framing works?
The soldier who was killed wasn’t harming anyone; Dr Tiller had slain thousands, and, had he lived, would have killed again. It was wrong to just shoot him, but I cannot get more upset at the slaying of Dr Tiller than I do when a criminal shooting at the police gets cut down. To murder him was wrong, but the world is a better place without him.
So the difference between you and the guy who shot the soldier is that he had the courage to act on his belief that the world would be a better place with his target dead?
2 June 2009, 6:50 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Oh, I absolutely agree, and have said so previously. Everyone involved in an abortion — the woman, the “doctor,” the nurses, the man who paid for it, the people who drove her to the abortuary, are all either murderers or accessories to murder, and I would lock them all up for the rest of their lives.
Abortion occurs because too many people think that having a baby will somehow ruin their lives. The answer is to make the punishment for abortion, for everyone involved, a totally life-ruining crime.
2 June 2009, 7:02 pmDana Pico:
Perry also wrote:
If we outlawed abortion, and by doing so cut the abortion rate in half — I’m not so foolish as to think that all abortions would be prevented — as long as the maternal death rate from illegal abortions was less than 100%, we’d have a net savings of lives.
There is nothing “humane” about abortion at all.
2 June 2009, 7:05 pmDana Pico:
Mr Tallis wrote:
I’d guess that some people actually would say that. And the murderer will be spending teh rest of his worthless life in prison for his crime. The man who killed Dr
2 June 2009, 7:09 pmMengeleTiller will also spend the rest of his life in jail for his crime. I don’t have a problem with that.Craig:
Does this actually make sense inside your brain? I was never present, but I am going to go out on the limb and state that none of the babies volunteered to be aborted because they didn’t want to be a burden. The young men recruited to serve in our military do not go “off to be slaughtered.” They volunteer to serve this country so that Leftists can maintain the free speech to make asinine comparisons of them to radical abortionists.
edgycater.blogspot.com
2 June 2009, 7:26 pmPerry:
Right, the framing is key, as per Phoenician and Thomas. I am curious how Dana will respond.
pgwarner: “LOL Ok Perry, help a brother out, how is this not happening? Funny thing though; abortions keep going up Perry.
CHEERS
”
Actually pgwarner, the abortion rate per 1000 women has been going down since about 1980, down from about 30 to about 20, a 30% decline. You didn’t know that!
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
As far as doing what I suggested, a lot of that is exactly what Planned Parenthood is all about. But recall the rhetoric against PP by the anti-abortion radicals — they vilify PP with a pack of their own lies about what PP really does.
Cheers back!
2 June 2009, 7:28 pmYorkshire:
What seems good thing to do for aborting clinics is not a good thing to do for recruiting stations. Can someone sort out this logic?
In wake of Tiller shooting, AG Holder increases security at clinics
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered increased security for some abortion clinics and doctors in the wake of the slaying of Dr. George Tiller.
Jeff Carter, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, confirmed the decision “to increase security for a number of individuals and facilities” following Tiller’s slaying at a church service Sunday in Wichita, Kan.
Citing U.S. Marshals policy, Carter would not describe who was being protected, or what security measures were being taken.
There have been increasing incidents of threats against judges and other public figures in recent years. The Marshals provide security to federal judges, juries, and trial witnesses, but it is unusual for them to guard private citizens outside the federal court system.
Tiller last had protection from the U.S. Marshals in 2001, and other doctors received such protection at different points in the 1990s.
Such protection can be ordered by a judge, or the attorney general.
2 June 2009, 7:57 pmDana Pico:
The only “framing” to be done is to note that an unborn child is a living human being. Dr Tiller claims to have personally killed some 60,000 of them, a huge and gruesome number. Of all of the mass murderers in history, how many can claim to have killed that many people personally?
Just think about that number. Abortion has been legal in this country since 1973, a total of 36 years. That means, if Dr Tiller was telling the truth, he averaged killing 1,666 children a year. Figure 250 work days a year, and that works out to averaging killing 6.64 people a day, every work day, for all of this time. To try to find some sort of moral equivalence between Dr Tiller and an American soldier, someone who really doesn’t want to kill anybody or be put in a situation in which he could get killed, is virtually mindless.
Now, sometimes soldiers do have to kill, no doubt about that. But it has been the continuing policy of our armed forces to try to minimize casualties, to kill as few of the enemy and nearby civilians as is possible. For Dr Tiller, every procedure was meant to kill someone. For our country’s abortionists, death is the harvest they reap, deliberately, intentionally, cold-heartedly, brutally, and they want to keep on killing, every business day, to keep the profits flowing in. There are varying estimates of just how many abortions have occurred in the United States, but the numbers range from a low of 36,000,000 since 1970 (CDC numbers) to almost 50,000,000. That’s more people than the United States military has killed of the enemy, and had killed themselves, in all of our wars, throughout all of our history. General Sherman’s March to the Sea? Barely a drop of blood was shed compared to the ocean of dead babies slaughtered by American abortionists. We went to war to depose Saddam Hussein, who had killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1,500,000 of his own people; he was a piker! Josef Stalin supposedly had 20,000,000 people killed to collectivize agriculture; compared to our abortionists, he’s definitely only second rate. Only World War II, with somewhere between 50,000,000 and 70,000,000 people killed — no one really knows how many — has topped our abortuaries, but watch out, it’s only a matter of time before our abortionists manage to top even World War II’s numbers!
Every war is regrettable, even if some of them are necessary. The greatest thing that could happen among nations is for everyone to just decide to stop fighting. But for those who are so adamantly against war, yet support having abortion legal, you have looked past the domestic slaughter of millions to protest the foreign killing of thousands, you have ignored a huge slaughter that for the very greatest part need never occur — the vast majority of abortions are for someone’s convenience — to protest a war in which thousands have died, in a land where thousands were being killed anyway by the brute we deposed.
It is amazing to me. People who are so very, very concerned that a few prisoners have been subjected to waterboarding to get vital information to prevent terrorist attacks are defending a brutal practice which has the blood of millions on all of our hands. People who deplore the killing of thousands are defending the slaughter of millions.
And for those of us who support the war in Iraq, our hope is to see that war ended, to see Iraq free from tyranny and the Iraqi people free. We want the war to end, in victory for freedom, for the killing to end. Yet so many of those here who hate the war in Iraq but defend the practice of abortion are defending a policy, and have a hope, for unending death, for an unceasing cycle of killing.
Iraq was a land in which people were being killed by the government every day. Most of us had hoped that, with the invasion, the Ba’ath Party regime would be overthrown and the everyday killing would come to an end. It hasn’t turned out quite as quickly or as easily as we had hoped, but we are still trying to achieve some sort of peaceful end to the slaughter. The supporters of abortion want it never to end.
2 June 2009, 8:16 pmThomas Tallis:
Dana, do you have any evidence that Dr. Tiller was carrying out experiments on either the mothers or the fetuses they carried? I didn’t think so. The Mengele comparison is strictly Grand Guignol, a cheap ploy to attempt to win people over to your opinion, since you know that actual reasoned argument won’t do the trick. Mengele did all manner of suffering-intensive experiments on his victims, keeping them alive for days & weeks to see how much pain they could tolerate. I know that under your definition of “torture,” Mengele’s experiments would probably still not qualify, since a person has to die before you’ll acknowledge that he was tortured. But torture it was; you may equate an abortionist with a murderer if you like, but the Mengele routine makes you sound like a nut. Fortunately, you didn’t come up with it on your own; you’ve got a whole echo chamber full of pro-lifers persuaded that the comparison is some magic ticket to credibility. Rave on!
2 June 2009, 8:18 pmDana Pico:
Mr Tallis, did even Josef Mengele manage to personally kill 60,000 people?
2 June 2009, 8:20 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Abortion occurs because too many people think that having a baby will somehow ruin their lives. The answer is to make the punishment for abortion, for everyone involved, a totally life-ruining crime.
Why stop there? Why not jail every man who uses a condom or ejaculates outside a womb?
After all, you can’t prove that all the little sperm cells are just as much babies before they fuse with the egg as afterwards, can you?
Why, Dana, are you ignoring the genocide of millions of zygotes every day?
2 June 2009, 8:37 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
It is amazing to me. People who are so very, very concerned that a few prisoners have been subjected to waterboarding to get vital information to prevent terrorist attacks are defending a brutal practice which has the blood of millions on all of our hands. People who deplore the killing of thousands are defending the slaughter of millions.
A prisoner is a person. They have human rights.
A fertilised egg is not a person. It has no human rights.
Explain to us why we should consider a fertilised egg to have human rights, but not a sperm or an ovum, Dana.
2 June 2009, 8:40 pmpgwarner:
Mea culpa Perry! I was imprecise in my statement and memory is not my strong suit these days. This wonderful little tidbit that I just read a week or so was what I was thinking about…
Numbers of repeat terminations rose last year even as the overall count fell for the first time in a decade.
Now whether this is going on here I do not know. I do not pay that close of attention to this area at all. I will say that it a poor argument for education and contraceptive access for this group.
Other organizations besides PP do these things Perry, many others. So by vilifying PP, who performs abortions also, one does not also automatically reject your plea for…
How easy it is easy to throw it out as something all “anti-abortion radicals” do. What lies has Dana told about PP? He is the anti-abortion radical, or one them, that you are talking about right?
2 June 2009, 8:45 pmpgwarner:
Dana quit lying to Perry about PP. Is that clear?
2 June 2009, 8:48 pmThomas Tallis:
A prisoner is a person. They have human rights.
A fertilised egg is not a person. It has no human rights.
This is correct, and is why the Mengele comparison causes the person making it to look foolish to everyone.
2 June 2009, 9:09 pmpgwarner:
In the USA all forms of unborn human life, from a fertilized egg to a full term unborn baby, have their legal rights restricted because within the meaning of the law they are not a person. Human rights are different.
They could be declared a person under the law in the future. They would then have all the rights associated with that designation. A corporation is a legal person under US law. Does it have human rights?
There is the concept of the “natural person”. The court has never addressed that regarding the unborn. It intentionally did not address that. In fact it said “the unborn is not a person within the meaning of the law,” and left it at that. This is why Obama’s pay grade pandering was so obsequiously dishonest.
2 June 2009, 9:20 pmJeff:
Dana, this is the most ridiculous thing you’ve posted since I’ve been a reader. You and I both know that Douglas is usually talking out of his backside when he tries to draw the “liberals are okay with violence” conclusion, and I know you’re better than to fall for that foolishness. Senseless murder disgusts anyone with a heart on the left and on the right, whether the victim is a military recruiter or an abortion doctor. The guy Douglas quoted has his head on straight.
2 June 2009, 9:28 pmJohnC.:
Why do leftists hate unborn children? What threat do they pose? TT, Perry, Pho: please tell me. Why are they so disposable?
2 June 2009, 10:38 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
In the USA all forms of unborn human life, from a fertilized egg to a full term unborn baby, have their legal rights restricted because within the meaning of the law they are not a person.
Why are you ignoring sperm and ova? They are alive; they are part of the human race - they are unborn human life. Just as much as a fertilised egg.
3 June 2009, 12:59 amPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Why do leftists hate unborn children?
Bzzzt - false assumption. We do not hate fetuses and embryoes.
We hate putting them in front of actual people. You do know women are people, right?
3 June 2009, 1:00 amHarrison:
Oh didn’t you hear… it’s being called the “politicization” of murder even though nobody is saying Keith Olbermann “caused” violence against troops.
3 June 2009, 4:05 amDana Pico:
The Phoenician wrote:
We’ve said that before, anout other classes of people: need I link Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v Stanford?
They are incomplete entities, which will die naturally if not united.
We’re not; I am saying that they should be equal. But if they are equal, the life of one outweighs every other concern short of life for the other.
3 June 2009, 6:30 amEric:
Not so. The Holocaust was totally legal under Nazi law, yet I’d not hesitate for a second to call those who ran it murderers. I know you want to be all “logical” and stuff, but sometimes plain ol’ Common Sense takes precedence, ya know?
3 June 2009, 8:10 amEric:
So, slavery would have been OK if the slaves had simply been treaded more humanely?
3 June 2009, 8:14 amPerry:
Dana, you are not making logical sense here, as you arbitrarily attempt to draw the line here:
“They [ovum and sperm] are incomplete entities, which will die naturally if not united.”
Let’s first review a few facts of life.
A blastocyst (fertilized egg in early stage of cell division; 16 cells; so-called “stem cell”) is a dependent entity and will die naturally if not implanted.
An implanted embryo (up to eight weeks after fertilization) is a dependent entity and will die naturally if removed from the placenta.
A foetus up to 18 weeks is a dependent entity and will die naturally if removed from the mother’s body. It is therefore not viable.
A foetus from 18 to 22 weeks is a dependent entity and has about a 50% chance of survival if removed from the mother’s body.
A foetus from 22 weeks to birth is a dependent entity and will survive if removed from the mother’s body.
A foetus becomes a baby at birth and is no longer dependent on its mother for survival.
So where does one draw the line on abortion?
Your decision at fertilization, Dana, is just as arbitrary as the Roe decision at viability. Then from about 22 weeks on, the decision is left to the states.
Dr Tiller was operating within the law. What right within the law do you and the terrorists have to interfere with his practice, to the point of now having murdered the man.
Of course, Dana, I don’t blame you directly for the murder, but it is people like you who initiate inflammatory rhetoric that foments the actions of radicals. When you refer to foetus’s as people or babies, you are generating rage in the minds of less stable people, people who can properly be called extremists, even lunatics.
Therefore it is high time for people like you to act responsibly. Express your anti-abortion position, fine, but avoid the inflammatory words. Don’t you agree, Dana?
3 June 2009, 8:17 amEric:
I don’t. I feel completely indifferent to this shooting. Rates with me on an emotional level about as high as stepping on a cockroach. I’d feel much more sympathy for a stranger losing a pet cat …
3 June 2009, 8:20 amPerry:
Eric: “Not so. The Holocaust was totally legal under Nazi law, yet I’d not hesitate for a second to call those who ran it murderers. I know you want to be all “logical” and stuff, but sometimes plain ol’ Common Sense takes precedence, ya know?
So, slavery would have been OK if the slaves had simply been treaded [sic] more humanely?”
Eric, the people murdered in the Holocaust and the people who were slaves were obviously not foetus’s, so your comparison is totally invalid, and you know it!!!
3 June 2009, 8:25 amEric:
Not to mention, abortion was seen by many as a way to keep the “undesirables” from having more children. You could make a bumper sticker that reads - “Nuke the unborn niggers, faggots, and Jews” and it would sum up rather accurately the sentiments of many pro-abortion people, including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who was active in the “Eugenics” Movement.
3 June 2009, 8:27 amPerry:
Eric: “I don’t [feel outrage at this murder of Dr Tiller]. I feel completely indifferent to this shooting. Rates with me on an emotional level about as high as stepping on a cockroach. I’d feel much more sympathy for a stranger losing a pet cat …”
Right, Eric, this ranks you just a speck below this Scott Roeder lunatic who allegedly committed this murder of Dr Tiller, who was operating within the law, and who was honoring women’s choice.
Instead of this destructive approach, you should be doing something instructive, like volunteering to work with organizations who are helping these women who are faced with this horrific choice, like Planned Parenthood for example. Their first priority is to work to prevent unwanted pregnancy and diseases, counsel women who face a choice, and to facilitate adoption procedures. If the last resort of abortion is chosen by the woman, these women are still in need of support, and PP provides this support as well.
Since you are so concerned, rightly so Eric, see what you can do to help prevent abortions, instead of the inflammatory rhetoric in which you have chosen to involve yourself.
3 June 2009, 8:43 amEric:
Excellent post, Dana. Moral reasoning worthy of Aquinas himself!
3 June 2009, 8:46 amPerry:
Eric: “Not to mention, abortion was seen by many as a way to keep the “undesirables” from having more children.”
Until you give some documentation on this statement, I will regard it a pure BS!!!
3 June 2009, 8:47 amEric:
A slave is not a person. It has no human rights. That was basically the position of the Confederacy. Do you really want to use the same moral reasoning as slave traders?
3 June 2009, 8:50 amPerry:
Eric: “Excellent post, Dana. Moral reasoning worthy of Aquinas himself!”
The “moral” reasoning excludes the rights of the woman, and continues to inflame radicals and lunatics who get their kicks by murdering, attacking, burning, harrassing and the like. There is a documented history of this, and people like you continue to promote it. This is “moral reasoning worthy of Aquinas himself”? I hardly think so.
3 June 2009, 8:52 amEric:
Holy Cow, is this dumb! A newborn won’t last more than a few days without constant care and feeding from its mother. Honestly, what planet are you posting from? Uranus?
3 June 2009, 8:57 amPerry:
“A fertilised egg is not a person. It has no human rights.”
Eric responds: “A slave is not a person. It has no human rights. That was basically the position of the Confederacy. Do you really want to use the same moral reasoning as slave traders?”
Intelligent people immediately recognize that you are attempting an apples and oranges spin here, Eric, equating apples to oranges, that is, equating a foetus to a person. The distinction is obvious, as is your spin!
3 June 2009, 9:00 amEric:
No, but they are all human beings.
The common thread of all three (slavery, the Holocaust, abortion) is they succeeded by convincing people to deny the humanity of their victims.
3 June 2009, 9:01 amPerry:
“A foetus becomes a baby at birth and is no longer dependent on its mother for survival.”
Eric responds: “Holy Cow, is this dumb! A newborn won’t last more than a few days without constant care and feeding from its mother. Honestly, what planet are you posting from? Uranus?”
Now you are not thinking at all, Eric. Anyone can feed and care for the newborn. The mother, although desirable, is absolutely not required!
3 June 2009, 9:03 amPerry:
Eric: “No, but they [foetus's] are all human beings. “
No, again, they are foetus’s, in the early stages of development in the womb, completely dependent on the mother. They are not yet ‘people’.
Eric, words have meanings. You are not free to change their meanings to suit your propagandist purposes on this abortion issue. In other words, find my a dictionary definition that says a foetus is a person, or even a “human being”, and you win the point.
3 June 2009, 9:12 amJohnC.:
If they are not human beings or people what are they? Dogs, cats? If they weren’t human beings you wouldn’t be having this discussion. And words do have meanings which is why you call them fetus’ to try to de-humanize them.
3 June 2009, 10:06 amPerry:
No JohnC, you wish to change the meanings of words for your own political agenda, just like Eric and Dana.
It is a sign of weakness to fall back to propaganda like this.
Instead, support your case by stating something like: I think it is morally wrong to interrupt the development of a foetus within the womb. And you know what: I agree with that!
The challenge then becomes: Do you or I have the right to impose our moral view on the woman herself? I say no!
Your job and mine is to support the provision of pre-natal care and adoption services, in order to make it easier and workable for women facing ‘choice’ to make the pro-life choice and carry to term.
Dana and Eric and a few others on this blog do not understand this approach in moving forward the pro-life agenda.
Is that more understandable now?
3 June 2009, 11:13 amThomas Tallis:
as long as we have people like Eric on the other side, we need never worry about the right to terminate a pregnancy being ended - anybody with any grip on how reasoning works sees the flaws in your arguments; you won’t acknowledge them, relying again and again on appeals to emotion & specious comparisons - game over!
in other words, Perry’s right, but fortunately for the pro-choice movement, most pro-lifers aren’t bright enough to listen to him
3 June 2009, 11:52 amThomas Tallis:
also, in re the ridiculous & offensive Dred Scott comparison - can one of you pro-lifers please send over some fetuses to take care of my plantation? the tobacco’s about ready for harvest.
3 June 2009, 11:54 amh.:
So Perry, by your logic a living thing who is not fully independent(able to care for themselves) are not human beings?
I guess we know were you stand on cripples and retards.
3 June 2009, 12:10 pmpgwarner:
Perry pleaded…
Perry - Medicaid in every state covers all pre-natal care I believe. It will cover well baby care too. Private plans, of course, do also.
I was not aware that any healthy infant goes un-adopted in this country.
You and Eric are doing a great job! Keep it up.
Is that more understandable now?
I think they understand. Dana’s and my church work towards these goals where allowed. It has for a very long time.
3 June 2009, 12:22 pmpgwarner:
3 June 2009, 1:19 pmSharon:
Never heard a woman say she was having a fetus.
BTW, if being able to care for oneself is the essence of personhood, I hope you die before you need others to care for you, since you’ll lose your right to live at that point.
3 June 2009, 4:15 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
But they certainly share one thing in common with unborn children: they were defined as not being really living human beings when it was convenient to do so.
Really, what reason would there be to not recognize unborn children as living human beings that has nothing to do with the convenience of others?
It has been noted that an unborn child is completely dependent upon his mother for life support, and that’s true enough. But a newborn child, of full gestation, is just as helpless and just as dependent upon others for his survival.
You might not be aware of this, but Mr Warner, fully an adult, had a bad automobile accident, and is quadraplegic. He has a few mechanical devices available to him to aid with his comfort and ability to communicate, but without the care of his wife, he’d quickly die.
We have people in nursing homes who’ve lost the ability to care for themselves, who require constant care; are they not human beings?
3 June 2009, 4:21 pmh.:
You’re only gonna get the typical Perry,” you twisted my words” rebuttal. It’s getting tiresome.
3 June 2009, 5:24 pmJohnC.:
TT: There is no political agenda in having a baby, nor in killing one. Unless of course you are a liberal. To liberals EVERYTHING is political from flushing a toilet to drilling for oil. And pregnancies “terminate” themselves, it’s called birth.
3 June 2009, 6:30 pmThomas Tallis:
really compelling reasoning there John C., you have totally won another person over to your cause. I can only imagine how many others you’ve persuaded with the force of your logic!
3 June 2009, 7:17 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
[Sperm and ova] are incomplete entities, which will die naturally if not united.
And a fertilised egg will die if a woman is not willing to carry it, at a significant risk to her own health.
Could you state why a fertilised egg is a “person” and a sperm cell is not as an assertion, please? “An incomplete entity” isn’t sufficient - do you believe amputees are not people?
A slave is not a person. It has no human rights.
A farm animal is not a person. It has no human rights.
A red blood cell is not a person. It has no human rights.
Of the four suspect categories - slaves, foetuses, blood cells, farm animals - I have a logical basis on which to assign “personhood”. A slave is a sentient, thinking being. The other three are not. A slave deserves human rights on this basis. The other two do not. Slavery is wrong and evil. Farming, selling blood and abortion are not.
On what basis do you assign “personhood” to (slaves, farm animals, blood cells, foetuses)? Please be specific on your criteria.
A newborn won’t last more than a few days without constant care and feeding from its mother.
Really? So when a mother dies in childbirth, the baby is automatically doomed as well?
Or is it that we have something called a “society” in which “other people” such as “fathers” can help out when the mother is unable?
No, but they are all human beings.
An embryo is no more a human being than a red blood cell. It is a human organism - “being” is a little more involved.
If they are not human beings or people what are they?
Organisms which are of humans, but not (yet) human beings - such as red blood cells, sperm or ova.
3 June 2009, 7:31 pmDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
Really? You have taken the position that an unborn child is not a living human being. If the “foetus” is not a living human being, why would it be morally wrong to interrupt his development within the womb? If he is just a mass of living tissue that should not be accorded any rights as a person, I cannot see how there would be any moral difference between interrupting his development and trimming your fingernails.
Really? Our society imposes its moral views on people all the time, and I’d guess that you approve of most of them. We make public nudity a crime; that is certainly the imposition of a moral view, given that the sight of anyone’s nude body (other than Mr Tallis’, of course) can’t actually harm anyone else. We have imposed the moral view that it is improper for someone to use insider information to make profits or avoid losses in the stock market, to the extent that Martha Stewart went to prison for such. We have imposed the moral view that our society should feed those who cannot — or will not — work, but taking part of the wealth of others to feed such unfortunates. Your own comments have expressed the view that our society should take from people who have some means, yet might be less than willing to part with their resources, to provide medical and pre-natal care for poor women. We are continually battling between the two competing moral views that our government should not discriminate on the basis of race, even to help a previously discriminated against minority, vis a vis the concept that previously discriminated against groups should receive some sort of preferences to enable their members to overcome the effects of past discrimination.
And as has been noted here, our society has imposed the moral view that Negroes who were held in slavery and not previously considered beings with rights really are living human beings, and that no one may hold anyone else in slavery.
A very great deal of our laws and our societal regulations are based on moral views.
3 June 2009, 7:45 pmDana Pico:
Taking my previous comment a bit further, it seems to me that you (Perry) really are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion, thinking it a usually wrong choice, but are more concerned with the burdens placed on women by pregnancy. In that regard, I don’t like the fact that women may be unwantedly burdened with a pregnancy, but differ with you in my view that such burden, though it may be great indeed, does not outweigh the child’s right to life.
I completely support the right of the mother to give up her child for adoption; if she really does not wish to rear a child, I have no problem with her doing that. But pregnancy is, in the end, a temporary burden, one which is uncomfortable but survivable, one which eventually ends.
3 June 2009, 7:51 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
But pregnancy is, in the end, a temporary burden, one which is uncomfortable but survivable, one which eventually ends.
So is getting your head beaten in. Sure, there’s a chance of dying, and of incurring permanent injury, but head injuries are in the end, a temporary burden, one which is uncomfortable but survivable, one which eventually ends.
Would you object to getting your head beaten against your will?
3 June 2009, 8:31 pmDana Pico:
Actually, under the law in most of our states, you cannot defend yourself with excessive force. If someone hits you upside the head — that’s my Southern dialect coming out — but does not actually threaten your life, you cannot just pull out a gun and shoot him.
Of course, you have pulled up the false dichotomy: not wanting to have your head bashed in is not a situation which requires someone else to die.
3 June 2009, 8:37 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Of course, you have pulled up the false dichotomy: not wanting to have your head bashed in is not a situation which requires someone else to die.
And, of course, you have pulled out a false analogy. A fetus is not a someone else under law.
3 June 2009, 9:29 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
You know, the moderation software would be much better off if it could distinguish the word “a.n.a.logy” from anything involving naughtiness of the nether regions.
3 June 2009, 9:31 pmDana Pico:
The Phoenician wrote:
Nor was a Negro slave for a long time, nor a Jew in the Third Reich or Tsarist Russia, nor an Indian during our westward expansion. So, how were the Maori treated as white men colonized your homeland?
The point is that while an unborn child is not a legal person under American law, he should be a legal person under American law. I wonder how many millions more must die before we recognize that fact.
3 June 2009, 9:38 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Nor was a Negro slave for a long time, nor a Jew in the Third Reich or Tsarist Russia, nor an Indian during our westward expansion.
A negro slave is a sentient human being. A Jew is a sentient human being. A Native American is a sentient human being.
The point is that while an unborn child is not a legal person under American law, he should be a legal person under American law.
*sigh* Why should an embryo be considered any more a person than a sperm cell or red blood cell, Dana?
So, how were the Maori treated as white men colonized your homeland?
If you wanna start pushing that, you better learn of what you speak. Try reading James Belich’s Making Peoples before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
The Maori, the Pakeha and colonisation in NZ is not the same as that of the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in America.
4 June 2009, 12:40 amEric:
The only thing Tkiller “honored” was the almighty buck. Reports are he was bringing in a cool $million a year killing viable babies. 60,000 of them. That’s not quite Hitler territory, but it does start to approach Idi Amin numbers …
4 June 2009, 6:57 amEric:
Anyone who says that Tiller is “honoring” women when he kills their babies (presumably half of whom are female) is about as pro-life as Jack the Ripper!
4 June 2009, 7:01 amEric:
No, Sharon, according to these guys, it’s a “foetus”. So, I guess not only do they want to disguise the killing of unborn babies by calling it something else, they also want to show off how erudite they are, too!
4 June 2009, 7:07 amEric:
And pregnancies “terminate” themselves, it’s called birth.
4 June 2009, 7:11 amEric:
Translation: Be a total wuss, and let my Pro-Death side simply run you over like a steamroller on a wet cigarette butt!
4 June 2009, 7:15 amEric:
Ooopps, sorry, that was JohnC.
4 June 2009, 7:17 amEric:
And that was EXACTLY the legal status of slaves. They were property, beasts of burden, and nothing more as far as the law was concerned. Thanks for making my point for me.
4 June 2009, 7:20 amDana Pico:
The Phoenician wrote:
A newborn baby has very little more self-awareness than an unborn child of the developmental stage at which Dr Tiller thought them to be just tissue to be removed.
And there are many living human beings, well past birth, who aren’t completely sentient: seriously mentally handicapped, Alzheimer’s patients, people in comas. Are they all just tissue to be discarded?
4 June 2009, 7:24 amEric:
Or your brains sucked out while you’re still alive?
(Of course, in your case, no one would notice the difference … )
4 June 2009, 7:27 amPerry:
Sentiency is an important distinction between the unborn and the born which Dana attempts to minimize.
But the obvious distinction is that the unborn, the foetus, has a unique relationship to its mother; it is attached to her, part of her, belongs to her, and is totally dependent on her.
Therefore this biological basis dictates that ultimate choice belongs to the mother with regard to HER foetus.
Ethical and moral issues exist, of course, and can be inferred by others in an attempt to influence a mother’s decision. But the use of terror, as is being condoned, even encouraged by the so-called Christian Right, is way over the top.
Therefore, the ultimate decision must not emanate from the dictatorial Dana’s of this world, simply because it is the mother’s decision to make, and her decision must be respected.
All the inflammatory language we have read on this thread, and elsewhere as well, only makes matters much worse since the resultant terror aims to remove a pregnant woman’s choice. This is tyranny, nothing less.
We cannot allow this terror, this onslaught against a woman’s right to choose, to go on for another single day!
4 June 2009, 9:25 amSharon:
Women typically have choices long before pregnancy, and very few women are ignorant of how pregnancy occurs. To argue that the “choice” is to kill one’s offspring because it is “hers” has a rather barbaric quality to it.
Again, no woman is ever excited that she’s havign a “fetus.” I’ve never known a single woman to refer to her baby en utero as a “fetus” so long as she wanted him/her. Why would that be? The child hasn’t changed. The only difference is how the mother feels about the child. When mothers feel murderous towards their born offspring, we call it murder. When mothers feel murderous towards their pre-born offspring, we call it choice.
And Pho, the difference between a blood cell and a baby is relatively obvious to anyone who has had both. First, a blood cell contains the DNA of the person involved; a baby has completely different DNA, which indicates it is a different being. Second, of course, a blood cell isn’t going to be ejected at a point of completion by one’s body in the way a full-term baby will be. And, finally, a blood cell will never grow up to cause both pride and heartbreak to its “parent” the way children do.
This is a fairly nonsensical threadjack, it seems to me. Women who want abortions justify it as their “right” and argue that the baby is just a “clump of cells.” But every person born since about 1987 has a sonogram picture in his/her baby book to prove he/she was never considered a “clump of cells.” Arguing that a baby is no different from a blood cell is just stupid.
4 June 2009, 10:29 amThomas Tallis:
haha “pre-born”
I do love what a huge failure the attempt to introduce that term into outside-of-the-insane circles has been. do y’all also buy into car dealer logic and call a used car “pre-owned”?
4 June 2009, 11:26 amPerry:
Sharon says: “To argue that the “choice” is to kill one’s offspring because it is “hers” has a rather barbaric quality to it.”
I agree, which is why I personally oppose abortion and would counsel against it. However, I recognize fully that I am not that woman faced with a choice, neither are you Sharon! Therefore, I do not feel that I have a right to force that choice on her, as you do!
And more from Sharon: “Again, no woman is ever excited that she’s havign a “fetus.””
I ignored that when you said it last time, Sharon, but you are just playing with words. The foetus becomes a baby instantly at birth, by dictionary definition, so of course, women have babies! So what exactly is your point? My point is to focus on the meanings of the words we use. Within the womb we have a foetus, not a baby. Verify this with the dictionary, if you will.
Still more: “When mothers feel murderous towards their born offspring, we call it murder.”
No, Sharon, YOU call it murder, in order to inflame the issue. Please do not put words into my mouth!! The term murder in this context has no basis legally, and you know that very well!
More: “Women who want abortions justify it as their “right” and argue that the baby is just a “clump of cells.””
Yes, it IS her right, according to law. “Clump of cells”? Now you are making this up, aren’t you Sharon? Oh yes, you might know someone who said that, but at the very least you are over generalizing to include all women who choose abortion.
Also, I have yet to meet a person who claimed that a baby (You mean foetus, correct?) is no different from a blood cell. What sort of circles to you associate with, I’d like to know?
4 June 2009, 1:02 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
First, a blood cell contains the DNA of the person involved; a baby has completely different DNA, which indicates it is a different being.
Like a cancer cell?
Second, of course, a blood cell isn’t going to be ejected at a point of completion by one’s body in the way a full-term baby will be.
Ah - so it’s *birth* that makes a baby a person, is it?
And, finally, a blood cell will never grow up to cause both pride and heartbreak to its “parent” the way children do.
A sperm or an ova also has this potential.
As I’ve said, you need to define exactly what your criteria for “personhood” is, and show how this is relevant.
4 June 2009, 8:58 pmCraig:
But, back to the original point of the post. Federal marshals are being assigned to abortionists and Leftist talking heads are warning about “pro-life” rhetoric causing Tiller’s murder. They have been silent on the murder of a military recruiter by a Muslim recruit. There has been no mention of John Murtha, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Charlie Rangel, Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama or any of the other “public servants” and the ways in which their over-the-top rhetoric is helping recruit Islamofascists. Obama made an almost immediate statement about the Tiller murder. It took him over 48 hours to mention the slain serviceman. Even then, I’m sure his teleprompter finally said, “hey dumbass, don’t you think you oughta say something? You know, that commander-in-chief thing? I know sympathy for a soldier doesn’t come naturally but, as usual, I’ll put the words up and you just read and look sad.”
edgycater.blogspot.com
4 June 2009, 9:00 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
But, back to the original point of the post. Federal marshals are being assigned to abortionists and Leftist talking heads are warning about “pro-life” rhetoric causing Tiller’s murder. They have been silent on the murder of a military recruiter by a Muslim recruit.
Apart from, you know, the ones talking about it. But we can ignore those if you need to make a rhetorical point or two, right…?
4 June 2009, 9:13 pmThomas Tallis:
They have been silent on the murder of a military recruiter by a Muslim recruit.
this is a lie btw - not a misrepresentation, not an oversight: a lie. everything you say after it I ignored, because I saw that you were lying.
4 June 2009, 9:15 pmEric:
You, Sir, are a great big fat liar. NO ONE in either the Christian and/or Pro-Life community has condoned or encouraged this assassination. If you don’t believe it, go read my original comment on the other thread, where I flat out stated the shooter deserved life in the SuperMax, if not the death penalty.
Go take your dishonest “arguments and shove ‘em right up Uranus, you Douche Bag!
5 June 2009, 9:28 amEric:
Agreed. It reduces the unborn baby to the status of property, and nothing more. Basically, it’s the same definition that makes a slave (i.e., property of its owner, with no “rights” at all).
And these Pro-Aborts sneer at us for pointing out that both abortion and slavery succeeded by denying the humanity of the victims!
5 June 2009, 9:35 amEric:
Well, let me intruduce you to Pho, who in Comment # 69, said this:
Why should an embryo be considered any more a person than a sperm cell or red blood cell, Dana?
5 June 2009, 9:38 amThomas Tallis:
Have you not been on the internet over the past week? Do I have to link to the relevant sources before you’ll admit that comments threads across the pro-lifeosphere are full of “he got what he deserved” comments? are you really gonna be that stubborn, instead of admitting that your movement is full of people who can’t control their anger?
5 June 2009, 9:49 amDana Pico:
Perry wrote:
OK, Perry, why do you personally oppose abortion? You’ve spent considerable time here telling us that an unborn child is not a sentient being, and doesnot qualify as a living human being; as our Phoenician friend has noted, an unborn child is not a legal person with rights.
But if an unborn child is simply a mass of tissue, “part” of the mother’s body, I’m not sure why you’d be personally opposed to abortion any more than you’d be personally opposed to trimming your toenails.
Hazarding a guess, I’d say that, to you, an unborn child really is more than a mass of tissue, that an unborn child really does have importance. Given that this thread started with the murder of Dr Tiller, who is most famous for performing very late term abortions, we were referring to unborn children who are closing in on full gestation, and not children who are at the early stages of gestation.
This sets you apart from Mr Tallis or our favorite Kiwi Kommenter, neither of whom has made the first nod in such a direction. Somehow, some way, the unborn child has some importance to you, and really ought to be born alive.
Yet, you support laws which allow women to kill them.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting you here, but it seems to me as though you believe two things: that the unborn child is important, and that the pregnant woman has a right not to be pregnant if she doesn’t wish to be. If my reading of you is correct, you are holding two contradictory views.
So, my question is this: given that a normal pregnancy is, by definition, a temporary situation, why do you believe that the rights of the pregnant woman to be unburdened of her pregnancy earlier trump whatever importance the unborn child has? There is no disagreement by anyone here that a woman has a right to surrender her child for adoption if she chooses, so the burden of an unwanted pregnancy is solely the burden of pregnancy; it need not continue further into an obligation to rear her child.
5 June 2009, 10:34 amDana Pico:
Mr Tallis wrote:
In a comment on another thread which turned into an abortion discussion, Perry noted that there have been nine, and only nine, murders of abortionists in the United States since Roe v Wade, which was decided 36 years ago. It’s kind of difficult to say that one murder every four years constitutes the pro-life movement being “full of people who can’t control their anger.”
5 June 2009, 10:39 amDana Pico:
Mr Tallis wrote:
What part of Eric’s statement is a lie, Mr Tallis? Unless I missed it, there’s no article on the subject on your fine site? The victims were military recruiters — more specifically, privates who volunteered to help at a recruiting station, rather than the recruiters themselves — and they were shot by a convert to Islam.
5 June 2009, 10:45 amPerry:
Dana asks: “So, my question is this: given that a normal pregnancy is, by definition, a temporary situation, why do you believe that the rights of the pregnant woman to be unburdened of her pregnancy earlier trump whatever importance the unborn child has?”
You have asked the critical question, Dana! You have also earlier in your post accurately described my position on abortion: Against it, but defer to the woman’s choice.
We have two rights to consider here, the right to life of the foetus, and the right to choice for women. A decision must be made.
Since we do not know the circumstances involved in a given pregnancy, we cannot make a law that takes into consideration every possible circumstance.
Roe is the best attempt made at doing so to date, by drawing a line of demarcation, permitting abortion up to the point of viability, the first trimester, then after viability, the second and third trimester, leaving the abortion decision to be decided by the individual states.
Underlying Roe is the concept that a woman’s right to choose supersedes a foetus’s right to life in the first trimester. In the second and third trimesters, again, it is left to the individual states to decide.
Thus, in Roe, this concept becomes applicable before viability, but not after, depending on individual state laws.
I think you knew all this, nevertheless, it is worth restating, as I may have some misunderstanding of Roe that needs discussion.
While remaining personally against the practice of abortion at any time in the pregnancy, I recognize that there are circumstances regarding the health or welfare of the foetus and/or of the mother that would prescribe abortion. Therefore, a choice, that is, an abortion decision has to be made by the woman.
Thus, the short answer to your question is that the woman’s right to choose an abortion supersedes the foetus’s right to life, in my view.
5 June 2009, 1:46 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Also, I have yet to meet a person who claimed that a baby (You mean foetus, correct?) is no different from a blood cell.
Well, let me intruduce you to Pho, who in Comment # 69, said this:
Why should an embryo be considered any more a person than a sperm cell or red blood cell, Dana?
You’re not very smart, are you Eric?
A dog is different from a blood cell.
A dog should not be considered any more a person than a blood cell.
However, in this case a dog is closer to “personhood” than a blood cel because it is closer to sentience. Which was the point of my question, which you were conspiciously unable to answer.
Were you deprived of oxygen as a child or something?
5 June 2009, 5:33 pmEric:
Except a newborn is basically the same as an 8 month unborn baby when it comes to sentience. So that argument fails.
No, the real argument is the location of the baby. Outside the mother, it is a full human being, protected by law, and deliberately killing it would be Murder One, punishable in some states with the death penalty. Inside the mother, it’s just a blob of flesh, has no rights or humanity, and is totally fair game for execution, including the execution by torture that is Partial Birth Abortion.
So, Pho, Tommy, Perry et al, which would you prefer - to be waterboarded or partial birth aborted, i.e., to have your skull drilled open and your brains slowly sucked out WHILE YOU WERE STILL ALIVE AND CONSCIOUS???
7 June 2009, 8:52 amThomas Tallis:
Eric, did you know that showing people that your feelings are very strong about an issue isn’t a good way to get your point across? Let me ask you this: should any creature whose intelligence is at least as great as an 8-month fetus enjoy protection under the law? Will your argument be based on potential to develop? What if that potential is absent? Do you oppose contraception?
To answer your question, I would prefer to have my skull drilled open. Too much pressure in there as it is.
7 June 2009, 9:11 amDana Pico:
One wonders what Mr Tallis would say if he had heard that his neighbor had tied down his German Shepherd, used his Ryobi 18-volt cordless drill to bore a hole through his skull, and then his Sears Craftsman Shop-Vac to suck out the dog’s brain. After all, no one (seriously) argues that a dog is a sentient creature.
7 June 2009, 9:23 amEric:
Well, that’s because in your case there wouldn’t be any brains to suck out, so you wouldn’t even notice the difference!
8 June 2009, 7:53 amEric:
As opposed to responding to an act of cruelty like a soulless robot?
That’s one reason we suspect you left wingers are full of it when you rant and scream over waterboarding. You’re not genuinely morally outraged, you just pretend to be as a Talking Point. If you are blase about using real torture to murder an innocent unborn baby, then why should we assume your supposed “kompassion” for mass murdering terrorists is anything other than manufactured?
8 June 2009, 7:57 am