Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRare in the news coverage of the murder of Dr. George Tiller were the voices of physicians who referred patients to him. That's because, in the media, abortion features as an "issue," a battlefront in the culture wars, and only secondarily, if at all, as a medical procedure. The letter below, written by a physician in response to my comment in The Nation on the murder, is a rare exception, shedding light on Dr. Tiller's role as a healthcare provider. Many thanks to Dr. Laurence Burd, its author, for writing it.
In his article, "A Culture War Casualty", Eyal Press underscores with accuracy that those who use hateful invectives, should not feign shock or dismay when their message produces murder and violence. This article, however, like the majority of others I have read following the death of George Tiller, MD, is fixated upon the abortion debate and neglects to recognize the real tragedy of Dr. Tiller's loss to the profession of medicine and to the American public. As a practitioner of Maternal Fetal Medicine, I have referred several patients to Dr. Tiller, since he was one of the very few physicians in the country, because of state laws and because of his desire to provide compassionate care, who provided late pregnancy termination services. He was an exemplary physician who believed very strongly in what he was doing. Both women whom I referred to Dr. Tiller's clinic in Kansas were carrying infants with birth defects that were incompatible with survival. One had anencephaly, a condition where a large part of the forebrain was absent, and the second had multiple midline defects, allowing vital organs such as the heart and the abdominal structures to lie outside the fetal body (Pentalogy of Cantrel). Dr. Tiller accepted my referrals graciously, and cared for these women skillfully, and by so doing, ended their risk of further complications inherent in any ongoing pregnancy. As a physician, I believe that the volume of the "abortion debate" has brought silence to the essence of the medical issue, and that is how to provide the best care to our patients. The assassin's bullet not only ended an honorable life, but ended a conduit to provide good medical care to the American public. We all are victims of this terrible, heinous crime. The beliefs of those on each side of the abortion issue will never be resolved. In all my years of medical practice, I have never met a patient who was glad to terminate a pregnancy, but only did so because of an awareness of danger to themselves. We must stop the shouting and name calling that has so divided our society and follow President Obama's suggestions to come together and devote our efforts to decrease the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. This seems to be an approach that will end much hatred and violence and will greatly contribute to an improvement in the physical and mental health of all Americans.
Laurence Burd, MD.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Nothing is black and white. I dislike abortion. However, sometimes it is necessary to save lives. The cases cited here are not "failure of birth control" abortions but medical procedures needed to ensure the health of the mother. So who will do these life saving abortions if we kill all the doctors who do them or make them illegal. Do we send our loved ones to a back alley with a coat hanger? NO!!!!
Posted by ricelaker at 06/24/2009 @ 4:47pm
Ironically, if the laws were changed to reduce abortions, outlawing "for convenience" or "for birth control" and the mythical "on a whim", the women in the types of cases with which Dr. Tiller helped would still need medical care and it would still be legal. The extremist 10% who insist that there should never be abortion under any circumstances whatsoever are totally out of step with the rest of the country, but they have no intention of compromising or finding common ground - they will accept nothing less than 100% all their way or else.
Posted by crowepps at 06/24/2009 @ 5:00pm
Like most issues used to separate people, this debate simplifies complex concerns and reduces individuals involved to demons. If only we could view each decision made in the context of the individual case and stop seeing each case as the same, we might soon be able to have rational discussions about the issue.
Posted by GregR at 06/24/2009 @ 5:04pm
If only we could view each decision made in the context of the individual case and stop seeing each case as the same, we might soon be able to have rational discussions about the issue.
Posted by GregR at 06/24/2009 @ 5:04pm
I agree with the sentiment. Although rational discussions require rational people. I don't know why, but often the most vocal are also the least rational.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 5:37pm
" In all my years of medical practice, I have never met a patient who was glad to terminate a pregnancy, but only did so because of an awareness of danger to themselves."
Says Laurence Burd, MD. whose practice specialty is Hospice Care and Palliative Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology
In general terms his practice is the last "step" after all medical resourses have been expended, and before the undertaker. Abortions he recommends are related to Palliative Medicine, not a pretty practice anyone ever wants to seek!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/24/2009 @ 11:37pm
"
"It's a disaster waiting to happen," Maria Haberfeld, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the Washington Times on Thursday, June 11.
Some experts believe that right wing fanatics and white supremacists pose a greater threat than Muslim extremists.
"I am more concerned with the threat from the Christian-identity groups than the homegrown Islamic terrorists," contends Haberfeld, who teaches counterterrorism for New York police officers.
Carol Swain, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and the author of "The New White Nationalism in America," says right-wing ideologies are more dangerous than groups.
Such ideologies, she asserts, are widely spread on the internet and could inspire a "lone wolf," someone who might be inspired by such ideologies to carry out attack without being formally involved with any group."---Islamonline.net
"Some Experts"
Good enough for me, if it was good enough for the war mongers.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:22am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:22am
Can't "racial profile" them, and their rhetoric often "overlaps" with a lot hard-core, but not fringe, conservatism, libertarianism, even some left-wing ideologies. So can't throw a wide net, without hauling in some Ron Paulines and "pro-lifers."
But...do we wait, for another Roeder, von Brunn, or Oklahoma City???
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 07:43am
Thank you, Dr. Burd.
Unless the anti-abortion movement compromises on contraception AND sex education - and that frankly means virtually giving in 80-90% on them both - there is really nothing to talk to them about. People will still have unwanted or dangerous pregnancies and therefore the abortions to end them.
If we had comprehensive sex education and readilly available contraception that people knew how to use, then we could talk about increasing support for adoption as an alternative to abortion. But I have no interest in outlawing a legitimate medical procedure nor making women jump through hoops to get one. As Dr. Tiller would say, "Trust women."
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2009 @ 10:30am
Laurence Burd, MD. says:
"... We must stop the shouting and name calling that has so divided our society and follow President Obama's suggestions to come together and devote our efforts to decrease the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. ..."
Now, currently on this website, is another article:
The Virginity Movement, Rebranded By Jessica Valenti June 17, 2009 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/valenti
On the home page, it says this in the link to that article: The Virginity Movement, Rebranded Jessica Valenti : Feminism & Women
It might sound milder, and appear hipper, but it traffics in the same old sexism.
In other words, promoting abstinence is sexist.
Thus, what Dr. Burd's call that we follow President Obama, come together, and decrease unwanted pregnancies really means is a call for all to capitulate to the liberal version of this whole thing--- no or very little attempt to promote abstinence, with kids in school being taught everything necesary (and way beyond what their parents ever knew) to prevent pregnancies...
.....along with the "necessity" of parents having no say at all regarding what their kids are taught about sex in public school.
Of course, preventing unwanted pregnancies is absolutely a worthwile goal....but somehow sex education in public school at the hands of lib educators, with any attempt to even dare suggest abstinence practically taboo, does seem to have the effect or the implication that kids having sex is OK as long as they protect themselves, with the full lib view about "sexuality" being acquired by the kids in the process as well.
This, of course, would be and is promoted by libs as being realistic.
The solution, as always is to capitulate to leftist belief.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:56am
"no or very little attempt to promote abstinence, with kids in school being taught everything necesary (and way beyond what their parents ever knew) to prevent pregnancies..."---Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:56am
Maybe because promoting abstinence makes you...
"Granny Sarah"???
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am
Since there will be leftists posts out the kazoo maybe with all kinds of nitpicking along with Mask being a pest and asking marginally relevant or irrelevant "devils advocate" questions.....I just wanted to point out
That all I really mean by the posts above, regarding what all agree is a complex and contentious issue, is that Eyal Press and Laurence Burd and other leftists are hypocrites....at least when they start saying we must "come together" on an issue....this issue or really any other......
Because I have found that over and over again lib calls to come together always really mean "come over to our way of thinking".
And there are plenty of Republicans who will reliably do that, because they want to show they are "reasonable" and want to "work together" for the betterment of the country, and because they want to be personally liked by the liberals and by the media (same thing)....
Such as the less lib-lib GOP candidate for President in 2008, Sen. John McCain for example.
The only way to "work together" is to capitulate to lib demands, because the Dems will not "work together", libs are fixated on their ideology.
Blogger Cccomfo1 one time mentioned, in response to a similar comment I made, the "Blue Dog" Democrats in Congress.
I never did reply.......These Blue Dog Democrats have their beliefs, which are further to the right on the political spectrum than most Democrats, because those were their beliefs to begin with, and not because they are following some orders to move on the political spectrum to "come together" or because they want to be liked by the GOP.
No such orders are ever issued, by the media or libs, much less complied with.
But continually, Republicans are told they must move to the center, often by other Republicans!!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am
Thank you for this thoughtful article. There is only one reason that abortion was legalized, that that was to protect the lives and health of America women. Desperate women will continue to have abortions (one way or another), and women with pregnancy complications will continue to need abortions. It is difficult for me to believe that there are still large numbers of people who refuse to trust American women to control their own bodies.
Posted by plover at 06/25/2009 @ 11:35am
plover,
But what about the BABY?
The independent entity inside the woman who has no say? And who is not exactly or even close to being in the same classification as a woman's finger, or her stomach, or her lung, or her heart, or her kidney, etc.. in other words is not completly part of her body but is in her body.
What about the BABY?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:45am
SJCHER, no....you guys should move closer to THIS position--
"Media personality Ann Coulter appeared on Bill O'Reilly's television program this week to discuss the murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Never one to shy away from controversy, Coulter offered the following ethical assessment of the crime:
"I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester."
When pressed by O'Reilly on this statement, Coulter replied,
"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others."-----www.politicsdaily.com
Please?????
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:50am
I have an idea.
I should send an email to Bill Gates.
I recommend that the next version of Microsoft Word, apparently it will be Word 2010, have built into the spell checker and auto correct mechanism the following feature......
If someone types the word fetus into Microsoft Word, it will automatically change to baby.
And in Word now, there are Auto Correct options that are default but can be turned off by the user, such as automatic capitalization of the names of days or the first word in a sentence, etc.
So in Word 2010 the autocorrection I am recommending needs to be hard wired into the software so no lib can disable it.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:51am
Mask,
You are savvy enough to know that Ann Coulter was being sarcastic, in order to make her point.
That is why a lot of libs can not stand her, she uses biting humor and sarcasm to make points libs don't want made and do not want to hear.
You ask "Please?"
How about you? Please don't try to convince me you didn't know she was being sarcastic.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:54am
.......UPDATE.......
Regarding my 11:51 am post above....
I have send Mr. Gates an email with my suggestion.....
so.....
You libs will have to worry about using Word 2010, I hope, if Mr. Gates sees any merit in my suggestion.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 12:17pm
SJ, why don't you link me to some valid scientific studies that show abstinence only education works to prevent teen pregnancies.
And I have to laugh at your language police!! Are you not the one that had never heard of Frank Luntz? He helped you coin the phrase that has zero basis in medicine or science...partial birth abortion. He gets paid wads of money to effect political dialog through the use of language. Many of your posts here are ripe with his work. But, keep posting about the insidious affects of the "liberal media".
Yes, by all means let's throw out decades of medical science and hundreds of years of evolution of the English language so that you can "feel" better!! I got news for ya SJ, a fetus is by definition not a baby. Maybe a biology 101 course is in order for you.
Time for you to go to your "Keeping faithful to your wife" seminar. Todays key speakers are Newt, Sen Ensign, Sen Vitter and the governor of S. Carolina. For giggles they are going to allow a damn liberal, ex-Gov Spitzer have ten minutes.
come on!!!! Lets' hear some more about how the liberals in this country set bad, bad examples for our kids!!!!!!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:54am
"Some guy should go out and shoot an abortion doctor and I'll call it a 'late term abortion'....but I'm being sarcastic, so you can't call it inciting violence....cuz I say I'm being sarcastic....and if it happens, only libs and their hatred of us conservatives could POSSIBLY make a link to what I said ...sarcastically....and violence! So there!"
Again, PLEASE, keep Annie as your "face" person on the murder of a doctor and how it's "not indicative of pro-lifers or conservatives"....cuz you're just being "sarcastic".
Maybe Osama bin Laden could claim HE was being sarcastic????
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
Mask and Crabwalk,
As you know, the piece of filth known as Ward Churchill didn't seem to think that bin Laden was being sarcastic - he apparently thought that bin Laden's actions were justified - when he called the people in the offices at 1 and 2 World Trade Center "little Eichmanns".
The two of you can slow down and relax and knock off the hyper-reactions, because you know that any example you come up with of some Conservative you think has heated up rhetoric or said outrageous stuff can be matched with counter-examples going back at you.
Get off of your high horses, for your own sake.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
sjchermak,
It's been my experience that the pro-abortion rights folks who call for finding common ground with the anti-abortion folks always end up talking about ways to lower the number of abortions without getting any committment from the anti's to end their opposition to contraception or support for abstinence-only education. That's why I didn't talk about finding common ground.
And by the way, Jessica Valenti's article does not describe minimizing abstinance as a safe form of birth control, but giving youth the full picture of birth control techniques, including abstinence. So you don't need to be paranoid that comprehensive sex ed would toss abstinence over the side, or barely mention it at all.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2009 @ 1:38pm
crabwalk,
You did ask "...come on!!!! Lets' hear some more about how the liberals in this country set bad, bad examples for our kids!!!!!!!!..."
How come kids in the country were talking about oral sex after somebody conducted regular meetings in the Oval Office with an intern?
You said "....I got news for ya SJ, a fetus is by definition not a baby...."
As you know, during pregnancy, a fetus demonstrates varying forms of behavior common to an actual baby, and does react to things outside the womb, noises external to the mother, for example"
In other words, the beginnings of behavior common to a living person.
Thus, by "definition" you may be correct, but insisting on parsing words and strict adherence to the definition is wrong....because to do so enables one to insist the Mother has a right to "choose" to nuke something that is to close to being a human life, and too similar to a human life, to allow such a "choice".
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
cka2nd,
There is nothing paranoid about it. Ditching abstinence education certainly does occur....it certainly is a option that gets downplayed in liberal run schools.
And libs do expand upon sex education from time to time to instruct kids on topics of sexuality. That is, "sexuality" from a lib point of view.
Schools are locally run, so this is not an accross the board issue, but a case by case issue.
It is reality that in some schools kids are taught stuff that parents may object to, and the parents have no say in controlling.
Certainly you must have heard how some school kids had "Heather Has Two Mommies" included as part of their reading cirriculum.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
You libs will have to worry about using Word 2010, I hope, if Mr. Gates sees any merit in my suggestion.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 12:17pm
Kinda think your barking up the wrong tree with this silly idea. Gates donated to both Hillary and Obama last election cycle. No donations to any of the republican presidential candidates. But he does try and be a little discreet in his politics for obvious business reasons.
BTW I think your idea is just plain nuts, with a liberal helping of loony.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
Uh, SJCHER....doesn't Annie seem to indicate that she thinks Tiller was justified?
Yet unlike that dopey Churchill, I don't see you guys calling her "a piece of filth"?
Or as Orwell might mock... "Some terrorism more equal than others!"?
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 2:13pm
As you know, during pregnancy, a fetus demonstrates varying forms of behavior common to an actual baby, and does react to things outside the womb, noises external to the mother, for example"
In other words, the beginnings of behavior common to a living person.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
When I rap on my fish tank they repsond. Does that make my fish common to living people? Heck fetuses even develop gill slits for a period during their development, does that make them fish?
Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 2:23pm
Poor CHERMAK.
To him the american public is completely divided into two groups.
'Those on the left' And conservatives.
A blend of the two points of view based on fact, analysis, and revision of our thought process as it relates to political and social judgement is never a factor in CHERMAKS world.
He defends the vile Anne Coulter. He makes sure everyone knows that she was being sarcastic, like you have some special insight into her warped personality.
Here's some information for CHERMAK: No one missed her sarcasm. That's her calling card. A lot of people do not respond to her stupid opinions because they don't want to stoop that low. What she said was actually meant to keep her out of legal hot water. She has plenty of stooges to accomplish what she can't, while she collects money from her awful books.
In CHERMAK'S obsessive quest to show the 'hyperintellectual libs' a thing or two he just reveals how weak his comprehension of most topics is. He's a classic. Just like 'JOE' in the famous movie.
His statement "Get off of your high horses, for your own sake" is actually humorous, if only for the fact that it is he that is taking the moral high ground and being dismissive of all other points of view.
Here's a hint ( I know how he loves this). He needs to just leave out his repetitive blaming of the 'libs' and 'those on the left' for everything. At that point what he says may seem like an actual opinion instead of just neo-con blather. I await his hostile and indignant response.
Posted by ficheye at 06/25/2009 @ 2:25pm
Extraneous,
You can slow down and relax a bit.
The thought certainly crossed my mind that Bill Gates could be politically lib.
The thought (about Word 2010) popped into my head and I did something at the spur of the moment, knowing full well it may and most likely will be an expression of venting about the topic and nothing more.
You say it was a silly idea. Of course it was. I don't seriously believe Bill Gates will reconfigure Microsoft Word to my specifications.
It would be nice if he did, but he won't.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Certainly you must have heard how some school kids had "Heather Has Two Mommies" included as part of their reading cirriculum.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
Of course your citing this example as a good example of teaching diversity, right?
Some kids have two moms and two dads. Some kids have parents who beat them, or abuse them. Some kids have no parents. I can see nothing wrong with a book that demonstrates a loving parent child relationship, no matter if the genders are the same.
Would you rather children are taught to ostracize the innocent children of same sex parents? I don't care you view of same sex parents, why should you support the discrimination toward their kids? Kids are mean enough...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 2:31pm
ficheye,
There is nothing to be hostile and indignant about.
It is quite amusing to watch libs hyperventilate.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:34pm
ficheye,
I do want to point out an error in your post above.
You said (about Ann Coulter):
"......She has plenty of stooges to accomplish what she can't......."
Point of fact, no, she does not....in fact....that would be impossible.
The Stooges have all passed away now. Every last one of them, Curly, Larry, Moe, Shemp. All gone.
I did actually see Moe not long before he died, but even that was a long time ago.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm
Extraneous,
You can slow down and relax a bit.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Ok...but keep in mind that your the one sending Bill Gates emails about altering Word to appease your beliefs on abortion. Whats that about gooses and ganders, or pots and kettles...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 2:46pm
"In other words, promoting abstinence is sexist."I read that article too. No, promoting abstinence is not sexist. Promoting abstinence by teaching that boys can't control themselves and girls are responsible for letting the boys 'go too far' is sexist. Teaching that girls who have sex ruin their lives without an identical warning to the boys is sexist. Teaching that girls being 'immodest' is responsible for teen boys thinking about sex is sexist. Certainly anyone who honestly believes that teenage sex is bad for teens should be outraged by the assumption that teenage boys have no ability to control themselves and so can't be held responsible for their own behavior. Sex education courses should all start out with the announcement that the easiest way to avoid a lot of problems is to not have sex at all - but stopping there means the whole subject of abstinence could be handled in the morning announcements. Failing to provide the rest of the information is educational negligence.
Posted by crowepps at 06/25/2009 @ 3:04pm
BTW, on SJCHER and the abortion argument...
SJ...do you believe "abortion is murder"...or something less dramatic like "unjustifible homocide"?
(no, don't expect a straight answer)
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:04pm
crowepps,
It also is educational negligence to breeze past the topic of abstinence in the morning announcements, because the subject of abstinence would contain within it subjects such as respect for other people and consequences of behavior and abilities to make rational decisions and think for oneself rather than go with what may be popular.
So it could take plenty of time to discuss this stuff, and this would be stuff that would be good for kids to know anyway, even outside the topic of sex.
And the "rest of the information" absolutely needs to be taught in this day and age, but it is educational irresponsiblity to expand upon the rest of the information so it contains liberal doctrine about the subject of "sexuality", doctrine that some parents would rather their kids not be taught in public school, rather than information on how to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:11pm
The Stooges have all passed away now. Every last one of them, Curly, Larry, Moe, Shemp. All gone. Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm
Except you. I guess Moe passed the torch while drinking heavily.
As far as hyperventilating, no one is close to that in any of the above posts. Maybe if you take off the helmet your own breathing won't be so loud. We are all amazed by you, but in ways that you probably can't appreciate.
Your attempts at some kind of humor just reflect how foreign the medium is to you. What I find especially funny is the fact that, somehow, you perceive yourself to be in possession of some intellectual acumen on many political topics. What we enjoy about your posts the most is your struggle with the thinking process.
It's a painful experience, to be sure, but fascinating in a weird way.
Posted by ficheye at 06/25/2009 @ 3:20pm
ficheye,
I could only wish that Moe would have passed me some kind of "torch".
If I had some kind of capability given me from Moe I would wear it as a badge of honor.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
ficheye,
You said ".....It's a painful experience, to be sure, but fascinating in a weird way......."
1. If it is painful for you, why do you put yourself through it?
2. Does Bill Clinton feel your pain?
3. Is that why some would say we need socialist health plans, because your particular kind of pain is not covered now?
4. Have you tried any over the counter meds for your pain?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 4:01pm
OK, sjhermak, we have your agreement that comprehensive sex education is a good thing when it comes to pregnancy and STD prevention. That's an important step.
Sexuality education was outside of the narrow topic of pregnancy prevention, and an obvious compromise would be to offer an "Opt Out" option whereby parents can ask in advance to excuse their kid from specific sections of the sex ed curriculum, but where do we stop? Should a student be able to opt out of reading Huckleberry Finn because characters use the N word? Or could a student skip the portion of the social studies or economics class (if the high school is lucky enough to have the latter) extolling the virtues of free trade?
Education should include exposure to ideas - reasonable ideas, so no creation science in Science class, but it's okay in a Religious Studies course (again, if the school is lucky enough to have it) - across the spectrum, including one with which a student or parent may not comfortable. Heck, that can result in a student becoming a better advocate of the ideas she or he brought into class, i.e., "No, I still say that homosexuality is shameful, but now I can state the case more forcefully and clearly."
Posted by cka2nd at 06/25/2009 @ 4:26pm
The extremist 10% who insist that there should never be abortion under any circumstances whatsoever are totally out of step with the rest of the country, but they have no intention of compromising or finding common ground - they will accept nothing less than 100% all their way or else.
Posted by crowepps at 06/24/2009 @ 5:00pm
That pretty much sums it up.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 4:30pm
conservative ideology can be summed in five words "you are on your own", but with a few caveats: they'll defend you from foreign invaders (aka illegal immigrants); they'll defend you from terrorists (aka brown people and non-christians); they'll defend the unborn from the "immoral babykillers"(aka liberals); they'll defend you from socialist ideas (aka universal healthcare); they'll propogate their morality and when anything goes wrong they'll blame it on the liberals... oh, and high taxes.
Posted by sirhcus at 06/25/2009 @ 4:51pm
"It also is educational negligence to breeze past the topic of abstinence in the morning announcements..." Why? It can't be summed up in three words: Just say no. "Subjects such as respect for other people and consequences of behavior and abilities to make rational decisions and think for oneself rather than go with what may be popular." Those subjects should be integrally entwined with every single subject at the school, perhaps concentrated on in a manditory anti-bullying course. "expand upon the rest of the information so it contains liberal doctrine about the subject of "sexuality"" Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not sure what this is code for. Are you talking about homosexuality? The fact that gays exists? The kids already know that from watching South Park.
Posted by crowepps at 06/25/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 4:01pm
Does Bill Clinton feel my pain? I'm not sure what that means. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton. But you assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a 'leftist', therefore a 'Clintonite', although Bill is now being characterized more and more as having been a conservative in liberal clothing. Guess you missed that, but what else is new?
I guess I have to assume that you are trying to be funny. I'm sure you laughed while writing it, even though it didn't make sense. That's normal as well.
As to the 'pain'... no drugs, over the counter or otherwise could ever hope to address the mind numbing lunacy that you offer us on these pages. We all just have to grin and bear it.
Take off the clown suit. Ooops. It's not a suit!
Posted by ficheye at 06/25/2009 @ 7:36pm
Certainly you must have heard how some school kids had "Heather Has Two Mommies" included as part of their reading cirriculum.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
BOO!
Be afraid SJ. that book is the entrance of the Anti-Christ.
While you are sending Gates messages on how to be more like Frank Luntz, be sure to ask him to show you how to work spell check on your internetS browser, and maybe ask for a curriculum on spelling.
I guess it just makes life easier for you, and makes you "feel" better, to blame all of lifes ills on "libs"? Stereotypes save time, I know. I believe you practice the hoodoo magic called Christianity, right? Spend some time in your Book and see if you can find, understand and put into practice Mathew 7: 3-5.
that's the problem with having all of your rules spelled out for you, it creates a responsibility to read, understand and follow them. Being an atheist gursh durn liberal, I have no such written guiding principles to turn on their heads when it suits me.
Query: Are Ward Churchill and Bill Clinton straw men or herrings in this debate? I would like to read more about Prof Rashid Khalid if you are herring fishing. Tell us some more about his connections to John McCain and Palestinian terrorists, and how that reflects Barak Obamas Muslim heritage and his hatred of American Christianity.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 06:29am
Curious SJ, would you have the children of gay and single parents culled from the rest of the school population so they do not infect the "good" kids? Would that be a "States Right"?
Should Mary Cheney's child be in a mobile classroom all by herself? Well, not alone, she could share with Bristol Palins bastard child.
Oh, wait.... they are the children of conservatives, so ..... wait....bzzzzzt...conservatives don't have 2 mommies.....or illegitimate children as teenagers....only libs do that....... no...no....it must be the fault of liberal media......bzzzzttzzz.....Gov Sanford did not commit adultery, that would make him like Bill Clinton...... ARRGHHH....the liberal media is to blame....2 mommies is to blame.....zzzzzzzttttbbbzztt....
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 06:41am
BTW, enough time passed if SJCHER wanted to TRY to respond...
the reason he can't answer the question "Is abortion murder?"...is the inevitable logical conclusion off of that....that being "In that case, would you support a SIMILAR punishment for a woman taking RU-486 to terminate a pregnancy, as you would for a 'regular' 'murder'?"
There is NO answer guys like SJ can give that won't contradict SOMETHING that they claim to believe....either that "abortion IS murder" or their support for being "tough on crime".
Try it yourself.
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 07:45am
Mask,
On this particular thread, I was not paying much attention to your posts. I should try that more often, it works quite well.
It really is not necessary to respond to you, because eventually you post back in and answer your own questions in the manner you prefer anyway.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 10:47am
Or you're so predictable...especially when you can be shown to contradict your own ideology.
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:18am
Mask,
Perfect example of what I mean. I did not respond to your posts. So it would be impossible for me to contradict myself if I had no further response to you.
You then declare I contradicted myself. So you provide answers you want if you do not get them.
Of course, if you do get answers from somebody, you still provide the answers you want anyway, and declare that person's response proved you right, whether it did or not!
You could have your own blog, with you asking questions and you responding back and you arguing with yourself.
The only problem with all this is, while you are doing this, you are not pulling together the information on why you think or can prove that WXYZ television in Detroit is biased towards Israel in their news coverage!!
Your response is overdue, and all the other bloggers on this site are anxious to find out what your response will be.
You are keeping a lot of anxious people waiting, Mask!
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 11:26am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 11:26am
See, SJCHER....you're not totally stupid.
If I EXPLAIN the trap you'd fall in, if you honestly answered the question "Is abortion murder"...
and you refuse to step into it...doesn't really prove anything other than you're not a complete idiot.
But the fact you can't even ATTEMPT to "disarm the trap" by both answering the question AND somehow formulating a non-contradictory response to "Well, okay, if it's 'murder'...and you're a 'pro-capital punishment' person....doesn't that mean you'd support EXECUTION for women who take RU-486?"....
shows you guys are either dishonest and unable to say what's REALLY on your minds....or you don't even believe your own rhetoric.
Which is it?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:43am
"Of course, if you do get answers from somebody, you still provide the answers you want anyway"Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 11:26am
Sounds like your take on "libs". You assign the value, then ignore anything that contradicts your assigned values.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 11:45am
MASK, don't you know the difference between the 19 Saudis and Yeminis and Timothy McVeigh?
Tim wasn't a terrorist.
Neither was the murderer of Dr. Tiller.
Because SJ sees common ground with those two.
Whereas he shares common ground with AL Qaida, but can't see it.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 11:50am
And don't forget, the uptick in bombings in Iraq shows that we are winning.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 11:53am
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 11:50am
Naw...see, I'm willing to bet, on my second option-
"....or you don't even believe your own rhetoric. "
See, they're fine SAYING "abortion is murder" a lot and pretending they truly believe it...but they really don't.
If they did, and (as I'm sure SJ is) they were also pro-death penalty, then a "premeditated, deliberate homocide" should invoke execution...
so what options are they left with?
1 Debate what "murder" means...and water down their own belief?
2. Debate "root causes" and "individual merits" of a "murder case"....and water down their "tough on crime" stance?
3. Agree...and sound like monsters to 95% of sane people?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 12:25pm
Which is it? Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:43am
I vote for the 'complete idiot' designation.
It could be a terminal inferiority complex. It's possible that the folks back home walk to the other side of the street when they see him. It's also possible that he is so fearful of 'those on the left' that he rarely leaves home and survives on a diet of Spaghetti-o's and Ho-Ho's.
But we may actually inspire his witlessness him by responding at all. I know that it's hard not to be offended by such labors of ignorance, but we may have to follow the advice of a great music teacher "Don't look at the trombones... it only encourages them".
We have to face the fact that his mission here is to piss people off, not to debate any topic on it's merits using logic. He'll use whatever means necessary to create indignation.
Posted by ficheye at 06/26/2009 @ 12:59pm
Mask,
You ask "..Which is it?..."
(with regard to 2 options about the answer I would give)
Actually, there is a third option you don't see.
And this option is INDEPENDENT of any political ideology or policy belief.
And it is.....there are only so many hours in a day.....and I would assume this to be true of most of the bloggers on The Nation.....as it is true with me.....
I would assume that most of us have other things we are supposed to be doing also......
And that sometimes people get wrapped up in internet surfing and blogging when they are supposed to be doing other things......
Thus, and this again is independent of political ideology........
One necessarily should not be spending their entire day parked on the blogs on the Nation unless they are independently wealthy and have no need to go to work or are retired and have nothing else to do, etc......
And thus I can not allow myself to get wrapped up in all your questions.....if by doing so I would be taking time from something else I should be doing instead or would rather be doing instead.......
And thus it was elective by me in this case to ignore your previous questions, I obviously have a few moments now so rather than answer whatever it is you are fishing for I am stating other obvious things instead........
The internet can be a time waster if you allow it to be and sometimes I spend more time on the Internet than I probably should be (again, no comment regarding political ideology).....
And this is no doubt true of other bloggers here as well, probably at times they get involved in blogging (which could include allowing themselves to get wrapped around the axle by you), instead of doing things they should be doing instead.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 1:16pm
The "third option" appears to be...
"I won't answer, because even I see the trap laid before me, and my simplistic ideology has no answer for it! But I'll filibuster for several paragraphs and try to make it seem as if I'm being thoughtful."
No, SJ....my question stumps you, because you either have never thought about what you say when you say "Abortion is murder" AND "I support the death penalty for capital crimes (like murder)."...
or you don't WANT to think about the contradiction, just keep spouting the talking points with no deep thinking.
Maybe if you try some other "pro-lifers"....THEY might have an answer for you and get back to me???
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 1:35pm
"He'll use whatever means necessary to create indignation."-----Posted by ficheye at 06/26/2009 @ 12:59pm
Your clairvoyance is amazing, fich.
Ref: Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 1:37pm
The abortion issue has really hit home with me for the first time yesterday. My cousin is pregnant and the baby has been diagnosed with anencephaly. Her husband and his family are extremely religious. They have already decided that she cannot have an abortion because of their beliefs. She is forced to carry the pregnancy to term only to deliver a dead and deformed baby. I cannot understand where "morality", religious or otherwise, can prohibit the abortion of a dead baby. The physical and psychological trauma of carrying an anencephalecitc fetus to term must be greater than the trauma of aborting an already dead fetus. More than ever anti-choice rhetoric sickens me to the core. When a dead fetus has more rights than the mother I have to wonder what kind of "morality" are anti-choicers really espousing?
Posted by abraxas at 06/26/2009 @ 1:45pm
"Don't look at the trombones... it only encourages them".
ROFLMAO!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 4:18pm
Posted by abraxas at 06/26/2009 @ 1:45pm
1: Awesome album. I had my wisdom teeth pulled while listening to Carlos and Co, had a great time!
2: Your cousins predicament is heart wrenching. To me it solidifies the belief that religion is a personal choice only. Never should ones persons beliefs in a cosmic entity, and that persons individual beliefs on what that entity might consider "moral", be forced upon another being. If we want to stretch a little, we can see the outcome brewing in Iran, and daily in Afghanistan.
3: Not only are her husband and family putting her psychic well being at risk, they are also putting her physical life at risk. All to meet the ideals and notions laid down by menfolk that lived 2000 years ago and had zero idea what anencephaly is. Menfolk that considered women property. Menfolk that would probably blame the woman for the still born fetus, blame that would likely be also put at the feet of demons or witches or blame the woman for not being righteous enough in the eyes of The Lord.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 4:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:56am |
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:12am |
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:45am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 1:45pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:34pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:11pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 3:56pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 4:01pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 11:26am
And then this, when he is asked to answer a difficult moral question:
"One necessarily should not be spending their entire day parked on the blogs on the Nation unless they are independently wealthy and have no need to go to work or are retired and have nothing else to do, etc......
And thus I can not allow myself to get wrapped up in all your questions.....if by doing so I would be taking time from something else I should be doing instead or would rather be doing instead......
Posted by sjchermak at 06/26/2009 @ 1:16pm
a post that took more time to compose than would an answer to the question.
heee heee he he.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 4:33pm
heee heee he he. Posted by crabwalk at 06/26/2009 @ 4:33pm
Thanks Crab. Nice rejoinder.
Posted by ficheye at 06/26/2009 @ 9:59pm