Anti-Choice Terrorism

There were lots of young people in the crowd, and at the microphone, for Monday evening's spirited rally in Union Square to honor Dr. George Tiller. It was quite a contrast with the last gathering occasioned by the murder of an abortion provider, the candlelight vigil at Columbus Circle in l998, after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. Back then, the crowd was small and middle-aged and rather dispirited. This time, people were awake and angry.

It's about time. Time to demand federal legal protection for abortion rights. Time to demand that law enforcement take seriously the violent anti-abortion underground. Time for doctors to show some spine, defend their colleagues who perform this necessary service to women and reintegrate abortion into normal medical practice. Time for women to come out of the closet and talk about their abortions, so that people will realize that the woman who terminates a pregnancy is their wife, their mother, their sister, their friend.

It's time, too, to stop the pretense that the "debate " over abortion consists of two equally extreme positions, and that wisdom resides in the mushy middle, where everybody disapproves of abortion except when they want one for themselves or someone they care about. There's only one set of extremists here, the one that uses language like "babykiller," " Nazi," "murderer," and "death mill," kidnaps and murders providers and clinic workers,burns and bombs clinics and drives cars into them, posts pictures of clinic workers and their families on the internet, and harrasses patients on their way to get care.

Only one side writes like this about the murder of Dr. Tiller:

"But I also know joy. Not the shallow type of joy but a deep resonating joy. I feel joy that no longer will this wicked man slay the judicially innocent. I feel joy because justice, albeit of a rough variety, was visited on someone who so thoroughly opposed a culture of life and who worked so assiduously to spread the culture of death. I know joy because the truth of Scripture that those who take up the sword shall die by the sword is seen as authoritative. I know joy because I know that no longer will Dr. Tiller be sucking out the brains of people, or torturing people with saline or dismembering people in utero. How could a sane person not feel joy at the death of a mass murderer and a terrorist?"

backwaterreport/Covenant News

That's Bret MacAtee, Michigan pastor and Constitution Party activist.

People mock the word "choice" --it's consumerist, euphemistic, wimpy, calculated. But one thing you can say for it: It honors the individual conscience. If a desperately ill pregnant woman wants to risk her life to give birth, if she wants to carry an anencephalic fetus to term so it can die in her arms, or have her rapist's baby, or become a mother at 14, or produce octuplets, pro-choicers are not going to compel her to abort. Pro-choicers don't go around lecturing girls and women that they will blame themselves forever if they have a baby they may not be equipped to raise well. They don't paint gory pictures of the horrors and dangers of childbirth to scare pregnant girls and women into ending their pregnancies with a quick and safe termination. They don't tell women Jesus is going to send them to Hell if they sacrifice their futures to the whims of a wayward sperm -- although they might mention from time to time that the Bible nowhere mentions abortion. Pro-choicers don't blow up churches or assassinate the leaders of Operation Rescue.

Only one side wants to force women to live by its so-called morality, and only one side murders and bombs to make its point. Only one side has a terrorist wing.

In the days to come, let the public discussion acknowledge that.

Comments (186)

1. It IS an undeniable point, Ms Pollitt.

   What is it now? EIGHT murders since the late 80s of abortion providing doctors? Plus dozens of death threats?

   And what's the tally of pro-choicers killing or even threatening to kill Wanda Franz or even Randall Terry?

   (Perhaps "intensively interrogate" Terry....given the Right's standard for terrorism suspects...but not death!)

   Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:27am

2. How has hatred, anger and senseless violence centered on a group that will literately stop at nothing, murder included. Especially, in the name of a loving God and his son Jesus who had not a single word to say about abortion. What hubris allows someone to presume to know what is in the heart of another? What pain which defies understand is present in a young person, who is raped, possibly tortured, confused and lied to by a parent? Who could know that in another? We treat wounded people first then find out the circumstances. Accidents are dealt with as a matter of course. But in sexual accidents we name the injured person a perpetrator, who should have prevented the incident. Years ago we made it legal for the matter of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy to be terminated so that an child would not result from an act that was not intended to produce a child. -- a living human being (fetuses are not) doomed to live out life not planned for, not viable and not loved. We arranged a way to treat this accident. Legally, lovingly, carefully and with great concern for the people involved in the accident. In a hospital with trained personnel. We made it protected by law. How can we now call on the name of God to justify murdering a physician who has dedicated his life to the service of mankind? This is a shameful misuse of a loving God's name. IT MUST STOP. Each of us must surround and protect (literally) the men and women who give their lives to protecting our health. We must do it today. We must speak out Guard and protect. Follow the President action in urging the police to increase their vigilance. We must turn off the hatred that comes from the air waves that WE OWN. They are surely shouting 'fire' in a public place. That is ILLEGAL.

   Posted by whiteswan at 06/03/2009 @ 08:37am

3. I just have to say something here. Jesus wouldn't send anyone to hell for an abortion. Hell is a place where God isn't. I think the only way there is to ultimately reject the Lord. I mean, why would anyone want to be with someone they don't know for eternity? However, there's that guy on the third cross who acknowledged Jesus and was granted eternity.

   Now about the so called word on the Christian street concerning abortions. What pastor Bret MacAtee said is awful. As a Christian I would never ever stand behind such hateful rhetoric. As well, manipulative tactics to sway potential moms. It is "the goodness of God that leads [us] to repentance." (Repentance meaning to change our minds and hearts about something.) No one on this earth coerced me or forced me to become a Christian.

   But, whoever said "the Bible nowhere mentions abortion?" Huh? Consider Psalm 139, particularly verses 13, 15 and 16. I'm just saying. A person's a person no matter how small. KJV excerpt: "You have covered me in my mother's womb; my substance was not hid from you when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; your eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in your book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

   Posted by abee at 06/03/2009 @ 08:42am

4. Unbelievable, another, the 5th posting on the doctor's killing!

   Is The Nation now THE Pro-Killing (er...Choice) Ranting Rag?

   Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 09:39am

5. Advise to TN: You have too many columnists.....repeating each other....diversity is good, even among Lefties!

   Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 09:40am

6. Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 09:40am

   Yes, I'm sure when the "Sotomayor is a racist" comments were flying about at The Weekly Standard, National Review, American Thinker, Fox News, etc., etc., etc....

   you were complaining about the lack of diversity.

   Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 09:53am

7. ....at The Weekly Standard, National Review, American Thinker, Fox News, etc., etc., etc....

   Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 09:53am

   Sometimes, actually quite often now in your Age of Magic, your stupidity has been unbound totally.

   Those outlets you cited, are not ONE entity even if they are on the Right, did that occur to you when you penned them? Didn't think so!

   Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 10:11am

8. yes, so many postings on abortion, and Happy has all the time in the world to visit each and every one.

   "Plus dozens of death threats?"

   dozens?? try hundreds.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:26am

9. "and that wisdom resides in the mushy middle, where everybody disapproves of abortion except when they want one for themselves or someone they care about"

   so, so true.

   Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:27am

10. Let's hear an honest voice from the pro abortion side instead of all the usual shrill demogoguery.

    Camille Paglia

    < Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body... Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

    But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism.

    Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.>

    http://tinyurl.com/6cb4t3

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:31am

11. "and that wisdom resides in the mushy middle, where everybody disapproves of abortion except when they want one for themselves or someone they care about"

    so, so true.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:27am

    Wrong, the majority of Americans disapprove of abortion

    <More Americans "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" for First Time

    Also, fewer think abortion should be legal "under any circumstances"

    by Lydia Saad

    May 15, 2009

    PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.>

    http://tinyurl.com/ov8tkx

    And the same poll shows that the same switch has occurred among women with 49% now pro-life to 44% pro-choice

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:40am

12. antisocialist, you completely missed katha's point. they are opposed to abortion EXCEPT WHEN THEY NEED ONE. that's what you little poll left out: for instance, "are you opposed to abortion when you don't need an abortion?"

    and your posting of camille paglia is so incredibly ironic, and even stupid, that it makes my head hurt.

    camille paglia has made a career of standing up to liberal feminists (like myself), and i enjoy reading her, but she has taken many stances, to which many i am opposed.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:51am

13. it's much like your quoting of jonathan turley. "let's see if i can find the one liberal who takes a stand against all the other liberals, and i will therefore prove that all of those other liberals must be wrong."

    well, it doesn't really work that way. you need to look at the merits of the argument.

    paglia claims, in an extremely loose, metaphysical way, that nature has a "plan"? that women have some sort of biological determinism within them to procreate, and that any attempt to resist that determinism is an urge to overcome nature's overriding "fascism"?

    ok, ok, i get it. i've read all of her books, and she is a decent writer (she ain't no de beauvoir, but i digress)

    but let's look at what reality has borne out, shall we?

    "ms. darladoon, your fetus has a severely deformed body and brain, it will live maybe 6 months, have several diseases, and you may die in the process of giving birth."

    let's print THAT story, shall we? and not the deranged, pseudo-intellectual ms. paglia?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:55am

14. the same poll could be made about the war:

    "are you pro-iraq war if YOU don't have to fight in it?"

    bill kristol: "sure!"

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 11:06am

15. Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 10:11am

    So going back to last week, we'd see ONLY ONE article or editorial on Sotomayor in the Weekly Standard or National Review.....that right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 11:07am

16. BTW, HAPP...before you get to drag the thread completly off-topic.

    You "hint" a lot, but what EXACTLY is your view on abortion and making it illegal?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 11:08am

17. antisocialist,

    The Gallup poll was not only skewed (it had equal numbers of dems and repubs), but had changed the wording from previous polls. It simply asked people of they, personally were pro-choice or pro-life.

    Per Steve Sinsinger, "Just days after Gallup published the results of their survey, CNN was in the field with an abortion question, but with substantially different verbiage. This question went to the heart of the public's desire to overturn Roe. The question posed by CNN was as follows:

    "The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?

    "The results? Contrary to the other polls would not even begin to describe it. Only 30% of the respondents took the ostensibly "pro-life" position of wanting to overturn Roe, while 68% were opposed to a Roe reversal."

    What does this say? Many Americans may find abortion "icky" and disapprove of it, but they want it to remain a legal option. Just in case. Or, as noted before, the mushy middle.

    Posted by drluba at 06/03/2009 @ 11:15am

18. "51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice."

    this is PRECISELY what pollit meant by the "mushy middle"

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 11:16am

19. Getting ready for my lunch date w/Rush......

    I've said multiple times over 3+ years.......I'm vehemently against 3rd-trimester abortion and it should be outlawed. In the rare cases of woman's live endangered by carrying to term, something needs to be worked out to ascertain that medical opinion.

    I'm NOT for outlawing abortions during the first 2 trimesters; though it is seriously wrong!

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17am

20. posted by KATHA POLLITT on 06/03/2009 @ 07:23am

    I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote, both intellectually and emotionally.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/03/2009 @ 11:42am

21. I am pro-choice, but I don't think that this article is especially helpful.

    Basically, it's an extended ad hominem argument, as follows: one side of the abortion debate produces a (very small) number of murderers and arsonists; therefore, it is wrong.

    One can be opposed to abortion and otherwise live out progressive ideals in a way that would put even Ms. Pollitt to shame (Dorothy Day, anyone?). We can - and should - be rightly outraged by Dr. Tiller's murder without engaging in guilt by association.

    Posted by iamcfar at 06/03/2009 @ 11:45am

22. antisocialist, you completely missed katha's point. they are opposed to abortion EXCEPT WHEN THEY NEED ONE. that's what you little poll left out: for instance, "are you opposed to abortion when you don't need an abortion?"

    and your posting of camille paglia is so incredibly ironic, and even stupid, that it makes my head hurt.

    camille paglia has made a career of standing up to liberal feminists (like myself), and i enjoy reading her, but she has taken many stances, to which many i am opposed.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 10:51am

    1. I can't leave out what isn't asked. Can you cite a poll that asks that question? So, I repeat that the question is nonsense because it is pure leftist rhetoric.

    2. I said that I cited Paglia because she is one of the few pro abortion people who is honest enough to admit that abortion is murder.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:57am

23. I so wish that the pro-choice movement would take control of the language in this debate and start refering to anti-abortion folks not as pro life but as anti choice, and in this case, anti-choice extremists.

    I am pro-choice and I am for life - quality life that is. I want every life that is brought into this world to be wanted and loved and I want it cared for with quality health care, good nutrition, adequate housing in a safe community that is vibrant with job and educational opportunities.

    I am for the respect for life that recognises that the terminally ill are entitled to end their life when the pain of living is too much to bear; that there are far worse things in life than death.

    When the debate is couched as pro -life and pro-choice, those of us who support a woman's right to choose are in a compromised position from the start. Words matter and we should choose them wisely. The debate here is pro-choice and anti-choice. Let's start framing it that way and take some control away from those who would have us back with back alley butchers.

    Posted by sthaw at 06/03/2009 @ 12:00pm

24. The results? Contrary to the other polls would not even begin to describe it. Only 30% of the respondents took the ostensibly "pro-life" position of wanting to overturn Roe, while 68% were opposed to a Roe reversal."

    What does this say? Many Americans may find abortion "icky" and disapprove of it, but they want it to remain a legal option. Just in case. Or, as noted before, the mushy middle.

    Posted by drluba at 06/03/2009 @ 11:15am

    The results on that poll are skewed by the nature of the question.

    I am a passionate supporter of the pro-life movement for over 30 years. However, I don't believe in overturning Roe v Wade as a solution to the problem. I am on record here that you must change the heart of people toward the unborn rather than impose it by law. I know of many others in the pro-life movement who share my view. probably one of the most well known is columnist Cal Thomas.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:05pm

25. When the debate is couched as pro -life and pro-choice, those of us who support a woman's right to choose are in a compromised position from the start. Words matter and we should choose them wisely. The debate here is pro-choice and anti-choice. Let's start framing it that way and take some control away from those who would have us back with back alley butchers.

    Posted by sthaw at 06/03/2009 @ 12:00pm

    What an absurd attempt to manipulate dialogue. Your moral position is compromised based upon your stand.

    A more accurate redefinition for we on the pro-life side is either anti-murder, or anti-infanticide. Thus instead of pro-choice, we should probably re-label you as pro-murder, or pro-infanticide.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:09pm

26. The passage you quoted, "abee," can be interpreted a number of ways. It would of course help if you used a more modern and accurate translation of the original Hebrew, rather than the KJV. Here is the New Revised Standard Version (1989):

    "For it is you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them yet existed."

    This says nothing whatsoever about the personhood of a fetus or an embryo. It does, however, suggest that God is both omniscient and prescient, that is, knows everything and sees the future. As a person, I am arguably no more the same as "my unformed substance" was before my birth than the original "formless void" was the same as the heavens and the earth before God created them.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:15pm

27. June 01, 2009

    Religious Devotion Does Not Impact Abortion Decisions of Young Unwed Women

    Sociologist finds that factors such as grades and parents' education are more influential than religious involvement for pregnant teens and young adults who face abortion decision

    WASHINGTON, DC – Unwed pregnant teens and twenty-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools, according to sociological research published in the June issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

    "This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy," said the study's author, sociologist Amy Adamczyk, an assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2009 @ 12:29pm

28. In order to find explicit prohibitions of abortion in the Christian tradition, we have to look outside Scripture. One of the books that "didn't make the cut" when the Bible was being assembled was the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles," also called the "Didache."

    According to the classical historian Elaine Pagels, the author of the Didache and his like-minded contemporaries issued moral warnings "against what they regarded as the everyday crimes of pagan culture, including sex with children, often slave boys, abortion, and killing newborns." She quotes the text as follows:

    "You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not have sexual intercourse with boys ... you shall not practice magic; you shall not murder the child in the womb, nor kill newborns ... you shall not turn away the destitute."

    Pagels continues: "... the author, like Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, urges his hearers to 'be perfect.' but, UNLIKE Matthew, the Didache explains that 'being perfect' suggests 'bearing the whole yoke of the Lord' -- that is, obeying the whole divine law. Also, unlike Matthew, this anonymous follower of Jesus adds, more practically, 'If you cannot [be perfect], do what you can'."

    Source: Elaine Pagels, BEYOND BELIEF: THE SECRET GOSPEL OF THOMAS (New York: Random House 2004), pp. 15-16.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:30pm

29. "Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue."

    For "abortion," Camille Paglia could have substituted "the slaughter of animals for meat" with equal accuracy. But as anybody knows who has read her chaotic screeds, Paglia is concerned with neither equality nor accuracy.

    Nobody claims that a fetus or an embryo is a "clump of insensate tissue." However, nobody claims that a pig, a cow, a lamb, a chicken, or even a fish is a "clump of insensate tissue" either. Yet most of us eat meat from these animals, and why? Because they taste good.

    We all agree that it's generally wrong to kill people. However, we need to define what we mean by "person." The embryo-rights fanatics confer personhood upon fertilized egg cells, which is like conferring chickenhood upon fertile eggs.

    I believe most of us can agree that personhood is a higher standard than this. You aren't a person merely because you possess a complete set of human DNA -- because in this case, not only abortion, but also appendectomy, would be the same as murder. I say: Personhood is what a creature attains who has a functioning human brain. But this is the very last thing that develops in a fetus.

    With a better understanding of what we are biologically, I believe our definition of personhood will also be refined. We will therefore never regard even the most primitive embryo as absolutely worthless. However, we will also never treat a fetus, however well developed, as a being whose life must be preserved even if its mother must die.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:50pm

30. However, we will also never treat a fetus, however well developed, as a being whose life must be preserved even if its mother must die.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:50pm

    That's a false choice. Most pro-lifers, myself included do not oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. At most you are probably talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of those in the pro-life side of the issue. Those are extremists who are not really representing Christianity.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:00pm

31. Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:31am

    Camille Paglia speaks for Camille Paglia. Certainly not for me. And I am about as left as left can be without being a neo-con. Some of the things she says, like government should be out of the realm of the personal, I agree with and that has traditionally been a conservative thing to say. Ask Barry Goldwater. Other things she says, like the left being afraid of saying it's murder, I disagree with. And calling it murder is just a scare tactic to keep women afraid; no one wants to be accused of murdering her own child.

    I am so tired of the Religious christian Right giving lip service to the idea of keeping government out of our personal lives, except for abortion, gay marriage, teen pregnancies, freedom of religion, etc. Most Religious christian Right people want everybody to be just like them. Anyone different should be cast out of society because they won't make it to their christian heaven. I have no desire to go to a heaven filled with narrow-minded bigots who thought they knew everything while still on earth. Personally, I doubt Jesus wants those kind of people in his heaven, either.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 1:31pm

32. "So, I repeat that the question is nonsense because it is pure leftist rhetoric"

    in other words, "i can't answer that question, because it would implicate my wife, my sister, my mother, etc."

    "I said that I cited Paglia because she is one of the few pro abortion people who is honest enough to admit that abortion is murder"

    as you like to say, "the courts have decided that your view is incorrect."

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 1:53pm

33. Abortion is the termination of a potential life. That is the truth no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.

    You can lie and pretend that isn't true. But you are simply lying to yourself. And you can shroud the issue in "womens' rights" if you want - to the delight of those who know abortion "rights" are really just a cover for the genocide of minorities and the poor.

    I whole-heartedly agree with LL when he states, "that you must change the heart of people toward the unborn rather than impose it by law."

    Darla, you should chill. No one is going to take away your right to terminate millions of minority and poor humans before they have a chance to live. The courts support your culture of death. You should be happy!

    As for Tiller's murderer, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Tiller's personal and legal termination of an estimated 60,000 potential human beings - all for money - does not warrant his murder.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:11pm

34. While no sane human could feel anything but repulsion at the hate-mongering--and, in this case, slaughter of a medical profession--this leftist feels compelled to say: the messaging for the pro-choice position needs to be improved. Indeed, each case Ms. Pollitt cites provides a logical rationale for abortion. But the tacit progressive position counts as much, if not more: that abortion, indeed family planning, should be government subsidized; and that abortion is an easy choice. I paraphrase Secretary Clinton: abortion should be legal, but it should be rare.

    Though I have always supported a woman's right to choose, it is not hard to see why the glib nature of some abortion activists goads the right--because it often goads me, a card-carrying progressive soul.

    Posted by DavidAndrusia at 06/03/2009 @ 2:22pm

35. Actually, Katha, lots of people in that "mushy middle" you deride are sincere about their qualms over abortion (I'm not, I have nothing against abortion). And sure, they'll piggyback on the oh-so-brave efforts of you and your fellow Second Wavers when they need an abortion for themselves or someone they care about. What would you have them do? Not get an abortion unless they're willing to publicly denounce the Religious Right? By that logic, no one should get a union job unless they denounce the Taft-Hartley Act and the open shop. How absurd!

    If you're so worried about the status of abortion in this country, Katha, go to medical school and learn to perform them yourself.

    Posted by DP in TC at 06/03/2009 @ 2:37pm

36. I'm NOT for outlawing abortions during the first 2 trimesters; though it is seriously wrong!-----Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17am

    So the hard-core pro-lifers lose guys like HAPPY, a die-hard ditto-head, if they go "too far".

    Interesting, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 2:50pm

37. "Darla, you should chill" posted by freiheitz 6/03/2009

    What? A woman actually got into the fray on an issue and went over the allotted number of posts allowed for a woman on any one thread? Don't see you telling the other endemic guys on these threads to chill, freiheitz.

    And no one denies that most abortions are a termination of potential life. The point is that the woman carrying the fetus gets to decide whether it becomes an actual human life.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 3:07pm

38. You're absolutely right about this; here's a way to fight it: http://bit.ly/1dbSKn

    Posted by pmobserver at 06/03/2009 @ 3:10pm

39. "So, I repeat that the question is nonsense because it is pure leftist rhetoric"

    in other words, "i can't answer that question, because it would implicate my wife, my sister, my mother, etc."

    "I said that I cited Paglia because she is one of the few pro abortion people who is honest enough to admit that abortion is murder"

    as you like to say, "the courts have decided that your view is incorrect."

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 1:53pm

    Darla, sometimes you are so full of yourself, that you cannot conceive that any actually fully believes different than you do.

    I said the question is absurd because there is no poll nor is there likely to be that asks that question; thus you only have your own bias and no objective evidence.

    The fact is that most women do not get abortions. Of that there is no dispute.

    The fact is that most Americans think that abortions should rarely happen according to consistent polling.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 3:17pm

40. "In the Abortion Debate, Only One Side Murders the Other"??

    Now THERE'S objectivity for you. Little wonder I rely on the enlightened ruminations of Pollitt for all my social beliefs.

    NOT!

    Posted by YEH-LIU-TA-SHIH at 06/03/2009 @ 3:30pm

41. Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 3:07pm |

    Haha, no, Darla can and does post a lot, cdlepthien, and I've been exchanging opinions and insults with her for about 3 years...

    I think Darla should chill because her need to terminate the unborn is not under threat. Not because she's a woman or wrote a lot of posts on an issue.

    And as for your statement, "And no one denies that most abortions are a termination of potential life" is false. But I'm glad at least you and I can agree on that.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 3:35pm

42. Abortion is the termination of a potential life. Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:11pm

    As is menstruation, masturbation, and contraception.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

43. posted by freifeitz at 06/03/2009 3:35pm

    Sorrry if I misinterpreted.

    However, women's right to terminate their pregnancies absolutely is under threat. Also, to say that legal abortion is a plot against minorities & the poor is ludicrous - poor women typically have a more difficult time getting an abortion than middle class + women, for obvious reasons.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

44. "Abortion is the termination of a potential life. That is the truth no matter how you try to sugarcoat it."

    Not only abortion is the termination of a "potential life." This is true also of every menstruation cycle and every nocturnal emission, not to mention masturbation. In fact, the destruction of a single drop of semen terminates millions of "potential lives."

    Therefore, if "potential life" is our measure, "freiheit1," men are by far the worst offenders, because simply by being men, they waste many more "potential lives" by far than women do.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 4:00pm

45. It's really a matter of whether or not you think women have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

    Posted by VaLiberal at 06/03/2009 @ 4:23pm

46. As is menstruation, masturbation, and contraception.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 3:44pm

    In this Age of Magic, immaculate conception is the norm?! That's Change U Can Believe In.....

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 4:47pm

47. CSN&Y....in this Age of Magic:

    You who are on the road

    Must have a code that you can live by

    And so become yourself

    Because the past is just a good bye.

    Teach your children well,

    Their father's hell did slowly go by,

    And feed them on your dreams

    The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

    Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,

    So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

    And you, of tender years,

    Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,

    And so please help them with your youth,

    They seek the truth before they can die.

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 4:51pm

48. "Therefore, if "potential life" is our measure, "freiheit1," men are by far the worst offenders, because simply by being men, they waste many more "potential lives" by far than women do"

    been saying this for years, and it's a fact.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 4:54pm

49. You know, there are some interesting parallels between the modern-day pro-life movement and the anti-slavery "abolitionist" movements of the 19th century.

    Both movements believed they were doing "God's work" and both had their share of radicals. One notable example, John Brown, not only operated out of Kansas but is today part of a large mural emblazened inside the state capital building.

    Of course today Brown would be labled a "domestic terrorist" for his murderous assaults against pro-slavery communities. Indeed, he did meet his end at the end of the hangman's rope. But, ironicaly, his private war was a precursor to the larger one that would soon engulf the country--one that he would eventually have been seen as being on the "right" side of.

    Slavery and abortion are alike in that manner. It would seem most likely impossible to find compromise when one side is utterly convinced of it's own moral superiority. They believe that, in time, the "rightness" of their position will be made self-evident just as it was for those abolitionists so long ago.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/03/2009 @ 4:58pm

50. Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 3:44pm Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 4:00pm

    I am amazed that you can suggest that menstruation and masturbation are the same as abortion in the context of "terminating a potential life". You are both smarter than that, so I can only assume it is a quip.

    It is that fertilization thing you're choosing to ignore. I wonder why? Haha, naw, I don't.

    But please know, I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just believe it is immoral and evil. God gave us all free will.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 5:03pm

51. "The fact is that most Americans think that abortions should rarely happen according to consistent polling."

    I haven't conducted a poll myself, "antisocialist," but I believe most Americans also think that alcoholism should rarely happen.

    Consequently, some ninety years ago, our Constitution was amended to do do alcohol consumption exactly what the religious right wants to do to abortion, namely prohibit it in most cases, with few exceptions.

    The result was not that alcohol was no longer consumed, but that criminal syndicates took over the alcohol trade, with disastrous results. In 1933, the Constitution was amended again, and the "Noble Experiment" came to an end.

    Unfortunately, the effects of abortion prohibition would be similar, though the practice of abortion would be taken over not so much by criminals as by desperate women themselves. We know that this is true, because we have a long historical record. Before abortion was legalized in 1973, thousands of women every year were seriously injured or killed by badly performed, often self-inflicted, abortions.

    Another thing that we know is that abortion is not much less common in countries where it is prohibited than where it is allowed. (Check data researched by Jodi Jacobson, an expert on this topic.) It is least common where abortion is legal and where comprehensive sex education is provided to all teenagers.

    I believe I have demonstrated in my previous postings that I do not shy away from the question of what an embryo is, or what a fetus is, or whether it is more than just a "clump of insensate tissue." Now the task falls to the other side to address the question of how they would wash their hands of the predictably deadly consequences of abortion prohibition.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 5:05pm

52. .....in time, the "rightness" of their position will be made self-evident just as it was for those abolitionists so long ago.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/03/2009 @ 4:58pm

    The Thurgood Marshall (and Sotomayor) philosophy: "Do what you think is right and let the law catch up." Hmmmm....I think I'm buying into this sort of `magic' more and more.

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 5:07pm

53. Those outlets you cited, are not ONE entity even if they are on the Right, did that occur to you when you penned them? Didn't think so!

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 10:11am

    So, with so MANY rightie outlets for venting bilge, it wouldn't seem the "media" is all that overwhelmingly liberal, then, does it?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/03/2009 @ 5:10pm

54. All the babbling of religious fanatics aside, we do not live in a country with laws dictated by the religious edicts of the American Taliban. Reproductive freedom is not just about economic and social realities but is also about the basic rights of people to control their own bodies despite what some priest may or may not say. If women cannot decide when they are going to have abortions, then men cannot decide when they are going to use prophylactics. It's the same damn thing - control of people's personal lives by religious dictates will put us on the same level of certain Islamic countries these same religious fanatics babbling on this page like to rail against.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

55. So it's fertilization that counts, eh, "freiheit1"? So what I wrote earlier in this thread applies to you.

    "We all agree that it's generally wrong to kill people. However, we need to define what we mean by "person." The embryo-rights fanatics confer personhood upon fertilized egg cells, which is like conferring chickenhood upon fertile eggs."

    Now, if I made you an egg-salad sandwich with fertile rather than unfertilized eggs, would you prefer that I call it a chicken-salad sandwich?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

56. 'You know, there are some interesting parallels between the modern-day pro-life movement and the anti-slavery "abolitionist" movements of the 19th century.'

    Undoubtedly so, "vertigoskippy." And I would add that this parallelism extends to the animal-rights movement.

    Of course, there is also a place where the parallelism breaks down. The most critical difference is that neither embryoes nor (most) nonhuman animals are able to speak or to fight effectively for their own liberation. Instead, their liberation must be won on their behalf, by human beings who act in their interest. Contrast this with the abolition of slavery, which involved -- and arguably required -- the ideas, words, and ultimately also the battle-willingness of the slaves themselves.

    I also do not believe that the right to life will or can be extended, by VIOLENT means, any further to include, as full equals, any creatures other than PERSONS as I have defined them above. It is possible that someday, gradually, in the course of further cultural and technological development, we may NONVIOLENTLY become a species that does not kill any animal, no matter how primitive, in order to live, and that manages its own reproductivity without having to kill even a single-celled embryo.

    However, I believe that this time is a long way off. I also believe that people who commit murder in the name of fetus rights push this time farther away, rather than hastening its arrival -- as John Brown's pre-emptive war arguably did for the emancipation of the slaves.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 5:40pm

57. Yes, fertilization is what counts, Jake.

    At that point, something unique happens, doesn't it? Yes, we both know it does.

    But I appreciate all your talk about chicken salad! I can't wait for dinner this evening!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 5:54pm

58. Posted by syfriendly at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

    I really do understand where you are coming from in your post, syfriendly, although I disagree.

    You only see it from the standpoint of "religious dictate" and not from the standpoint of morality. A morality obvious to many of us. A morality not borne of coersion, as you appear to imply.

    And your "american taliban" label only illustrates your ignorance of both the taliban and Christians.

    Clearly, no one is going to tell syfriendly what to do and how to live his life! That's for sure! Good for you, seriously!

    But did you ever stop to consider the positive role of Christianity in our founding documents and very concept of liberty?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 6:05pm

59. So the hard-core pro-lifers lose guys like HAPPY, a die-hard ditto-head, if they go "too far".

    Interesting, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 2:50pm

    No politician, or anybody for that matter, will `lose' me because of abortion!

    It's the Economy for the already born, rules!

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 6:10pm

60. Clearly, no one is going to tell syfriendly what to do and how to live his life!

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 6:05pm

    Sure thought he's a Big Gubber guy and wants to be constricted as to kind of cars to drive, source of electricity to use, how to politically correct his way through life......

    Posted by Happy at 06/03/2009 @ 6:15pm

61. As a person, I am arguably no more the same as "my unformed substance" was before my birth than the original "formless void" was the same as the heavens and the earth before God created them.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Your comparison fails in that the "void" you speak of is inanimate physical material only. You are not nor have ever been simply that according to biblical scripture on the subject which you quote in part.

    Ezekiel 37:14 (New American Standard Bible)

    14"I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'" Zechariah 12:1 [ Jerusalem to Be Attacked ] The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him,

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 6:34pm

62. As a person, I am arguably no more the same as "my unformed substance" was before my birth than the original "formless void" was the same as the heavens and the earth before God created them.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Your comparison fails in that the "void" you speak of is inanimate physical material only. You are not nor have ever been simply that according to biblical scripture on the subject which you quote in part.

    Ezekiel 37:14 (New American Standard Bible)

    14"I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'" Zechariah 12:1 [ Jerusalem to Be Attacked ] The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him,

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 6:34pm

63. Why is it that the loudest opponents of abortion also routinely vote against politicians who will help poor single mothers, rather than advising them to work two jobs like Bush? Which he did. Do you really think this will advance your cause? Supporting republicans because who SAY that they are pro-choice makes you victims of a lie. They want the U.S. to be a place were life and freedom are severely devalued so the wealthy can control the population and have lots of cheap poor single mother baby labor. It's plain as day to everyone except a tiny minority of romantics who are in love with believing happy stories about impossible fantasy lands where individual interest will save the world.

    Stop the killing of the born children in the savage wars we wage first, to establish some credibility. Then save the fetuses. Ok?

    You will need to FULLY support wide ranging and expensive social support systems to eliminate abortion in N. America. If a mother believes that the village will greet her and her child with open arms AND help them achieve what they need to thrive then you will see abortion rates fall to tiny numbers. Until then, if you think you can have it both ways you are making fools of yourselves. It doesn't matter how many doctors you murder. If someone really wants to do something, you can't stop them. You have to help them want to through compassion. Compassion in both the emotional sense and community resource allocation sense of the word. You have to pay to play in America. Remember that at the polls.

    Posted by Milhaus at 06/03/2009 @ 6:58pm

64. "Did you ever stop to consider the positive role of Christianity in our founding documents and the very concept of liberty? " - posted by Freiheit1 6/03/2009 @6:05pm

    The role of Christianity in the US political tradition tends to be overemphasized by Christians. Several of the most influential founding fathers were Deists or Unitarians - having rejected the proposition that Christ was the son of God. They were influenced by cultures & literature ranging from the ancient Greeks & Romans to the Iroquois federation. Also, if you read the Cambridge Medieval History, you will find the Anglo-Saxons & Danes characterized as individualistic to a fault, and I think some of that spirit carried through English culture generally. There are many, many, Christian countries that never evolved anything like the concept of individual rights that informed the founding of the United States.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 6:59pm

65. um "pro-choice" is supposed to be pro-life in my above statement IRT republicans.

    Posted by Milhaus at 06/03/2009 @ 6:59pm

66. You are of course free to interpret Scripture as you wish, "BigPasture," but I still see no compelling reason to assume that the prophecy of Chapter 37 of the Book of Ezekiel is about human fetuses or embryoes. Indeed, I believe there is a rich tradition that interprets the book of Ezekiel as a vision of humanity's shared FUTURE, not our past at all.

    The 37th chapter of Ezekiel is, after all, the source of the gospel tune "Dem Dry Bones":

    "Ezekiel connected dem dry bones Ezekiel connected dem dry bones Ezekiel connected dem dry bones I hear the word of the Lord.

    Your toe bone connected to your foot bone, Your foot bone connected to your ankle bone, Your ankle bone connected to your leg bone, Your leg bone connected to your knee bone, Your knee bone connected to your thigh bone, Your thigh bone connected to your hip bone, Your hip bone connected to your back bone, Your back bone connected to your shoulder bone, Your shoulder bone connected to your neck bone, Your neck bone connected to your head bone, I hear the word of the Lord!

    Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk aroun' Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun' Dem bones, dem bones, gonna walk aroun' I hear the word of the Lord!"

    Whatever else this may mean, I don't think it's about embryology.

    Although I know of no popular tune derived from the Book of Zechariah, Chapter 12, I'm pretty sure that this is about the future, too. Surely you have noticed that what you have quoted is only the introductory clause of a paragraph that concerns the destiny of Jerusalem.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/03/2009 @ 7:20pm

67. Jesus tells us that to hate is to murder, which shows how highly he rates motive. On that Christian basis a case could be mounted that not only is the pro-life but also the pro-choice rhetoric equally responsible for Dr. Tiller's murder.

    It has been reported here that Tiller's killer has suffered from episodes of mental illness so my suggestion is that he is likely to have been influenced by the hate filled rhetoric of the pro-choice side as much as that coming from the quasi-Christian portion of the pro-life movement (just need to look at the crazy stuff he was exposed to to know it was not Christian).

    One only has to read some of the articles in this magazine that demonize its favourite political foes, such as Cheney, to see that "murder" (in the Christian sense) is alive and well amongst those whom one would expect to be fervently pro-choice.

    That sort of brings us back to para 1 and Union Square where the crowd, including young people was "awake" and "angry". The question to ask is are they not thus providing more fodder for the killing of another Dr. Tiller by an approach that is almost guaranteed to stimulate another crank to commit a similar atrocity.

    One can be pretty sure that this crank was by this act also in his mind"killing" all those opponents, from the pro-choice side, who no doubt had ridiculed his twisted hate filled philosophy over perhaps a long period of his life.

    Of course the pro-abortion crowd may be quite happy to help provide the environment that produces such crazed killers and to offer up the Dr. Tillers in the greater cause.

    So how does that stack up? Anti and pro-choice terrorism alive and well in the USA?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/03/2009 @ 8:02pm

68. "anti & pro choice terrorism alive and well in the United States?" posted by lrjones4 at 06/03/2009@8:02 pm

    a) What pro-choice terrorism?

    b) As far as us non-Christians are concerned, people who identify themselves as Christians are Christians. And plenty of them have incited violence towards abortion clinics & doctors who perform abortions - directly, not just by implication.

    c) If defending a woman's right to choose or mourning a murdered doctor are incitations to murder, then anyone defending anything they believe in is an incitation to the people who disagree with them to murder them. We have laws protecting freedom of speech (and laws against murder) for a reason.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 8:26pm

69. My wife and I had a profoundly retarded son - he never spoke a word or walked - he never sat up - he never looked at me - for all I knew he was deaf and blind as well. I could only wish he had Downs! Every meal he ever ate we fed him. Every diaper he ever wore we changed him. Every foot he ever moved from where he was lying we carried him. Every time he went to bed we carried him upstairs. Every morning we carried him downstairs. We became a test marketing project for Depends adult diapers - we got 'em free and had to let the manufacturer know what we thought of them. He lived to be ten years old. We did nothing but worry about what was going to happen to him. Then one day he simply woke up and died.

    Michael is gone now. So is my wife. She never went to church. She was not a believer. If there is a God in his heaven then she is sitting under a massive oak watching her perfect 10 year old son play with his 12 year old brother (yes - we lost two boys to birth defects) in the green grass under a sunny sky with a cool breeze moving through his hair mop - "Mommy look at me!! Look at my kite!!" and she will wave and smile.

    Talk is cheap. It's a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents. Too many of you fine religious folk feel so good about yourselves for being "pro-life", then you smile and go on to your next "Fellowship" meeting or casserole supper. My wife and I didn't know Michael was going to have such severe disabilities and that he would be total care for his entire live. Technology is much improved today. If you knew a Michael was coming YOUR way, would you at least want a choice? No one should have to bear a Michael at age 30 if they don't want to.......that's choice.

    Posted by toritto at 06/03/2009 @ 8:30pm

70. Posted by toritto at 06/03/2009 @ 8:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    From the heart, and well put. Nobody could argue with you -

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/03/2009 @ 8:34pm

71. Talk is cheap. It's a lot easier talk about having a kid like Mike than to be the parents

    Posted by toritto at 06/03/2009 @ 8:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I'm sure good Christian parents like the Palins, Sarah and her husband prayed much about their decision which the media and others disparaged. Right decisions bear some unseen consequences and sometimes feel burdensome or involve a lot of pain as well as joy and fullfillment.

    Thank you for your witness!

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 8:47pm

72. a) What pro-choice terrorism?

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 8:26pm

    Inciting terrorism?

    The suggestion is that if you don't want trouble you don't poke a stick at a mad dog.

    The almost violent polarisation on so many issues in the US, including this one, doesn't happen to the same extent in other countries. You probably need to turn the volume down, stop using hate speech and begin talking to the opposition in a rational manner. Where there are non-negotiable items that is where the exercise of tolerance is hardest but most necessary.

    "c) If defending a woman's right to choose or mourning a murdered doctor are incitations to murder, then anyone defending anything they believe in is an incitation to the people who disagree with them to murder them. We have laws protecting freedom of speech (and laws against murder) for a reason."

    It depends of course on how one mourns and how free speech, in defence of the aborting woman, is exercised. Over here "free speech" is being threatened by proposed legislation, in some states, to outlaw "hate speech". As I understand the motivation for that initiative it is because certain ethnic groups have been targeted with "hate speech" , from various verbal and written sources, which so it is claimed, has led to serious assaults on members of that group and also by them in response to vilification.

    Thus as in the pro and anti abortion issue it takes two to tango.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/03/2009 @ 9:38pm

73. <blockquote>That's a false choice. Most pro-lifers, myself included do not oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. At most you are probably talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of those in the pro-life side of the issue. Those are extremists who are not really representing Christianity.<\blockquote>

    And that is a false statistic.

    The percentage of those polled who say there should be no abortion for any reason INCLUDING the life of the mother pretty consistently comes in between 10 and 20%. This is approximately 30% of those who wish to ban most or all legal abortions.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    Posted by crowepps at 06/03/2009 @ 10:30pm

74. Posted by lrjones 06/03/2009@9:38pm

    I'll almost guarantee you that it was rhetoric from the anti-choice movement, not the pro-choice movement, that incited this murder. I have heard very little in the way of vituperative attacks or hate speech from the pro-choice movement. The worst thing the pro-choice movement has to say about the anti-choicers is that they are against women controlling their own bodies and destinies. (In regard to the anti-choicers who are also against contraception, this certainly seems to be the case. ) Typically the pro-choice movement doesn't call the anti-choicers as a whole murderers and sinners, etc., etc., except, of course, when some of them murder someone. Or bomb a clinic. Yeah, it's too bad things are so polarized, but blaming the victim isn't going to help.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 11:03pm

75. For some reason, I sense that men, not women, have written most of the responses to Ms. Pollitt's post.

    Gentlemen, if you're so concerned about abortion and personhood, then take equal responsibility for your sexuality, campaign for a birth control pill for men, work for a family friendly workplace, stop sulking when a woman refuses to take her husband's name, stop using sexist language, start defending every mother's right to continue her career and be economically independent, start doing 50% of the housework and childcare, and stop viewing the male as the norm of humanity. A fundamentalist theologian actually had the gall to say, "Since the male is the representative of the human race, we call it mankind."

    Sorry guys, but anyone who can't give birth can never be the "representative" of the human race.

    I could say a lot about the misogyny of the world's "great" relgions, including the ones that ordain women, but I don't have the time.

    Posted by ktrig at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17pm

76. krtig,

    everyone here is male, except myself.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 11:27pm

77. Posted by ktrig at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    If you call a man a murderer for causing a woman to miscarry an unborn child at any state of development as in my state, what do you call a WOMAN or an abortionist? How is pro-choice NOT a mans concern?

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/04/2009 @ 12:08am

78. hamsher sums it up nicely:

    "I'm not quite sure why Blitzer decided he had to preface this clip with the caution that it was "disturbing." I'm disturbed by freaks with plastic fetuses demagoguing abortion for the benefit of little kids and people in Iraq having limbs blown off, but I sort of figure that's what I'm getting when I turn on the news.

    We can't have a real conversation about the predicament of women seeking third term abortions because it's "icky." Opponents have decided it's just the result of promiscuous hippies suddenly bored with the idea of pregnancy in the middle of the 7th month, and that's the story that carries the day because nobody wants to talk about what really happens.

    Just remember that when you hear about polling that shows how Americans "feel" about abortion. Our elite media doesn't want to talk about the icky truth of what it's like to have a non-viable pregnancy, and people are left to draw their conclusions from the limitless airtime given to the well-funded "baby killer" fetishests who have zero interest in what these women really go through."

    Posted by darladoon at 06/04/2009 @ 12:13am

79. Yeah, it's too bad things are so polarized, but blaming the victim isn't going to help.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/03/2009 @ 11:03pm |

    Blaming the victim is another thing and I guess he was prepared to take the risk as he had been shot in the arms once before.

    Rather my reference was to how someone, who it is reported to have a mental illness of some sort, was sucked into a "war" between pro and anti choice warriors (anti s getting "angry" is the clue about how seriously they take the conflict). You may be right and perhaps the trial will indicate whether that or the alternative is so but that sort of hatred is likely to be directed against the perceived supporters as well.

    The idea that this is the work of a crazed crackpot rather than a product of Christian influences seems to be supported by the reality that there are about 225 million Americans who call themselves Christian and this sort of targeting of abortion providers is, relatively, about as rare as hen's teeth. If Christians (assumed to be anti-abortion) were so malevolent toward abortionists we would expect quite a bit more of this sort of activity than actually happens.

    That is why equating this with terrorism of the sort we see in the ME has no legs as an argument and I expected someone, who had their thinking cap on, to challenge me on that ground. viz both sides may have some culpability but pro and anti produced terrorism it isn't.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 01:31am

80. Terrorism. Plain and simple. Violent acts meant to sway a political position.

    It used to be that the right wing was a'feared of terrorism, they thought all stops should be pulled, laws should be bent and broken, morality should be stretched to it's limits to protect "The American way of life". Anybody with ANY connection to ANY SUSPECTED radical Muslim group was investigated and many were detained or deported.

    there is a growing list of terrorist acts against those providing legal medical treatment to people that do not want the federal govt making their life decision. (It also used to be that the Right Wing did NOT want the federal govt doing that. but, as pointed out above, they make that switch as needed) For decades there have been arsons, bombing, acid attacks, stabbings and shootings at medial facilities and the homes of doctors. If these attacks had been carried out by Muslims the Right Wing would be apoplectic with their calls for the federal government to step in, arrest, detain, waterboard and punish the religious fanatics.

    But, they see their acts of terrorism as "freedom fighting".

    Damn, life is ironic.

    Especially when one is a blazing hypocrite able to justify anything in the name of some mythical being brought to us by some bearded guys in caftans. It used to be that the Right Wing was terrified of bearded guys in caftans. Now they cite them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:48am

81. "The idea that 9/11 is the work of a crazed crackpot rather than a product of Muslim influences seems to be supported by the reality that there are about .7-1.2 BILLION people who call themselves Muslim and this sort of targeting of imperialists is, relatively, about as rare as hen's teeth. If Muslims (assumed to be anti-American) were so malevolent toward Americans we would expect quite a bit more of this sort of activity than actually happens. "

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:53am

82. Time for a new Amendment to The Owners MAnual- DOMA- the Denial of Masturbation Act

    We musty save ALL potential life. We have been compelled by The Almighty to not waste our seed, after all.

    If some guy in a mud hut said so, it must be true.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:56am

83. our founding documents and very concept of liberty?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/03/2009 @ 6:05pm

    Do you mean something like the liberty to make your own choices about how you will live your life for the next 20 years +?

    Freedom ain't free. Sometimes you have to kill 300,000 Arabs and their children, sometimes you have to abort.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 07:01am

84. "The almost violent polarisation on so many issues in the US, including this one, doesn't happen to the same extent in other countries."

    This interesting observation from "lrjones" made me wonder: Why is the abortion issue so polarized here?

    Here's my explanation, which of course cannot be proven. In most other democratic countries, the plutocrats (on one hand) and the traditionalists (on the other) -- the latter including the extreme anti-choicers -- belong to TWO SEPARATE political parties, the former to a "liberal" party and the latter to a "conservative" party. In the United States, which has only two viable political parties, both plutocrats and traditionalists belong to the SAME party, the Republican Party.

    This means that in the United States, more than elsewhere, the traditionalists' cause is frequently aided and amplified by the plutocrats' money.

    If this explanation is valid, then part of the solution to our polarization problem is a more accurate electoral system, that is, proportional representation. Perhaps with proportional representation (such as Instant-Runoff Voting), we could at last separate the plutocrats from the traditionalists, thereby separating the dollars from the extremists.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/04/2009 @ 07:21am

85. everyone here is male, except myself posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @11:27pm

    well, I had gone to bed by then, but if you're referring to the thread as a whole, how did you come to that conclusion?

    posted by lrjones at 06/04/2009@1:31am The entire point of Katha Pollitt's article was that there is an organized movement to shut down abortion providers, and some of the people in it believe that it is ok to use any means necessary. Crabwalk said it at 06/04/2009 @6:48am: "for decades there have been arsons, bombing, acid attacks, stabbings and shootings at medical facilities and the homes of doctors."

    The guy who shot Dr. Tiller may have been a crackpot, but he was not an isolated crackpot in the same sense that say, the assassin of John Lennon was an isolated crackpot. And although I agree that the word terrorism gets over-used, often to obscure real issues and positions, this was terrorism.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 07:52am

86. Sorry...just had an HYPOCRISY OVERLOAD!

    "Darla, sometimes you are so full of yourself, that you cannot conceive that any actually fully believes different than you do."----Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 3:17pm

    ROFLMAO!

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 08:01am

87. Here is an interesting article from NAF:

    HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

    "Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal, there has been an organized campaign by anti-abortion extremists which has resulted in escalating levels of violence against women's health care providers. In an attempt to stop abortion, anti-abortion extremists have chosen to take the law into their own hands. What began as peaceful protests with picketing moved to harassing clinic staff and patients as they entered clinics and eventually escalated to blockading clinic entrances.

    This foundation of harassment led to violence with the first reported clinic arson in 1976 and a series of bombings in 1978. Arsons and bombings have continued until this day. Anti-abortion extremists have also used chemicals to block women's access to abortion employing butyric acid to vandalize clinics and sending anthrax threat letters to frighten clinic staff.

    In the early 1990s, anti-abortion extremists concluded that murdering providers was the only way to stop abortion. The first provider was murdered in 1993. Since then, there have been six subsequent murders and numerous attempted murders of clinic staff and physicians, several of which occurred in their own homes."

    The latest data collected on this site was for 2007. So if we add Dr. Tiller that is 7 (seven) murders since 1993. So the average is 0.5 killings per year in that period. Only Crabs , or culture warriors, could inflate that miniscule figure into right wing terrorism.

    Further you will find from this source that there has been a sharp decline in clinic attacks in the last decade or so. Which indicates that the "this is terrorism" peddlers are either ignorant or are playing us for fools.

    http://tinyurl.com/lqazej

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:16am

88. in the name of a loving God and his son Jesus who had not a single word to say about abortion.Posted by whiteswan at 06/03/2009 @ 08:37am

    Yes, true. And the reason there was nothing said about Abortion is that everywhere in the Bible that mentions anything about the beginning of life it is always referred to as being "at birth". So evidently there was no need to mention anything about Abortion. As no life existed until the moment of birth.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 09:23am

89. So if we add Dr. Tiller that is 7 (seven) murders since 1993. So the average is 0.5 killings per year in that period.---Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:16am

    "Geez, it's ONLY a lousy seven murders....what are you guys getting so worked up about???"

    I guess we could disband the Secret Service....only ONE actual assassination of a President in the 20th Century...Reagan survived and Ford wasn't even hit. No big deal.

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 09:31am

90. The definition that life begins at birth would serve us as well now as it did then. It removes any doubt as to when life begins and is not in contradiction to scripture. Which simply means that these crazed christian zealots would not have a leg to stand on and would just be seen as the murderers, terrorists and busy bodies that they truly are.

    So maybe the Catholic Church and some other christian sects should state that officially "Life begins at Birth". But they won't because they are self interested hipocrites who could care less really about what their precious says or does not say..

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 09:32am

91. Here is the list of "terrorist activities" that the National Abortion Federation (NAF) posts on its web site.

    http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp

    This list also strongly indicates we are dealing with phenomenon that is pretty easily handled by the police in terms of solving the crimes. Don't think there is any need for the FBI to get involved. These guys seem to be pretty easy to find without a sting. Maybe a bit of enhanced interrogation would be in order seeing they are "terrorists". The upside is that we may have that doubt about its effectiveness settled once and for all.

    On a slightly different tack came across this data (whilst searching for the truth on "homegrown right wing terrorism in USA") which sort of shows that it is hard to know how the death rates from "backyard" abortions v post 1993 legal abortions stack up etc.

    Anyway on his pilgrimage this cynic got a lovely insight into how objective American culture warriors really are. But please someone tell me that it is all lies or I'll never trust a pro-choicer again (American or otherwise).

    http://www.themediareport.com/may2007/latimes-abortion.htm

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:43am

92. I guess we could disband the Secret Service....only ONE actual assassination of a President in the 20th Century...Reagan survived and Ford wasn't even hit. No big deal.

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 09:31am

    Yeah Mask, I guess ONLY 7 murders does not a Jihad make. I wonder how many it takes to qualify. Apparently even the F.B.I. does not view it as any big deal. They haven't enforced the FACE Act in years.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 09:45am

93. OED

    Terrorism: 2. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation...

    Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 09:50am

94. I'll never trust a pro-choicer again (American or otherwise). Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:43am

    So I must extrapolate that by this statement you have trusted pro-choicers in the past, but have in some way been disenchanted with them? And then you use the term "Culture Warriors" which seems to indicate that you might support the terrorist enabler Bill O'Reilly. Which seems to indicate that you are more comfortable in the murderous "Anti-Life", oh sorry I mean "Pro-Life" crowd?

    Please excuse my observations if they are incorrect. But you seem to be very confused.

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 09:57am

95. I don't think we can go with life begins at birth. A pregnant woman who is attacked and subsequently the baby dies the attacker is charged with murder, and rightly so.

    Most posting here, with a few exceptions, understand that when the mother's life is threatened that late term abortions should be an option. I also don't believe that anyone posting here is of the mind that abortions should be used as a form of birth control.

    I do have a question for those on the Right here. If a fetus could be easily and quickly removed from a woman who wanted an abortion at any point in a pregnancy, without any lasting physical effects or harm to the mother or the fetus, what should we do with the fetus? Who will take care of the fetus? What will be the costs of doing this and who will pay for it and once the fetus has reached the normal birthing stage who will raise the child when the mother leaves the building?

    Posted by !immutable at 06/04/2009 @ 10:00am

96. "A pregnant woman who is attacked and subsequently the baby dies the attacker is charged with murder, and rightly so. "

    This law is a recent addition to our country. It was added by the anti-choice crowd to enable them to use the new law as "proof" that abortion is murder.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 10:05am

97. Lot's of concern for women that have abortions. Concern over their mental well being and the "moral" hamr caused to the nation.

    Where is this concern over the men and women returning from unnecessary warfare? The concern for those that were told to use torture?

    Absent.

    I will continue to beat this horse till flayed into tiny, charcoal braised bits. Once again the "core values " crowd is turning their own theories on their heads.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 10:10am

98. I don't think we can go with life begins at birth. A pregnant woman who is attacked and subsequently the baby dies the attacker is charged with murder, and rightly so. Posted by !immutable at 06/04/2009 @ 10:00am

    So you would decide that the entire argument of life beginning at birth should hinge on a law that was enacted because of the outrage of murdering a pregnant woman?

    I understand the outrage generated by someone murdering a woman who is pregnant, but don't think they should be charged with 2 murders. They should be given let's say mandatory life in prison or some other additional punishment for assaulting a woman in a family way.

    I don't think it is a reason to abandon the definition that "life begins at birth".

    Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 10:13am

99. "Darla, sometimes you are so full of yourself, that you cannot conceive that any actually fully believes different than you do."----Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 3:17pm

    ROFLMAO!

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 08:01am

    Don't know why it gave you that reaction?

    It's fairly obvious that by my coming here I believe there to be a number of people who believe differently than I do.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19am

100. Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 10:10am

     I agree crabwalk. It does seem more than a little strange that we concern ourselves with the unborn instead of the living. In fact, it is a bit psycho. We have put yound men and women in terrible situations with these useless and unlawful wars. And then we don't give them the care that they need to reintegrate into society again.

     Many will need our care for many years. These are the untold costs of war.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 10:24am

101. Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 09:50am

     Look CD, if that is the intention and I would dispute that it is it has not been effective in intimidating persons like Dr. Tiller. So at least it is not effective terrorism by your definition.

     If you take the time to read the absolute nonsense that these killers imbibe, I think you will soon discover the intention goes well beyond intimidation but rather they act as judge, jury and executioner on behalf of the god of their fevered and twisted imagination.

     There does seem to be a dearth of doctors and clinics that will do abortions in the US but it is exactly the same here in Australia where we do not go to war about it with the enthusiasm you Americans do and there is not "a right wing terrorist" network.

     I saw the US figure of up to 87% of counties (in a state?) that will not do abortion procedures. That may not be because of fear of the "terrorists" but rather many doctors, as in Australia, not being comfortable with destroying in situ fetuses.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 10:36am

102. Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19am

     Larry, it is to late to put on the cup after you have already been kicked in the nuts..

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 10:37am

103. Posted by crabwalk 06/04/2009 @ 10:10am

     Yes, our returning soldiers need more care than they are getting. But on the subject of lack of concern - I'd like to give a passing mention to the Iraquis whose deaths can be attributed to the invasion. They may not be Americans, but they were certainly human.

     Also, if we're going to bring up the already-born, how about the thousands of children who have been born with AIDS this year, in Africa, at least in part because of the Pope telling people it's wrong to use condoms? I bring this up because his thinking is in line with that of many in the anti-choice movement.

     Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 10:38am

104. Please excuse my observations if they are incorrect. But you seem to be very confused.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 09:57am

     No need to excuse yourself but I'm not sure who Bill O'Reilly is, but he sounds like an Irishman and thus should at least have a question mark beside his name. If his data is as sparse, for whatever he stands for, as the pro choice warriors is then you have my permission to change the QM to a cross or better still a line through his name. (But please don't send a posse after him).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 10:49am

105. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 10:36am

     The fact is that many medical students do not want the hassle of dealing with anti-abortionists. Many medical schools have stopped teaching the techniques, not out of moral concern for fetuses, but because of harrasment from terrorists.

     Like the xtian faiths practitioners, doctors come in all stripes when it comes to abortion.

     How many doctors do you know want to go to work with a body guard and flak jacket? Or have their homes blockaded, pets harmed and children harrased?

     All of this has been used to TERRIFY physicians.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 10:52am

106. posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009@10:36pm

     "So at least it is not effective terrorism"

     "Up to 87% of the counties (in a state) will not do abortion procedures."

     And then a completely unsubstantiated assertion that this is because of doctors not being comfortable with destroying in situ life. Do you seriously think that a prolonged campaign of harassment, threats and occasional violence against any doctor who will perform an abortion has nothing to do with the availability of abortion in the United States?

     Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 10:55am

107. OK, LR, you don't know who Bill O'Reilly is, you don't know what it is like to live in a country full of religious zealots. Your ability to enter the debate is diminished significantly if you are tuned into the vitriol coming from these quarters.

     Bubba oh'Really? is a loud mouth right wing blowhard that spews for hours daily on the outrage du-jour faced by those that find themselves "under attack" from such threats as feminists, grandmothers with pink shirts, veterans that disagree with Bush, the dread ACLU and the eco "terrorism" of the ELF. Oops, it must not be terrorism today.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 10:56am

108. Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19am

     Larry, is it not true that if somebody disagrees with YOUR view of Christianity, they "hate Christianity"?

     Now...don't deny it. Because that is the ONLY thing I'VE ever done...disagree with YOUR view of it, and you lay that charge on me.

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 10:57am

109. Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 10:13am

     And if the mother survives but the fetus dies do we charge the perpetrator with assault?

     I am not saying that late term abortions are wrong, I am just saying that we shouldn't even argue about life or not life at this stage. The choice should be there to abort if the mother's life is seriously threatened.

     In war, if what we are told is true, we kill to protect life. The concept is the same. Not arguing for or against war just stating a reason used.

     Posted by !immutable at 06/04/2009 @ 11:01am

110. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 10:49am No need to excuse yourself but I'm not sure who Bill O'Reilly is, but he sounds like an Irishman and thus should at least have a question mark beside his name.

     Bill O' as we are fond of calling him is quite a character. I'm surprised you haven't heard of him down under, you must be way out in outback, bushie. With possibly only intermittent and unreliable internet service due to the mischevious behaviour of a rogue Roo or Wallaby.

     Bill O' wrote a book called "Culture Warrior" and he is in this country despised by most who have any common sense. Goggle him if you get some reliable access to the "Internets". :)

     Perhaps the

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 11:07am

111. Only one side, "kills children". Offer the people protesting abortion clinics a contract to adopt. Let's see who signs.

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:33am

112. I look forward to the day pro-life supporters get behind the "Norplant at Puberty" campaign. Or is every egg precious?

     Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:39am

113. No doubt, eh? They heckled this psychotic moron personally? Gave people the address to HIS house so they could be sure not to miss him as he left for work?

     Nice try, LR, but you've missed not only the bulls-eye, but the entire dartboard.

     Posted by snowball666 at 06/04/2009 @ 08:48am

     Hi Triple6. Didn't forget you but thought I might have to get out of first gear so left you until last. Pity about the dartboard but win some lose some I sez.

     I've had a bit to do with crazies and in my (lay) experience of psychopaths (mostly those high on ice and coming down off the high, which addiction produces symptoms that mimic all sorts of personality disorders.) I've discovered that violent anger isn't always well directed so I'd suggest, humbly of course, that mentally disturbed potential killers don't need "insults" specifically directed at them to fire up. I think you will find that that is a pretty common occurrence with all sorts of mental illnesses, we call that symptom paranoia. I'm not a psychiatrist but my brother is so I ran this one past him on the phone before I posted it.

     However I was really making that comparison not so much to hit the bull's eye on that point but to show, by a bit of irony, how ludicrous it is to equate that sort of criminal activity with a terrorism that has, at least by implication with the more cautious but explicitly by others, its roots in Christianity.

     I can see I'll have to use lol's or funny faces in future but that's a bit un-Australian.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:41am

114. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:41am

     LR, I'd hope YOU could answer my basic questions-

     1. Do you think abortion is "murder"...same as if you killed a born child or even an adult?

     2. Do you favor making ALL abortions, back to conception, illegal?

     3. If so, what punishments would you enact for performing one OR with use of an abortifacient self-indusing one?

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:21pm

115. The longer that I reflect on the consequences of religious belief the more inured I become to the notion Cristopher Hitchens applies in the subtitle to his recent book "God is Not Great", that is that religion really does poison everything. Even my fellow progressives and liberals that argue that "good" religion exists and orient their lives around a fictional tale or mythology to inspire good deeds present a very weak case for religous belief. Think of the tremendous time, energy, and resources devoted to liberal religions that provide no better understanding of the natural world or moral philosophy than scientific empiricism and free inquiry.

     ..simply put it is a poison and an insult to human intelligence.

     Posted by nickscott79 at 06/04/2009 @ 12:21pm

116. the same poll could be made about the war:

     "are you pro-iraq war if YOU don't have to fight in it?"

     bill kristol: "sure!"

     Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 11:06am

     You could pretty much say that if you support war, you support the killing of innocent people, ie collateral deaths is part of war which is part and parcel of the deal. If you accept that, then you too are murdering innocent people. So, why are those people's lives worth less than an unborn fetus's?

     Then, the other point is that these folks who are so damned worked up about unborn fetuses don't give a crap about the unwanted baby that is brought into this world. They self-righteous go to church every Sunday, probably even pay their 10% tithing fee for passing go, and think Jesus would be all for sniping patients needing abortions as well as the doctors performing them.

     Once again, the GOP right to lifer types fall into the extreme hypocritter category.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 12:24pm

117. Only one side murders the innocent.

     Posted by micaiah at 06/04/2009 @ 12:52pm

118. This is a red-herring issue, designed to distrack us from the death and destruction that is being perpetrated against us here at home and in our name and with our blessing throughout the world. Thousands of children live in abject poverty and die of malnutrition and starvation every day. We in the consumer society are bringing about the 6th great extinction of Earth's species, including the children of these species. The homes of Inuit children are sinking into the melting tundra and into the sea. Resource wars are displacing and destroying the lives of millions of children as we tickle ourselves with this debate. And the chance for our own live children and grandchildren to have a life that includes the ability of Earth's life systems to provide for their needs is minimized daily.

     Get a life.

     Posted by aperdat at 06/04/2009 @ 1:06pm

119. Only one side murders the innocent.

     Posted by micaiah at 06/04/2009 @ 12:52pm

     It is impossible to murder a fetus. Life begins at BIRTH. Until there is a person. There is nothing to murder. It is only flesh and bone awaiting a soul. The soul does not enter the body until birth. Consult your Bible.

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 1:06pm

120. Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

     All the people whmo we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan, or those we condemn to death, they were all fetusses once.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 1:14pm

121. The world is chock full of real people with souls, not fetuses running about.

     But somehow the religious extremists on the right care more for souless empty vessels that may or may not be suitable to harbour a soul, than they do actual human beings. Very sad. To the idealogs on the right it is much easier to care about a souless vessel, than it is to actually take responsibility for the needs of real living human beings.

     Once born, the right doesn't care anymore wheather that person is educated, fed, loved, receives medical care when needed or has a future. They only care about a hollow piece of flesh with nobody home...

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 1:19pm

122. All the people whmo we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan, or those we condemn to death, they were all fetusses once.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 1:14pm

     I'm not sure about your sense of humor. I don't know if you are actually serious, or are just pulling my leg here.

     If I knew you better I would assume that you just attempted to make a joke. And you just sent images through my brain of an Army of Fetuses armed with AK-47's running rampant throughout the countryside. Souless creatures dying by the thousands as American soldiers mow them down. Disturbing..

     Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 1:36pm

123. Once born, the right doesn't care anymore wheather that person is educated, fed, loved, receives medical care when needed or has a future. They only care about a hollow piece of flesh with nobody home... Posted by chaoszen at 06/04/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     this is the same as my point above.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 1:55pm

124. I find the idea that life begins at fertilization absurd.

     It is my opinion that the improvement of medical technologies, particularly ultrasound, has made pregnancies seem "human" much earlier. Is a fetus alive? Yes. But is a fetus a human? Not necessarily. Particularly if (as I do) you subscribe to the Neurological View of human life, which holds that humanity begins with recognizable brain activity. This position mirrors the way we define death-- the cessation of brain activity. In gestation, even rudimentary development of a neural system isn't present until at least 8 weeks, true brain activity much later.

     This is complicated, though, & scientific & philosophical. So many anti-choicers take the *simple* stance that personhood (and access to rights) begins at fertilization. However, this raises huge medical ethics issues.

     "The moment of fertilization is not a medical definition of pregnancy & as such represents inappropriate intrusion into the practice of medicine. There is no test available which can determine the moment of fertilization in vivo." (CO OB/GYN Soc.)

     And, even after an egg is fertilized, there are many instances in which it will not go on to a successful pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy, which is the #1 killer of women in the first trimester. Molar pregnancy.

     In these cases, there is a fertilized egg. But it's not an egg that will ever become a baby, & these are situations that REQUIRE medical care, removing the fertilized egg for the health and future fertility of the mother. Should doctors fear to treat these women because someone considers this pregnancy gone wrong a baby? Doctors DO fear it.

     Defining the boundaries of human life, in all its complexity, demands something better than dogmatic religious pronouncements and fear of a vengeful god.

     Posted by mollmeister at 06/04/2009 @ 1:59pm

125. When we choose the life of the one we love now over the life of an unborn child it is death. We shouldn't try to say it isn't. It trivializes it.

     If a premature baby is removed from its mother by c-section and not by natural birth at term is the baby a hollow piece of flesh?

     I agree with most of what Emile and Chaoszen say with regards to how the Right doesn't feel the responsibility to take care of what is alive and here now and what they demand must be protected and allowed to continue at all costs can be ignored at some predetermined stage is wrong.

     Posted by !immutable at 06/04/2009 @ 2:16pm

126. Posted by mollmeister at 06/04/2009 @ 1:59pm

     Something to think about. Very intelligent post.

     Posted by !immutable at 06/04/2009 @ 2:21pm

127. MOLLE

     I simply think that pro-lifers put value on humans or potential humans.

     Well it is rather telling that more and more doctors are REFUSING to go into the abortion buisness. Why do you think that is?

     Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:13pm

128. Well it is rather telling that more and more doctors are REFUSING to go into the abortion buisness. Why do you think that is? Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     why? because nutcases like you shoot and kill doctors.

     all those who brand abortion as murder are complicit in the murder of this fine doctor. it is all of you who have his blood on your hands.

     and all y'all disgust me.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 3:29pm

129. @CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:13pm

     I would have a lot more respect for the placing "value on. . . potential humans" argument if so many of the anti-choicers I know didn't define "potential humans" to mean "at conception."

     Conception or fertilization is NOT a medical term or provable medical concept, but it is being used in a medical context. There is no, I repeat NO, medical test for fertilization/conception. Medically, it is too simplistic to think that conception = human life, as that stance does not take into account the concrete medical complexities of early pregnancy (not even getting into consciousness or personhood).

     But yet. . . any law that stated that a fertilized egg was to receive the same rights as a fully formed human could suddenly make getting treatment for a molar or missed or ectopic pregnancy difficult. These are pregnancies that will never develop. Yet they are fertilized eggs. Oh, and the same legislation could possibly limit access to birth control.

     I have a great deal of respect for life, human and otherwise. I have borne two children and I have suffered pregnancy loss.

     I do not, however, have a lot of respect for a movement that chooses its terms and writes its ballot initiatives so poorly that it puts women at risk from common complications of very early pregnancy and has the potential to limit access to birth control-- our best resource for combating unwanted pregnancy in the first place. If protecting "potential life at conception" means limited birth control options and poor resources for early miscarriage/pregnancy complications, then no thank you. I'll value actual, not potential, life first.

     Posted by mollmeister at 06/04/2009 @ 3:34pm

130. it is very telling that only the abortion providing doctors are being accused of "murder" here..

     what about those millions of women, who asked the doctor for this procedure, or at least his professional services. are they murderers too? of course they, your wives, mothers and sisters, are accomplices to these "crimes". why don't you shoot the women?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 3:46pm

131. Well it is rather telling that more and more doctors are REFUSING to go into the abortion buisness. Why do you think that is?----Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:13pm

     Hmmmmm?...nothing to do with the intimidation and death threats, I'm sure it isn't that.

     Hmmmmm?

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:59pm

132. Why do you think that is?

     Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 3:13pm

     Probably because they don't want right wing nutcases shooting at them from the parking lot or blowing there offices up.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 4:50pm

133. why don't you shoot the women?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 3:46pm

     Emile, Don't give this idiots any ideas (remember that they can't come up with their own)!!

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 4:52pm

134. Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Well if that is your position, that i am complicit in Tillers death....then using that logic people like yourself are complicit in the Soldier that was killed outside a recruiting station in Arkansas.

     Or MAYBE doctors simply refuse to go into that buisness...abortion proviers have been declining since the 80s...and a GRAND total of 6 abortion doctors have been shot and killed in since roe v wade....more have been killed drowning in local lakes on the weekend.

     So it does hold much merit to say they are intimitated by people excercising their constitutional right.

     So be disgusted...i would be disgusted over 60,000 late abortions conducted by the hands of Tiller.

     Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 7:19pm

135. Emile/Wolf

     Your latter posts are just silly nonsensical dribble.....you guys are cool when a ANTI-war extremist murders Soldiers...but outraged over Tiller's killer?

     lol You are ridiculously pathetic

     Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 7:23pm

136. If these cretins were even close to being enlightened, they would know that souls are reincarnated at birth, not at conception. No-one ever says that abortion is good, and everyone admits it is one of the saddest things imaginable. But there is A REASON Christ never mentioned abortion; He WAS enlightened, and He understood the difference between the spirit and the body. If (many if not most) Christians were able to advance to first grade, spiritually speaking, they would be shocked to find some of the wisdom God wants them to have. But as it is they're so trapped in their churches worshiping themselves and their bloated egos that they'll never get out of the darkness.

     Posted by DejaVu at 06/04/2009 @ 8:17pm

137. I am ridiculously pathetic Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 7:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:32pm

138. Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009@3:13pm

     Try to imagine that you are an ob/gyn who is in a regular practice and who thinks that performing abortions is medically appropriate in some circunstances. If you follow through on your opinion as a doctor and a human being, you will be harassed, your family will be endangered, your staff will be harassed and endangered; your patients who are coming in for a pap smear will have to cross a picket line; your pregnant patients will be screamed at, and in short it will be very difficult to make a living.

     I assume that you, CPT, approve of all of this. But to claim that the fall-off in the numbers of physicians willing to perform abortions is solely due to conscience is completely ridiculous.

     Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 9:32pm

139. the recruiter was not murdered because of his service to mankind.neither I or anyone here has applauded the killing. you have nothing to offer here, hence the absurd charges.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:35pm

140. Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     anyone posting here for a time knows that CPT is completely ridiculous.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:37pm

141. AMEN!

     Posted by LJBJB1 at 06/04/2009 @ 10:08pm

142. Posted by ktrig at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     If you call a man a murderer for causing a woman to miscarry an unborn child at any state of development as in my state, what do you call a WOMAN or an abortionist? How is pro-choice NOT a mans concern?

     Posted by BigPasture at 06/04/2009 @ 12:08am | ignore this person | warn this person

     No attempts to provide an answer shows how the distortions of truth about abortion by the Pro-abortionist distorts law and justice as well and promotes paternal bias against fathers and husbands!

     Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 12:08am

143. thanks katha for another great post! thanks for your voice. glad to see all you regulars are still here. hello from beautiful butte, montana. there are some incredible posts on this thread. thanks for all your voices too.

     :)

     Posted by loveloki at 06/05/2009 @ 12:54am

144. I suggest that we simply make all abortion, and all the rights won by the Feminist movement, go away.

     Then women might wake up to what they're losing and begin to fight back.

     Posted by Kristev at 06/05/2009 @ 01:41am

145. By this, I mean, that it seems like this new generation of women don't know what's at stake for them. They have it too easy, rejecting Feminism, giving away their hard-won rights, being tricked into going back into the home sphere. I can see this retrogression actually happening where I live, every day.

     So I only meant that, because they don't understand what they have to lose, this generation is letting their hard-won gains slip away.

     Thus, it seems to me that the sudden deprivation of these gains, a return to the barefoot and pregnant situation, might shock people into standing up. Just because your church says it's bad doesn't mean it's bad. What do men know about what abortion represents?

     By the way, I am very much a fan of Camille Paglia, and I actually agree with roughly 80 % of her positions. But, her argument with Feminists was in the 90's. She is right, abortion is a choice and it is the killing of a child for convience. But you left out her other opinion - that it is a matter of personal responsibility and therefore the Government has no business restricting it. Above all else, Camille is a libertarian in many ways. It's easy to take her quotes out of context.

     Posted by Kristev at 06/05/2009 @ 01:48am

146. 1. Do you think abortion is "murder"...same as if you killed a born child or even an adult?

     2. Do you favor making ALL abortions, back to conception, illegal?

     3. If so, what punishments would you enact for performing one OR with use of an abortifacient self-indusing one?

     Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:21pm

     I noticed your post earlier and it did not seem very relevant to the topic in the sense that either a pro or anti could have had the same response as me. That simply was based upon the limited and declining amount of activity and a consideration of what constitutes terrorist activity and what is purely criminal.

     I did not intend to respond but got to thinking over your questions whilst at work.

     There is no doubt in my mind that we are talking about human life. I would not call killing an adult, in an act of legal Capital Punishment, murder but there is little doubt that it is killing human life. Similarly killing a fetus, where abortion is legal bears some likenesses to CP. The felon, who murdered, is being killed on the principle of a life for a life.

     On what bases do we justify killing a human fetus? If it is save a mother's life then I guess we are using the same justification viz "a life for a life". However beyond that what are the reasons for killing a viable genetically sound fetus? Is it murder in a state that makes abortion legal? Obviously it is not "legal" murder but from an ethical or religious perspective it may well be.

     So given those qualifications I don't see much difference between killing fetuses or children or adults.

     On the basis of those qualifications my answer to your second question is no.

     I'm not into punishments but rather education about the serious responsibility of carrying a human life in one's womb.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 02:15am

147. the recruiter was not murdered because of his service to mankind.neither I or anyone here has applauded the killing. you have nothing to offer here, hence the absurd charges.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     The Soldier was murdered bc he was a US Soldier....the murderer was an ANTI-war extremists. If you dont like me lumping me into that category....then do NOT lump the many mainstream pro-lifers into the company of Tiller's killer .

     Glad you agree that the two are NOT the same...i do not hear Code Pink or other groups condemning the murder of the Soldier, but you do hear prolife groups widely condeming Tillers killer.

     PS Tiller serving mankind? now that is a big stretch

     Posted by CPT at 06/05/2009 @ 03:29am

148. Posted by cdlepthien at 06/04/2009 @ 9:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Never said it was the SOLE reason, but it is a factor...other than the "harrassment" by pro-lifers.

     Or maybe they are simply following the lead of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-FOUNDER of NARAL...who had an awakening if you will and is now 100% pro-life.

     His conversion was due to?? Not religously inspired, but the rather the improved science of ob-gyn that have discovered the heasrtbeats and BRAIN waves of very early stage fetuses.

     I would imagine he is rather embarrasing for the pro-abortion/choice group.

     Posted by CPT at 06/05/2009 @ 03:36am

149. His conversion was due to?? Not religously inspired, but the rather the improved science of ob-gyn that have discovered the heasrtbeats and BRAIN waves of very early stage fetuses.

     in my view this has near nothing to do with the issue, which is one of "who decides?"

     no one has the right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. period.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 07:28am

150. lol You are ridiculously pathetic

     Posted by CPT at 06/04/2009 @ 7:23pm

     No, you are the one condoning premeditated murder, not us. Late term abortions are not murder as much as you would like to say they are, they aren't. Soeth says the Supreme Court of the United States.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 07:47am

151. anyone posting here for a time knows that CPT is completely ridiculous.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:37pm

     Agreed!

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 07:49am

152. I am listening to NPR, and they just played a story about the rules regarding demonstrating near clinics that provide abortions. They played a clip from an anti-choice preacher in which he not only implicitly lauded the murderer of Dr. Tiller, he blamed the anti-harrassment law passed by Congress (ten years ago) for inciting violence against doctors by "frustrating" the anti-choicers.

     Reminds me a little bit of lrjones point that the pro-choice movement is responsible for anti-choice violence.

     Posted by cdlepthien at 06/05/2009 @ 08:09am

153. So given those qualifications I don't see much difference between killing fetuses or children or adults.----Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 02:15am

     So, even if you don't support capital punishment....if you REALLY believe that...

     if a woman takes RU-486 and induces an abortion, should she go to jail for 20 years to life?

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:59am

154. His conversion was due to?? Not religously inspired, but the rather the improved science of ob-gyn that have discovered the heasrtbeats and BRAIN waves of very early stage fetuses.

     Posted by CPT at 06/05/2009 @ 03:36am

     Not true. Early stage fetuses don't have brain waves. They don't even have a rudimentary neural system (by rudimentary, I mean a basic three-neuron circuit) until eight weeks. Human-like brain waves don't have the possibility to occur until after 20 weeks, given how and when the brain develops. I hate falsifications for the sake of making arguments more hysterical.

     All Dr. Nathanson's *formal confession* on his history as an abortion advocate says is, "Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy." That is an opinion. HIS opinion. It is not a peer-agreed scientific standard for the beginning of life.

     Science is all over the board, with many opinion. There are at least five recognized scientific schools of thought regarding when fetal life *begins,* in a human sense, ranging from a few days after recognizable implantation to 20 or 25 weeks after conception.

     Again. Pregnancy is complex. Women are complex. Situations when abortions are considered are complex. And they deserve more than simple judgment.

     Posted by mollmeister at 06/05/2009 @ 09:43am

155. mollmeister

     yes, they do.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 09:48am

156. CPT-The soldier was not murdered by an anti war extremist,but was murdered by a pro war right wing islamic religious extremist.Similar type to our pro war Christian extremists jihadist types..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 06/05/2009 @ 10:53am

157. So, even if you don't support capital punishment....if you REALLY believe that...

     if a woman takes RU-486 and induces an abortion, should she go to jail for 20 years to life?

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:59am

     We don't use capital punishment. I think the most effective argument against its use is that too often persons who were put to death were subsequently found not to have committed the murder or crime which legally warranted death.

     One doesn't have to support its use to see the parallel between the rationale for it and the rationale for killing a viable fetus when it is the only way to save the fetus bearer's life.

     My response to your questions was framed in those terms. And I see that circumstance and possibly the presence of a deformed or unviable fetus as a moral justification for killing that human life.

     However your laws and laws around the world, which legalise abortion, are framed in terms of a woman's rights and for all intents and purposes they are nothing more than a very expensive form of contraception for those who have no qualms about killing fetuses. Thus effectively getting rid of something that is a nuisance to me and encroaches on my lifestyle.

     It is that cavalier approach to the destruction of human life that for me has powerful implications about thepresent moral sickness and self centred nature of our society.

     While that sort of legislation is on "the books" a law abiding citizen's only recourse is to lobby one's political representative to change the law or go public to try to exert influence in various peaceful ways.

     One bright spot is that most doctors don't seem to want to get into the fetus destruction business in your country or mine. Perhaps it has to do with their calling to save lives. Who knows?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:00am

158. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:00am

     Actually, LRJONES, it seems YOU guys have a cavalier approach to life.

     First you claim "abortion is murder"...then when pressed about what punishment to deal out on a "murder charge" (say in the case of a woman taking RU-486 to terminate a pregnancy)...

     you suddenly get all coy and act like "Well, it's not 'murder murder'...naturaly we don't want women going to prison for 20 years for using an abortifacient"...

     and it's suddenly not "murder" anymore?!?!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 11:04am

159. Think R-486 is used up to 3 months. It is legal in most of our states but government approval was held up for some time because of fear of possible side effects.

     Where there are laws as you mention I would not actively oppose them, however if as I suggested, the problem is a morally sick society then, fines, gaol and crackpot killers aren't going to fix that. What is needed is a national moral renewal but how that might be effected is a different topic perhaps more in the realm of religion and a new "Great Awakening".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:15am

160. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:15am

     So again, it's "murder" (with abortion)...

     but you're not concerned with it actually being punished as a murder?

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 11:44am

161. "everyone here is male, except myself."

     Posted by darladoon at 06/03/2009 @ 11:27pm

     ? Last time I checked I have XX chromosomes.

     Posted by mishelley at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

162. you suddenly get all coy and act like "Well, it's not 'murder murder'...naturaly we don't want women going to prison for 20 years for using an abortifacient"...

     and it's suddenly not "murder" anymore?!?!?!??

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 11:04am

     Bit too nuanced for you Mask? Do I detect in you a closet black and white anti choice man while pretending you are a true liberal? Now come on mask you really are not as thick as you are making out. Anyway because I like you I will go through it once again.

     Our starting point is to look at others state sanctioned killing of human life to see if there are any parallels.

     It is not murder when the state kills a felon for a capital crime. That is justified on taking the "life for a life" legal/moral doctrine. Thus, using the same "life for a life" basis killing a fetus to save a woman's life is killing human life alright, no doubt about it but where the state sanctions abortion it most certainly is not murder in any legal sense and ethicists could and most do make a very good moral case that it is not murder in that circumstance. That is my position.

     Of course as you know the state permits abortions for reasons that fall far short of threatening the life of the mother and such killing of human life is not regarded by the state as legal murder and I'm sure you know that. However I would suggest that ethically and again many ethicists agree that under these different circumstances this particular killing is tantamount to murder. That is also my position

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

163. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

     LRJONES, I'm not talking about capital punishment.

     I'm talking about the "black or white" statement that "Abortion is murder" and "I want it made illegal". Two statements I believe you concur with.

     And I'm asking a simple question, which you apparently want to avoid....

     "If it's 'murder'...same as with a born child or adult....do you apply the same sentencing guidelines?"

     If in Australia it's "25-to-life" for a pre-meditated murder (on average)...

     then if abortion is made illegal and considered "murder"...and a woman PRE-MEDITATIVELY and with delieberate planning, goes out and purchases RU-486 and terminates her pregnancy and it is proven in a court of law...

     does she get the SAME penalty as a "similar" "pre-meditated murderer"?

     Now....care to try that directly?

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 12:34pm

164. "One bright spot is that most doctors don't seem to want to get into the fetus destruction business in your country or mine. Perhaps it has to do with their calling to save lives. Who knows?"

     There's also a possibility that the field is made unattractive by the threats of violence, the necessity of hiring bodyguards, and a long history of arson, assault, and doctors who perform abortions being murdered. Isn't that the whole point of the aggressive anti-legal abortion protests?

     Doctors who have a calling to save lives can honor that calling by saving women's lives, as Dr. Tiller did.

     Posted by crowepps at 06/05/2009 @ 12:54pm

165. Posted by crowepps at 06/05/2009 @ 12:54pm

     Naturally, they'll never admit THAT. They want people to think it's "Doctors growing more 'pro-life' and not wanting to engage in that procedure!"...

     and the intimidation, death threats, and murders are just a co-inky-dink.

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 1:17pm

166. Actually, Deja Vu, Katha thinks abortion is good and has written that people who feel otherwise are doing the Religious Right's work for them.

     Posted by DP in TC at 06/05/2009 @ 2:04pm

167. Intimidation, death threats, and the fact the Partial Birth Abortion Act was written by non-doctors in a way that makes an entire area of practice a grey area, possibly subject to punishment. And it's really sad for women's healthcare as a whole that fewer doctors are performing D&E, because it's often the appropriate medical choice when a women has a 13-19 week old fetus that dies in utero.

     Unfortunately, the Partial Birth abortion Act, with its harsh penalties and non-medical language, has made doctors and teaching hospitals leery of the procedure. Lovely unintended consequences. Women's health suffers, and loses a key procedure, because of anti-choicers who write bad law and don't understand the details of medicine, but instead pursue a dogmatic course of action, regardless of the costs.

     Posted by mollmeister at 06/05/2009 @ 2:11pm

168. There is no such thing as a "pro-life" movement. It is a pro-pregnancy. If life was truly valued - there would be no children waiting in foster care to have family experiences. There would be no homeless, no veterans on the street, no elderly choosing between food and medication and we would have a health care system that values life not profit.

     This whole misguided fanatical cult of pro-pregnancy followers simply do not value women. They are bullies and victims. Because no one really values their cult view point, their only insertion into the conversation is the continued call for us as a nation to deal with our inside extremist and cultural terrorists. It is going to be hard for the conservative republicans and right winged media to acknowledge themselves as sponsors of cultural violence.

     "In the name of God" has been used for too long as the justification to perpetuate human ignorance. I am not sure God ever sponsored this group of nut cases to speak or act for Him. This was an act of cowardice.

     If there is any good to come out of this tragedy, perhaps it is that we must as a nation find civil discourse and lawfulness. This whole "solve problem by gun" is not part of an adult community.

     Posted by Pepper13 at 06/05/2009 @ 2:28pm

169. What is needed is a national moral renewal but how that might be effected is a different topic perhaps more in the realm of religion and a new "Great Awakening".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:15am |

     WTF?! A moral awakening? I thought we just went through one of those with W as president.....some moral awakening that was. If that's morality, then we're screwed. Enriching the rich, making the poor poorer, and giving the corrupt unchecked power to do as they please? We don't need to worry about complete anarchy because any more morality like that will turn this country into an entire state of nothing but anarchy. If you doubt that, look at the headlines with all of the wild west businessmen under investigation and indictment.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 3:12pm

170. Doctors who have a calling to save lives can honor that calling by saving women's lives, as Dr. Tiller did.

     Posted by crowepps at 06/05/2009 @ 12:54pm

     A lot of the right wing posters here don't know or block their memory of back alley abortions (a lot of young girls died and die because of this). They also think it's just dandy for born live babies to be left on doorsteps, dumpsters, garbage cans, toilets etc.

     Once the baby is born, if that baby carried to term dies, that's ok because it's mom was a crack head and the dad was a dead beat banger, but God killed the baby at that point so it's the godly holy way to go about it. Also, that baby doesn't have the right to go to a good school when and if it gets older because it doesn't have parents that can afford to pay for the kids education and public schools are of course the work of devil. So off to the slums with that bastard child....and hopefully it stays on it's turf and doesn't enter into the good society it's not worthy of taking part in. But hey, the baby was born and that's all that counts.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 3:22pm

171. it gets worse. legacy babies are no good either. we should , gasp, pay for their care and education? why do they hate americans so?

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 3:41pm

172. No wiggle room re abortion as murder?

     Sure there is. Always was.

     Only bad girls have "abortions". Nice girls get a "d & c" .

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/05/2009 @ 5:05pm

173. does she get the SAME penalty as a "similar" "pre-meditated murderer"?

     Now....care to try that directly?

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 12:34pm

     Mask you seem to know even less about how the law operates than most other topics you attempt to investigate. If I hadn't read a bit about how the American legal system works in real case law I would be led by your line of questioning to assume you were a nation of legal hicks who botched up the legacy of English law that the Brits gave you.

     I mean if such a sweet lady were to rock up to our County Court, where such cases are heard after committal for trial by a Magistrates court, in my state and says: "your honor I just want to confess to you that I'd been wanting to murder that baby that used to be in my womb for yonks and after reading about it I decided the best way to murder it was taking R-486". I can't say what would happen in your apparent Hicksville but I can assure you the first question our honor would ask is: "has this woman been psychologically accessed?"

     I decent defence barrister would not have any trouble getting such a client cleared of all charges and in fact it would never have got to a committal hearing.

     So though kids like simple yes-no answers perhaps they, like you haven't realised that hypotheticals, framed in black and white terms are non starters in any real life situation.

     However much you like to promote the idea that America is in danger of becoming a theocracy I think you will find that religions like Christianity and Islam are basically saying you may get away with "murder" even in America but you will answer for it in the final assize. In the mean time our laws will reflect in some degree the moral health of our societies ("health" as defined by our world view presuppositions).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 10:14pm

174. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 10:14pm

     No, LRJONES...here's the deal..."pro-lifers" such as yourself?

     Are either cowards or liars.

     You like to SAY "Abortion is murder!!!"...and often "I want it made illegal!!!"....but when faced with the ACTUAL meaning of the word "murder" and the actual idea of "making abortion illegal". And the OBVIOUS conclusion for penalties and punishments that a "murder" would involve, as it does now with the murder of a "born"....you clam up or (as with you) go into rhetorical shoveling that piles up high as an elephant's eye.

     Why? Simple. Say "Yes, it's the same. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. And if woman commits 'murder' by using RU-486 on her unborn child, in a premeditated manner, she should get the SAME punishment as any other premeditated murder...25-to-life in prison!"....and you lose the debate...permanently.

     You know this...so you won't say it. Cowardice.

     Or you don't REALLY believe that abortion is "murder"...the same as a murder of a child or adult. Ergo...Lying.

     End of story.

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm

175. ... I thought we just went through one of those with W as president.....some moral awakening that was. If that's morality, then we're screwed. Enriching the rich, making the poor poorer, and giving the corrupt unchecked power to do as they please? ... look at the headlines with all of the wild west businessmen under investigation and indictment.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 3:12pm

     Thanks for making my case Wolfie. Greed of business men is of course just another symptom of the self centred individualism that defines our present societies. It is what is at the heart of the recent and continuing financial "crisis" and the continual "Enrons" going on in your country and mine.

     My suggestion is these are all symptomatic of a society in moral decline as are legalised prostitution, abortion on demand, moves to decriminalise the drug trade, rights movements that focus on "my" rights regardless of the effect on others. The list goes on and is as long as our greed and selfishness. The other side of the coin is a total indifference to those "my" selfishness impoverishes in so many ways.

     I notice the proud boast is often made that America is a nation of laws and at one level that is commendable in terms of the evolution of anti-slavery laws etc and its didactic function. However the law cannot make a people good but rather it is a good people that make good law.

     Our law that reflects that goodness has been totally ineffective in preventing enormous damage to our economies by those who did not have that law "written in their hearts". That is true in many other areas of life so that the law is sometimes diminished to accommodate that societal moral decline.

     Which points to the need for a moral transformation beginning with say our "wild west" financial cowboys.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:57pm

176. Or you don't REALLY believe that abortion is "murder"...the same as a murder of a child or adult. Ergo...Lying.

     End of story.

     Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 10:33pm

     Love it when you get angry Mask. More so when it indicates that you have lost this stinging exercise. You probably need a bit of training with the FBI. They always get their man.

     Maybe new glasses? Or didn't you read this bit?

     "However I would suggest that ethically and again many ethicists agree that under these different circumstances this particular killing is tantamount to murder. That is also my position"

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

     Oh a big word, I forgot. This may help you:

     Tantamount

     Tan"ta*mount`\, a. [F. tant so much (L. tantus) + E. amount.] Equivalent in value, signification, or effect.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 12:53am

177. You're right, Pepper13. The self-styled 'pro-life' set is really anti-abortion and should stop insulting people's intelligence and just call themselves such. By the same token, the self-styled 'pro-choice' set should admit that they are first and foremost for abortion rights. So what if the term 'choice' honors individual conscience? You won't see Eleanor Smeal or Katha Pollitt walking a woman back to her car if she backs out of a planned abortion, much less following up to see how she's faring (or kicking in some dosh to help out, as they do for women who need financial help to get an abortion).

     Posted by DP in TC at 06/06/2009 @ 11:07am

178. There are exceptions, but generally people who have the law on their side don't resort to terrorism. This isn't because those people are morally superior to their opponents, but just because terrorism is a tactic of desperation. If what you advocate for is already legal then it's pretty much impossible to be an "extremist."

     I don't know how Pollitt feels about animal rights, but animal rights activists today also commit vandalism and arson, call their opponents murderers, post personal information on the internet, and protest at people's homes, while their opponents don't do any of those things. The same was basically true of the antiwar movement in the 60s and 70s--there was no pro-war Weather Underground. Does that mean only one side in those debates is/was "extremist"? Would it matter at all if that was the case?

     Posted by th at 06/06/2009 @ 11:09am

179. By the same token, the self-styled 'pro-choice' set should admit that they are first and foremost for abortion rights. So what if the term 'choice' honors individual conscience? You won't see Eleanor Smeal or Katha Pollitt walking a woman back to her car if she backs out of a planned abortion, much less following up to see how she's faring (or kicking in some dosh to help out, as they do for women who need financial help to get an abortion). Posted by DP in TC at 06/06/2009 @ 11:07am

     Entirely untrue.

     Of the friends I know who have considered abortion, those who have decided not to go through with it have gotten as much support as those who did. The emphasis is on CHOICE, and access to all of the medical options in the worst of circumstances. The people I know engaged in the pro-choice movement are pro-woman and pro-women's reproductive health, first and foremost. Abortion is just part of that picture, but it's far from the only focus. Can the same really be said of the anti-choice movement?

     Posted by mollmeister at 06/06/2009 @ 4:10pm

180. Why does a women have to carry a dead fetus to term? Does this satisfy the pope in some mysterious way? Why does a women have to bear a seriously deformed and mentally deficient baby? Will society and the church care for that child? When education funds are cut do they consider not cutting special needs children and adults or are they left to fend for themselves? When did our society become governed and terrorized by the idiots in our society?

     Posted by julien38 at 06/06/2009 @ 9:19pm

181. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 12:53am

     No anger...except at dishonesty.

     "tantamount"...so what does that mane, LRJONES?

     Fetuses are only "kinda murdered"? Not the same as a born child or an adult?

     You can't answer my question on punishment, because you know it would be politically damaging to your case.

     Period.

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2009 @ 8:06pm

182. #

     1980.

     Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 08:22am | ignore this person | warn this person hey snow wtf is 1980. to lazy to look it up. thanks.

     Posted by julien38 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:21pm

183. What a slugfest!

     Our poor world.

     Abortion, to me, is like an animal with its leg in a trap.

     It chews it off to get free on occasion. It doesn't like it, but in order to live it does what it must. Our wildly overpopulated world creates a similar conundrum for many people.

     This topic will never exhaust the human capacity for coming up with stupid 'faith based' reasons that abortion is horrendous. BUT.... would you rather screw your way to oblivion or be bombed into oblivion?

     Rexella and Jack Van Impe say Jesus is coming very, very soon. Let's hope he's using a condom or there's gonna be some tough choices ahead.

     Posted by ficheye at 06/08/2009 @ 3:25pm

184. That only one side murders in the abortion controversy, is not true.

     I am not a true anti abortion advocate. I recognize a valid pro-choice argument.

     But the fact that hundreds of thousands of perfectly formed and healthy fetuses are every year denied life and thrown into abortion buckets, does represent a vast slaughter. It is unconscionable to deny this. It is morally base to treat these creatures alive and moving in the womb and capable of being born in perfect health, as thought they were mere carbuncles, or toe nails clippings.

     It is not surprising that some people, unstable people, deeply anguished, lose control and hurl themselves murderously at abortion doctors. It is remarkable how seldom this happens considering the millions appalled and distraught over the huge killing of fetuses.

     The cavalier way in which many right to choice supporters ignore the moral implications of that blood bath, even disdain to consider it, is shameful. Yet politically they are ever self-righteous paragon's of virtue.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/08/2009 @ 5:44pm

185. "But the fact that hundreds of thousands of perfectly formed and healthy fetuses are every year denied life and thrown into abortion buckets, does represent a vast slaughter. "

     So does the problem of BYCATCH, "Hugo_Pirovano." Google this term if you don't know what it means.

     I don't ignore the bloodiness of abortion, no more than I ignore the bloodiness of the meat industry. I have addressed both extensively in postings above.

     By the way, what is the "valid pro-choice argument" that you DO recognize?

     Posted by JakobFabian at 06/08/2009 @ 7:55pm

186. JakobFabian at 7:55pm said:

     >> I don't ignore the bloodiness of abortion, no more than I ignore the bloodiness of the meat industry. <<

     That creatures come to term with your mentality is one reason I am not totally against abortions.

     Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/09/2009 @ 6:11pm