I was shocked to log on this evening and learn that George Tiller has been murdered.
I have argued long and loud on this blog that people who claim to be pro-life but who support pro-abortion politicians are not, in fact, pro-life.
It is all the more easy to argue that someone who claims to be pro-life but who murders a man is not, in fact, pro-life.
George Tiller's murderer is someone who, like Tiller himself, presumed to claim the authority to decide who might live, and who must die.
The world is a better place without George Tiller, but his murderer should be brought to justice, and face the full penalties provided in Kansas law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Very well said!
I've been Lutheran all of my life, and I'm disappointed that another Lutheran (Tiller) decided to ignore the Bible and kill unborn babies.
Phil Collins
So my take away from this is that you are against the death penalty.
You may want to rethink you voting strategy them.
I do oppose the death penalty, Mike, but I consider it a far less urgent issue than abortion, or the defense of marriage.
I'm glad to hear that, and I get your abortion priority, but don't understand how you prioritize prohibiting gay marriage over stopping state-mandated killing.
Then, Mike, rather than highjack the thread onto another topic, go and read what I've written on the topic, and I think you'll understand what my priorities are.
I find that a favorite tactic of liberals is to tell me not to talk about my topics, but their topics. But their topics are what their blogs are for.
Oh please. I'm not forcing you to talk about anything. Your topic is Pro-life, and my comments camparing abortion to the death penalty is fair and on topic. You're the one that brought up gay marriage out of context, now you accuse me of changing the subject. What are you nervous to have you views compared about more than one subject at a time?
As for you're previous written views. I may have a look, give me a link.
And for what it's worth, we all frame our arguments to make the points we want. Don't pretend to be the victim of the same tactics you use.
I'm not a victim Mike, I'm not here crying. Nor was I complaining, merely noting an easily observed fact.
If you're interested in what I've written about marriage, you might start with "Contra Gay Marriage" under the "Posts to Remember" on the sidebar.
Mike wrote:
I'm glad to hear that, and I get your abortion priority, but don't understand how you prioritize prohibiting gay marriage over stopping state-mandated killing.
Paul has already addressed his take on this, so far... but surely you see a difference between the execution of a provably innocent unborn child, versus the execution of a provably guilty criminal?
I don't say this to promote capital punishment--I'm heart and soul with the late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, on that matter--but if it's truly an understanding of the Catholic pro-life position that you seek (as opposed to "drive-by snarks", as some comment-leavers have used), then consider:
1) both direct and procured abortion and freely-chosen homosexual activity are intrinsic moral evils: no possible circumstances can make them morally licit.
2) killing, while "evil" in the sense of being something which no one should desire, is not intrinsically evil: some circumstances (such as self-defense, defense of society, etc.) render it morally licit, or even morally obligatory. The motive of the executioner becomes rather paramount.
I don't suppose that this will convince you to change your own views or priorities; but you did ask.
Well I'll be...! Blogger seems to have fixed the "lack of line breaks after special formatting" issue! Praise God! :) (Typing [br][br] was getting old!)
...surely you see a difference between the execution of a provably innocent unborn child, versus the execution of a provably guilty criminal?
I do, but for some reason, some people seem blind to the fact that virtually all abortions don't involve children, they involve cells which are not yet children.
Actually I'm the one who believes an unborn child is truly and completely innocent. Your theology (I'm assuming you're Roman Catholic) teaches the horrible notion that the unborn are guilty of "original sin" before the eyes of a god.
"drive-by snarks", as some comment-leavers have used)
Ah yes, the obligatory oblique accusation aimed at any disagreement ;-)
You know who I am. You know I have fun playing with you guys, but I also think that morality is important. I am passionate about it, and sometimes feel obliged to correct. I know I won't convince, but I think you need to hear why you're wrong, even if you won't understand.
...both direct and procured abortion and freely-chosen homosexual activity are intrinsic moral evils...
In your opinion.
Why have you have conspicuously omitted "spontaneous" abortion, which is the most common type? Because your "god's will" can't be evil?
2) killing...is not intrinsically evil...
If abortion is "intrinsically" evil, and killing is not, what is your basis for abortion being evil? Just that somebody said so a long time ago? I assure you, they did not. Your moral compass seems to be stuck, and not pointing true.
Killing a person is worse than killing cells which are not a person. The reason is not because I say so, but because people have rights, and cells (even fertilized ones), do not. Not that it is an authority on morality, but even your bible does not disagree with this. I look forward to your coming up with a passage that prohibits abortion to support your position.
And your assertion that homosexuality is an "intrinsic" evil is only that. An assertion. But now I'll be accused on hijacking again... ;-)
Mike wrote:
[Paladin]
...surely you see a difference between the execution of a provably innocent unborn child, versus the execution of a provably guilty criminal?
[Mike]
I do, but for some reason, some people seem blind to the fact that virtually all abortions don't involve children, they involve cells which are not yet children.
I see. How, exactly, do you propose to prove that assertion? (And by "virtually", are you giving tacit admission that some abortions kill children? Which ones, if I may ask? I'm genuinely curious... and I'm equally curious how such children qualified for human rights under your moral/ontological schemata)
Actually I'm the one who believes an unborn child is truly and completely innocent.
That's hardly a favour to them (and it's logically absurd), if you consider them to be non-children. I imagine you consider red blood cells to be innocent (truly and completely), but that doesn't approach the topic at hand, I think.
Your theology (I'm assuming you're Roman Catholic)
You assume correctly, though I'll be pedantic and remind you that it's not "my" theology in the sense that I somehow made it up.
[...]teaches the horrible notion that the unborn are guilty of "original sin" before the eyes of a god.
Catholic theology certainly teaches the reality of Original Sin (you'll need to explain what's so "horrible" about it). In the meantime, perhaps you might broaden your horizons by reading Chesterton (a noble undertaking, regardless)...
[Paladin]
"drive-by snarks", as some comment-leavers have used)
[Mike]
Ah yes, the obligatory oblique accusation aimed at any disagreement ;-)
Not a bit of it. I've had numerous disagreements--some of which were quite intense--with people (both on this blog and off) who maintained admirable civility. By "snark", I usually refer to those who descend to caustic sarcasm, appeals to the gallery, foul language, and other such nonsense. (I wasn't referring to you by the comment, if that helps.)
I know I won't convince, but I think you need to hear why you're wrong, even if you won't understand.
If you're as sincere as you propose (and if you keep good manners in your replies), then I'll welcome the discourse; do be aware that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, however. Paul and I (and others of like mind) feel passionate about leading you out of your own errors.
(To be continued...)
Blast that Paladin Limit... :)
[Paladin]
...both direct and procured abortion and freely-chosen homosexual activity are intrinsic moral evils...
[Mike]
In your opinion.
Not so, sir... unless you wish to give me credit for bringing the Catholic Faith into being? I'm not quite that old, you know...
Why have you have conspicuously omitted "spontaneous" abortion, which is the most common type?
Because no human agent can choose it (hence the name). The original topic of the thread *did* deal with human agents who are "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice", yes?
Because your "god's will" can't be evil?
That is so.
[Paladin]
2) killing...is not intrinsically evil...
[Mike]
If abortion is "intrinsically" evil, and killing is not, what is your basis for abortion being evil?
That's where the qualifiers "direct and procured" come into play. The difference between a killing and a murder is the intent of the agent, yes? I am not guilty of murder if I accidentally feed someone a food to which they're deathly allergic; but I *am* guilty of murder if I made a free and informed choice to kill thusly. Just so, for abortion.
In logic, we would say that "killing" is necessary for the definition of murder (which abortion most certainly is), but it is not sufficient.
Just that somebody said so a long time ago? I assure you, they did not. Your moral compass seems to be stuck, and not pointing true.
:) I await your a priori proof of those stunningly bold, objective statements, sir!
Killing a person is worse than killing cells which are not a person.
True.
The reason is not because I say so, but because people have rights,
Why, in your mind, is that true? From where do such rights come?
and cells (even fertilized ones), do not.
Now, I must ask you to consider this reasonably! There is no such thing as a "fertilized blood cell", or any cell other than an ovum--correct? In a sense, you're quite right: fertilized cells of all other types definitely cannot have rights... because they do not exist. But when an ovum is fertilized, it ceases to be an oocyte (haploid), and it becomes a zygote (diploid). Trivializing that event does not make it go away. It seems that the definition of "person" is at play, here (surprise, surprise!)...
Not that it is an authority on morality, but even your bible does not disagree with this.
You have me more curious than ever, now. Could you explain?
I look forward to your coming up with a passage that prohibits abortion to support your position.
You seem to be saying "Catholic", but thinking "sola scriptura Protestant"; if you're going to try to refute Catholic theology, you might wish to meet it, first, rather than chasing after variants.
And your assertion that homosexuality is an "intrinsic" evil is only that. An assertion. But now I'll be accused on hijacking again... ;-)
:) To be sure. Another thread for that one, perhaps.
Killing a person is worse than killing cells which are not a person. The reason is not because I say so, but because people have rights, and cells (even fertilized ones), do not.
I am left to wonder of what, if not cells, Mike is composed?
And, if cells, what additional feature he claims makes him a person.
Paladin, why do our commenters keep trying to deny personhood to the unborn without defining personhood? Haven't they figured out yet that we're going to ask their criteria?
@Mike,
It is difficult for me to watch an exchange between men on the subject of abortion. I understand that men are involved in conception, and have all been former fetuses. However, it is impossible for you to ever experience pregnancy or the physical act of an abortion. For you, it is theory and philosophy, and so much hot air. It is only "cells" to you because you have not swallowed the pills, sat alone in a cold room in a hospital gown, laid on an examining table where your legs are spread wide while a "doctor" sucks out those "cells" from your body. You can never know the cramping, the fuzziness of your thoughts and vision from the sedative, the ache in your thighs from the pressure, the bleeding, the emptiness and the fear. You can never know what it's like to be placed alone (again) in a waiting room for recovery so the nurse can be there in case any of your "cells" weren't completely removed and pass out on their own. You will never experience the depression, the shame, or the increased chance of subsequent miscarriage or infertility, the risk of breast cancer - all because your body was suddenly stopped in its process of creating LIFE.
You will never know what it's like to mark the anniversary of that day every year for the rest of your life, knowing exactly what age your "cells" would have been had they not been vacuumed out. Marking their age in the faces of children you see.
You can call Tiller a "savior" if you want to - because you have the luxury of never having to be in a position of submission to such a monster.
These doctors do not help women. They simply perform one more act of abuse on them in the name of choice.
Jennifer
Jennifer, if you (or women in general) are in a position of submission you have no one to blame but yourselves. It is a choice (oh my, there is that word again) that some women are happy to make. Sounds like maybe you made the wrong choice for you, either that or you are using another woman's experience and projecting it on the rest of us. But trust me, many women and MEN (I know, another dirty word to you) are quite pleased that doctor's like Tiller do there jobs.
@Jake -
Uh oh, did I just assert myself and speak my mind? Should I submit to you and keep quiet? That is what you want women who have negative experiences with abortion to do, isn't it? We listened to the pro-choice argument and followed your advice, but it was a lie. How dare we speak up and say so.
Jennifer
But trust me, many women and MEN ... are quite pleased that doctor's like Tiller do there jobs.
You're certainly right that many men are "quite pleased" that there are abortionists to do their jobs, so that men don't have to.
For guys who want to have sex without responsibility, abortion is a great deal.
For women who want respect and security, not so much.
As men, abortion degrades us. It's a convenient out to avoid our having to make commitments, and it enables some of us to screw around our entire lives.
Paladin, why do our commenters keep trying to deny personhood to the unborn without defining personhood? Haven't they figured out yet that we're going to ask their criteria?
:) It *would* save a bit of time, on their part.
Jennifer, I can only imagine what you've endured; you're in my prayers, now and always.
Jake, I can only hope you outgrow the nonsense that you wrote here; not only was it logically incoherent, but it was cruel... especially in response to a woman who experienced something about which you know virtually nothing. If you can't be reasonable, then get some manners, at very least.
I agree that Jake could have watched his manners a bit more closely, but I don't see anything illogical in what he wrote.
Certainly "because you have the luxury of never having to be in a position of submission to such a monster" deserves a reasoned response.
With apologies to ole Breaking from the Pack--always take those meds as prescribed--Tiller ain't Hitler. It's not like Tiller abducted women to abort their fetuses. He didn't have women deported against their will to Wichita. They came. Somehow that gets lost in the discussion.
And some people were happy to go. Let's see if we have any less compassion for them:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/dr-george-tiller.html
And how much compassion shall we have for the third-trimester babies he specialized in killing? That does seem to get lost, too.
John wrote:
I agree that Jake could have watched his manners a bit more closely, but I don't see anything illogical in what he wrote.
Then I can only wonder at your definition of "logical"! At the risk of running long, let's look (with "fisking" in the style of Fr. Z):
=== quote from Jake ===
Jennifer, if you (or women in general) are in a position of submission you have no one to blame but yourselves. [This is insane. Jennifer's whole point was that she was DECEIVED in manifold ways before the abortion, and she only saw through that lie the hard way, by experiencing the lie firsthand. You seriously find this to be a logical statement of Jake's, John? "It's your own fault for being so submissive and gullible?"] It is a choice (oh my, there is that word again) that some women are happy to make. [This proves absolutely nothing germane to the point; it's possible to find someone who's "happy" to find a cheap assassin for one's wife, too.] Sounds like maybe you made the wrong choice for you, either that or you are using another woman's experience and projecting it on the rest of us.[Which part of this childish accusation (accusing Jennifer either of lying or of being delusional) do you find logical?] But trust me, many women and MEN (I know, another dirty word to you) are quite pleased that doctor's like Tiller do there jobs.[See above; see Paul's cogent response to that specific point, as well.]
=== end quote ===
Certainly "because you have the luxury of never having to be in a position of submission to such a monster" deserves a reasoned response.
It deserves applause, frankly; Jennifer rightly (and logically) pointed out that Jake will never be in a position to suffer an abortion personally (do you disagree?), and she highlighted the fact that a man who kills unborn children--and at stages of viability which would yield extremely high survival rates if the children were delivered by C-section, or even if labour were induced)--can certainly be called a monster. Hyperbolic? Perhaps... though you've never shied away from hyperbole yourself, so I wonder why you'd complain now. It seems that you simply didn't like Jennifer's comment, and you threw the "question the logic!" idea out there, for no particular logical reason.
With apologies to ole Breaking from the Pack--always take those meds as prescribed
Mm-hmm. John never uses hyperbole or rudeness, does he?
And some people were happy to go. Let's see if we have any less compassion for them:
John, this is incoherent. First, those who are deluded enough to be happy to kill their children are worthy of deep and enduring pity; it's a heartbreaking thing. Second, why would the happiness of such people have anything to do with the evilness of Tiller's actions? Surely you know that it's possible to find those who rejoice with evil? (Were all of the Nazis crushed with grief as the Jews were being murdered? Were all of Stalin's henchmen weeping as they left millions to die in Siberia?) Have some sense.
Paladin,
In response to your "fisking."
1) "This is insane. Jennifer's whole point..."
I find it unkind and gruff, not illogical or insane. At some point, we do have to take responsibility for our own actions. (I'm not saying Jennifer hasn't--it's just that wasn't a necessary part of her story here.) I know more than I care to about being young and weak and confused. I know about being vulnerable enough to listen to someone, anyone, who offers me a way out. But I find it hard to believe that anyone of reproductive age could be a complete blank slate when it comes to knowing something about how they feel about abortion. Can anyone be fully infomed about what having an abortion will be like? No, absolutely not. At the same time, I can't think anyone can be completely uninformed. Yes, I'm sure there's blame to go around, but in the end no one makes women walk through those doors. And there's no way they can be totally ignorant of what they are doing.
A subsequent comment by Jennifer adds context here: "We listened to the pro-choice argument and followed your advice, but it was a lie."
The "pro-choice argument" doesn't offer advice. It advocates choice. To say otherwise is to not tell the truth.
2) "This proves absolutely nothing germane to the point..."
Depends what the point is. You seem to think the issue is black and white, evil abortionists vs. vulnerable, unsuspecting women. I don't think that tells the whole story.
3) "Which part of this childish accusation (accusing Jennifer either of lying or of being delusional) do you find logical?]"
He didn't accuse her of lying--there wasn't anything one could suspect was a lie. That's because the story was ambiguous: Jennifer simply said men would never experience these things, not that she had. Did she ever say she had an abortion in that post? No. Read it again. Jake wasn't sure what Jennifer was saying, I think, and neither was I. (And I wonder why she singled out men. What about women who have never experienced an abortion? Can Jennifer listen to them talk about abortion?)
More to follow, if you care...
To Jennifer: Yes you did assert yourself and speak your mind. You should have done that if you felt strongly about abortion at that time of your abortion. I don't want women to be submissive. I encourage men and women to be full of conviction and courage. Thus the pro-choice attitude. No one forced you to get an abortion. You made the choice. You claim (or at least insinuate) that you were tricked or coerced into your abortion. Sorry if you were, but ultimately you chose to go through with it. No one is advocating forcing anyone to do anything. No man has the right to legislate or demand a woman have a baby or an abortion. It is the woman's choice, always has been, always will be.
Paladin, see John's comments above, I never accused Jennifer of lying. Re-read her first post, she never explicitly states she had an abortion, so without that knowledge I responded as best I could.
Also, Jennifer, you state the pro-choice argument is a lie. What is the lie? Did anyone tell you that getting an abortion isn't ending a pregnancy? I think you everyone knows that choosing to get an abortion is ending a pregnancy. What is so hard about this?
The "lie" she mentions Jake, is that abortion doesn't kill a baby. Of course it does.
No it doesn't, it kills a fetus. By the way, if Jennifer is not smart enough to realize that having an abortion will prevent her from having a baby, then I don't know what to say. I don't think the pro-choice movement tells women that having an abortion will result in a baby in 9 months. This isn't rocket science.
Jake, if a woman isn't already pregnant with a baby, she can't get an abortion.
Abortion doesn't stop a woman from being a mother (nor a man from being a father); it makes her the mother of a dead baby.
Dr. Tiller killed healthy, viable babies up to nine months gestational age, and you think the Nuremburg defense is sufficient.
I've long said that there are two kinds of liberal: those who tell the lies, and those who believe the lies. Clearly, you are the first kind; you know better than this.
We will have to disagree I suppose. Abortion DOES stop a woman from being a mother. It really is pretty simple. If a woman is pregnant, and she has an abortion, she will no longer be pregnant, thus, will not become a mother. And as far as your last statement, do you think I am wasting my time writing about lies? Why do you assume I am telling lies. You do not know me. Trust this, I fully believe everything I write. I think you and people that think like you threaten society. This is why I express my views, to let you know that there is opposition to your beliefs.
By the way Paul, you state the following above, "You're certainly right that many men are "quite pleased" that there are abortionists to do their jobs, so that men don't have to." What does this mean? Are you implying that if there are no doctor's to perform abortions then men will take it upon themselves to perform abortion, or worse kill after a woman has chosen to give birth? No one suggested anything like that. Who is telling lies now???
No, Jake, I'm implying nothing. Rather, I'm saying outright that it's the duty of a man to take care of a woman he's impregnated, and to see to the care and raising of his children.
Happily, abortionists allow many men to shirk these adult responsibilities, and remain permanent adolescents.
If the woman chooses to have the baby, then I agree a man should take responsibility for that child.
John wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Jake]
Jennifer, if you (or women in general) are in a position of submission you have no one to blame but yourselves. [...]
[Paladin]
This is insane. Jennifer's whole point was that she was DECEIVED in manifold ways before the abortion, and she only saw through that lie the hard way, by experiencing the lie firsthand. You seriously find this to be a logical statement of Jake's, John? "It's your own fault for being so submissive and gullible?"
[John]
I find it unkind and gruff, not illogical or insane. At some point, we do have to take responsibility for our own actions. (I'm not saying Jennifer hasn't--it's just that wasn't a necessary part of her story here.)
I can only conclude, then, that you and Jake have a very pristine, sanitized and imaginary idea of what "abortion" is, and what dynamics surround it. You seriously think that the number of women who are *coerced* into having abortions is vanishingly small? And you seriously think that, after listening to everyone (including Jake) say, "It's not a child, it's a [fetus/clump of cells/etc.]!", the discovery that she was party to her child's brutal murder would not be devastating, and that the lies told her were not a terrible betrayal?
Look: it's not my purpose to delete all responsibility from women who actually *choose* to kill their children through abortion--but I'm amazed at the fact that you'd portray the devastating after-effects of that murder as some mild sort of "buyer's remorse"... as if one had bought an expensive sofa that didn't match the rest of the furnishings, after all! ("Don't like it? Oh, well... suck it up, kid; you chose it, so deal with it.")
Wow. And pro-aborts usually try to excoriate pro-lifers for the "she made her bed, so let her lie in it" line. Jake scoffs at Jennifer, and John defends it. This doesn't bode well for the "sensitive pro-choice" side...
I know more than I care to about being young and weak and confused. I know about being vulnerable enough to listen to someone, anyone, who offers me a way out. But I find it hard to believe that anyone of reproductive age could be a complete blank slate when it comes to knowing something about how they feel about abortion.
Why would that be necessary, for this case? One can have an inadequate understanding of an issue without having 0% understanding of that issue. Heavens, I encounter this (inadequate, but not none) in my math classes, on a daily basis!
To illustrate the point: do you honestly think that any amount of ivory-tower debate on the moral evils of murder could possibly prepare anyone for the actual experience of slitting someone's throat with a razor? Just so: Jake's flippancy and glibness in dismissing Jennifer's point (and the pain of women who've been deceived in the ways described, with the blood of their children being spilled as a result)
If anything, would it not be better for your personal experience to give you *greater* empathy for Jennifer's bitterness and betrayal? Does this not move you to want to work toward such betrayals not happening to anyone else? Or have you despaired of all morality on earth, and let cruelty run wild on your watch?
Can anyone be fully infomed about what having an abortion will be like? No, absolutely not. At the same time, I can't think anyone can be completely uninformed. Yes, I'm sure there's blame to go around, but in the end no one makes women walk through those doors. And there's no way they can be totally ignorant of what they are doing.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right: that the woman in question shares some of the blame. (Since you're a stickler for the exact text of Jennifer's comment, you'll note that nowhere did she exonerate herself from all responsibility... true?) How does that change her main point [i.e. that she was deceived, and that such a deception was an evil of wildly frightful proportions]?
P.S. The anti-spam word for this comment was "lament"! Apropos...
A subsequent comment by Jennifer adds context here: "We listened to the pro-choice argument and followed your advice, but it was a lie."
Just so.
The "pro-choice argument" doesn't offer advice. It advocates choice. To say otherwise is to not tell the truth.
John, I'm assuming that you're being sincere, here... but--forgive me--you're being sincerely muddle-headed, on this specific point. Your idealized mental version of "pro-choice"--in addition to being a horrifying denial of human dignity (e.g. who, exactly, is given the right to decide which humans [Christians, Jews, blacks, unborn?] can be killed by "choice"?)--does not resemble the actual situation on the ground. Older men who impregnate teenagers coerce their sexual charges into having an abortion (which is done without parent knowledge [by law!], and without Planned Parenthood, et al., informing the police of the statutory rape) regularly. Boyfriends regularly say to their girlfriends, "if you don't get an abortion, I'm leaving you." Parents say to their daughters, "if you have that child, you're not living in our house! No one must find out about this! You're going to the abortion clinic NOW!" Even more shockingly, husbands are increasingly forcing their *wives* to get abortions! (You can easily dig up stats on this, online--but the local crisis pregnancy shelter gets enough of all of the above, even in our small rural area, to make me think that these aren't "flukes".)
Check out the following website, called (appropriately enough) "The Un-Choice", if you want a quick reference for some of the above. But please reconsider the nonsensical and fairy-tale version of "pro-choice" which you currently hold; not only is it an evil philosophy in its own right (i.e. "choice" should include the choice to kill others), but it isn't even TRUE!
[Jake]
It is a choice (oh my, there is that word again) that some women are happy to make.
[Paladin]
This proves absolutely nothing germane to the point; it's possible to find someone who's "happy" to find a cheap assassin for one's wife, too.
[John]
Depends what the point is. You seem to think the issue is black and white, evil abortionists vs. vulnerable, unsuspecting women. I don't think that tells the whole story.
(?!?) Are you addressing the point at hand, at all? The "point" to which I was referring was the fact that "some women are happy with the choice" does not equal "the choice was a good thing to do". And if you read even a fraction of what Paul, the Catholic Church, and I have written on this subject, I think you won't find any such simplistic caricature as you've presented here. (How could I possibly advocate praying for the soul of Tiller, otherwise? And how could the Church declare that women who freely choose such a course are excommunicated from the Church, if it were as simple as your caricature portrayed?)
He didn't accuse her of lying--there wasn't anything one could suspect was a lie. That's because the story was ambiguous: Jennifer simply said men would never experience these things, not that she had. Did she ever say she had an abortion in that post? No. Read it again. Jake wasn't sure what Jennifer was saying, I think, and neither was I.
I think, with all due respect, that you're trying to put lipstick (i.e. a "positive spin") on a pig (i.e. Jake's wretched post), here. Let's assume just for the sake of argument, that Jennifer never aborted her own child (and I'll admit my error re: "lying/delusion accusation", if you like... though her account leaves little doubt in my mind that some aspect of this is personal, to her). How, exactly, does this undercut what Jennifer said? Do you suppose Jake is trying the "It never happened to you, so shut up about it!" approach? I find that illogical; don't you? Or do you find the "blame the victim" game to be logical? I really think that you're trying to get off on a technicality, John; even if Jennifer's account is a composite, its points stand.
And I wonder why she singled out men. What about women who have never experienced an abortion? Can Jennifer listen to them talk about abortion?
Think about that, for a moment. If such women blithely talked about it being "no big deal", don't you suppose that she'd find that difficult to endure... with bitter irony on top of that?
Jake,
I'll retract my comment about the "accusation of lying/delusional", if you like--and for the time being (though I reserve strong suspicions that Jennifer's story was personal, somehow--and, quite frankly, none of our business, unless she chooses to reveal it).
That being said: forgive me, but you've been spouting vituperative nonsense ever since you joined the thread. Aside from many other errors, you and John (and those of like mind) seem to be under the mistaken notion that, "if the abortion-tolerant lobby calls itself 'pro-choice', then they must *be* pro-choice, and all abortions in the world must follow that 'free choice' paradigm'. Here are only a few quotes from sources regarding coerced abortions in the U.S.A., which might cause an intellectually honest "pro-choice" believer to hesitate:
In their own words, women tell about their experiences of coercion:
“I screamed that I didn’t want the abortion.”
“They said I made the right decision, but I was never given a choice.”
“The nurse said this was not the time for questions.”
“My husband exploded in anger ... ‘Have an abortion or I’ll leave you.’ ”
“Our pastor assured us that abortion was ok.”
“The doctor leaned across his mahogany desk and snapped, ‘It’s not a baby!’ ”
“My parents locked me in the house and made the appointment.”
“No one told me there were places I could go for help.”
“The counselor drew a micro-dot ... I feel so betrayed.”
“It doesn’t look like you have much choice.”
“He destroyed our apartment ... he was killing me with his words.”
“My boss threatened to push me down the stairs if I didn’t abort.”
“They would just look down their noses at me for being pregnant.”
“The abortionist strapped me down and said, ‘Shut up and quit that yelling.’ ”
“All the people that mattered told me to abort. No one would help me.”
“Everything in me was yelling, ‘No! No! No!’”
Dismiss that, if you will... but dismiss all pretense of honesty, if you do. I'm giving you one chance, Jake, to prove to me that you're simply ignorant of these things, and not simply lying in order to preserve you pet ideas. Consider these, in the light of your "every woman had a choice" mantra. Study the entire site; this is just the tip of the iceberg. Learn something. Then change your mind, abandon your error, and we'll welcome you aboard.
You might also consider an apology to Jennifer for your ill manners toward her. Even if she offered a composite from the accounts of other women, nothing excuses oafish insults; if she did indeed experience abortion personally, then your response was monstrous. Prove that you can be a gentleman. Real men can swallow their pride and own up to wrongdoing. Can you?
Paladin...seriously give it a rest. I never advocated forcing women to get an abortion. I have said it before and I will say it again. I am pro-choice. Choice. Choice. I thought I would repeat it a few times to get it through your thick skull. I am not pro-force a woman to get an abortion. I am not pro-force a woman to have a baby that doesn't want one. The site you reference should not be directed at me. I do not advocate forcing women to do anything. If Jennifer was physically strapped to a gurney against her will, then she has an argument. If she willing went to the clinic, had an abortion, and then had regrets, then it is her fault for not understanding what she was doing.
(*sigh*)
Jake... are you seriously determined to be a troll?
1) Where, exactly, did I accuse you of advocating forced abortions? I accused you of ignorance, not of complicity. Do you understand the difference?
2) Rather than fire off a knee-jerk, insult-ridden, trollish comment, please read my comments again. I explained my position thoroughly. I explained that, while you may support an imaginary and pristine "freedom to choose", you--if you're being honest, here--have been duped into supporting the culture of death. Here's the key quote from what I wrote (and which you apparently ignored):
Aside from many other errors, you and John (and those of like mind) seem to be under the mistaken notion that, "if the abortion-tolerant lobby calls itself 'pro-choice', then they must *be* pro-choice, and all abortions in the world must follow that 'free choice' paradigm'.
Now... should I repeat that several times, so that you don't miss it again...?
I am not pro-force a woman to get an abortion.
I see. You merely enable that corrupt process with your votes, and you don't lift a comment or a finger to stop it, and you willfully ignore all evidence--whether numeric, verbal, or visual--which highlights the evil of the act itself.
I am not pro-force a woman to have a baby that doesn't want one.
Nor am I. I'm wholly in favour of allowing a woman to surrender her child for adoption, if necessary. But you are in favour of allowing the child to be put to death--by means which you may not have the courage even to view--while I am not in favour of that "choice". Some choices should not be allowed by law... and I think even you would agree with that, yes?
The site you reference should not be directed at me. I do not advocate forcing women to do anything.
The site should be "directed" at anyone ignorant enough to support a mythical "pro-choice" idea; they have the responsibility to know what they're actually supporting.
If Jennifer was physically strapped to a gurney against her will, then she has an argument.
But if she were threatened with abandonment, destitution, etc., she wouldn't have an argument, you say?
If she willing went to the clinic, had an abortion, and then had regrets, then it is her fault for not understanding what she was doing.
Have some sense, here, at least! YOU, YOURSELF, have been brainwashed into thinking that THESE are not murdered children.
Now... be honest. Have you, stalwart "pro-choicer" that you are, seen these images before, or thought about them? These children are of the same age as those murdered by George Tiller (whose actions and "services" you praise). Do you approve of that "choice"? Do you approve of the fact that the law allows that "choice"? And if you say "yes", would you be so kind as to explain WHY?
I have been duped by nothing. I know women who have had abortions, of their own free choosing, and are quite pleased with their decision. I am not willing to take that right away. I don't advocate forcing women to have an abortion. If that happens, and I never claimed it didn't, then it should stop. But not at the expense of women who willfully choose to have an abortion and are happy with their decision. I have been brainwashed by no one. People choose to have abortions for very different reasons. Health of the fetus, being afraid to admit pregnancy due to overbearing families, etc. etc. Last I checked, there are no laws being broken when a woman chooses to get an abortion. You are willing to take a right away from women because some others are forced. I am not. I have seen all of your propaganda films and pictures, it doesn't change my mind. Keep posting them if you wish, it doesn't matter. I really am starting to think you don't understand the meaning of the word choice. Look it up, obviously I can't explain it to you.
Oh, and speaking of brainwashing. You are a member of the Catholic Church, and you are accusing me of being brainwashed? You must have a mirror around, take a look at it once in a while.
Mm-hmm. Well... thank you for revealing your species, at least, Mr. Troll. My mistake, for thinking that you wanted a rational and civil conversation.
Go haunt the Brooklyn Bridge or something, will you?
That's the best you can come up with. Why am I a troll, because I have a differing opinion? I stated above why I defend choice, I answered every one of your questions. The fact that you can't win the argument must frustrate you, I understand, but calling me a troll makes you look pathetic. You speak of women being forced and pressured into having an abortion, but you fail to mention the pressure and guilt thrust upon women by protesters who yell out baby killer and much worse. Why is that pressure okay? These women are breaking no laws, yet buffer zones are needed to keep the likes of you away from them. What do you say to that?? Nothing probably, because you know it is wrong and disgusting.
Learn the rules, Jake: be civil, and get a fulsome reply from me. Pull out the flamethrower and insults (which you do with almost every sentence), and get rightly labelled a troll (and get ignored).
Your mother *did* teach you the difference between nastiness and civility, right? If your argument is so solid, then it should hold up without the machismo and other piffle you use. Try it. People might take you seriously. Until then, sayonara.
Once again you do not answer my question. Begging out of a discussion because you don't like your opponents argument is cowardly, and deep down you know it.
Jake, it was probably this line:
Oh, and speaking of brainwashing. You are a member of the Catholic Church, and you are accusing me of being brainwashed? You must have a mirror around, take a look at it once in a while.
Which is a blatant slur on every faithful Catholic.
Ok....I apologize for that comment. But in all fairness, the brainwash comment from Paladin did set me off. But you are right...that was uncalled for.
Sorry I've been away from this, um, "discussion", but I never have as much time as I'd like to comment. I had started to answer many questions asked of me earlier, but I just can't keep up. So for now just a quick observation:
paladin said...
In their own words, women tell about their experiences of coercion:...
A) This is highly exaggerated at best, and likely made up.
B) This says nothing about abortion. It only speaks to coercion and force, which I would agree is wrong.
Sorry for the delay, everyone; I was flattened by a case of tonsillitis, of all things! Wow, that varmint packs a wallop! (I've been pretty much bedridden and semi-conscious for 2-3 days...)
Mike wrote, re: my quote of "the un-choice":
A) This is highly exaggerated at best, and likely made up.
Mike, do you have even a shred of reasoning to back up that statement, or are you simply sharing your sentiment of the moment?
B) This says nothing about abortion.
We really must be using the English language differently. Did you miss the fact that these were cases of coerced *abortions*?
Perhaps you mean that this doesn't address abortion as an abstract concept, or the case of a hypothetical woman who made a free and fully informed choice to kill her child by abortion. That's true enough... but that wasn't my point (as I've told you, and others, again and again). I was highlighting the fact that the abortion industry in the United States (and elsewhere), despite its pacifying propaganda, does not operate on the basis of empowering "free and fully informed choices"; even by secular and abortion-tolerant standards, the abortion industry is corrupt. When given the choice between informing women of a plausible increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion (see here for one of the most recent studies which declares that "induced abortion is the best predictor" of breast cancer) and keeping silent, they keep silent. When given the choice between reporting statutory rape and keeping silent, many Planned Parenthood employees keep silent (or suggest plausible deceptions and illegal evasions of state laws to the girl). That's my point: not only are your rarefied 'pro-choice ideals' evil on general principle (which I've discussed elsewhere, in other threads), but the abortion industry doesn't even live up to them... or anything close! Financial concerns and political ideology are far more important to them than is any maintenance of honourable practices.
It only speaks to coercion and force, which I would agree is wrong.
But you don't seem to know or acknowledge that such coercion is part-and-parcel with the real-life abortion industry; therein is one of many flaws in your position.
paladin said...
do you have even a shred of reasoning to back up that statement
Ha ha ha. I didn't make the assertion Pal, I'm questioning the assertion. Why don't you start with evidence for the assertion before asking for evidence for doubt of the assertion.
Did you miss the fact that these were cases of coerced *abortions*?
a) The "fact" part has not been established.
b) You have no ability to separate aspects of issues? You can't see the difference between something someone does, and something someone is forced to do?
the abortion industry is corrupt. When given the choice between informing women...
Another typically backward statement.
If anything is an "industry" it's religious coertion. planned parenthood informs thier patients about all aspects of their option. It is religious "advisors" to pregnant women who do not tell the whole story.
Mike... forgive my bluntness, but you really seem to have difficulty remembering and/or tracking the logical points of these discussions. Let me refresh your memory:
Paladin: [quoting instances of coerced abortion from "the un-choice"]
Mike: "A) This is highly exaggerated at best, and likely made up."
"B) This says nothing about abortion."
Assertion (A) is your raw opinion--which you wrapped up to look like an objective statement (unless your pronoun "this" referred to something which was in your head which you hadn't yet revealed?).
Assertion (B) is illogical nonsense. Statements about abortions being forced do, in fact, say something about abortion. Mike might not agree with (or like) WHAT is said in them about abortion, but to say that they said "nothing about abortion" is beyond the bounds of reality.
Paladin: "Mike, do you have even a shred of reasoning to back up that statement, or are you simply sharing your sentiment of the moment?"
Mike: "Ha ha ha. I didn't make the assertion Pal, I'm questioning the assertion. Why don't you start with evidence for the assertion before asking for evidence for doubt of the assertion."
Questioning? I saw no questions; I saw out-of-hand dismissals using boldly sweeping and objective statements, with nary a scrap of reasoning or proof! Consider, for example, defending yourself against the charge of, "Oh, don't listen to Mike, everyone--he highly exaggerates things at best, and often makes up things from whole cloth!" If you challenged my statement, and I replied (chuckling patronizingly, for flavour) that I was only questioning your assertions of the past, don't you think I'd be dodging my rightful burden of proof? Just so, with you and your burden of proof re: the claims of the women. Scoffing does not equal disproving, last I checked.
Perhaps you could answer this: WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that such women are lying and/or exaggerating? What led you to that conclusion in the first place? Your accusation seemed to come out of nowhere!
[Paladin]
Did you miss the fact that these were cases of coerced *abortions*?
[Mike]
a) The "fact" part has not been established.
I was addressing your absurd statement that "this says nothing about abortion." Even if you dismiss these accounts as fiction (for whatever irrational reason), the so-called "fictional statements" are "saying things" about abortion, are they not? Now: did you mean something ELSE by your statement of "this says nothing about abortion" (and were just careless and mistaken in articulating it), or do you now see the nonsense in this statement of yours?
b) You have no ability to separate aspects of issues? You can't see the difference between something someone does, and something someone is forced to do?
I most certainly do see the difference... and so do the women who gave their accounts. (Note: I'll be happy to discuss non-forced abortions as a distinct issue, later, after this one is settled a bit; one thing at a time!) I'm not sure why you disbelieve that coerced/forced abortions are an issue in their accounts; isn't it rather obvious, even if you reject them as fiction, that their topic matter is "coerced abortions"?
If anything is an "industry" it's religious coertion. planned parenthood informs thier patients about all aspects of their option.
Let's suppose, for a moment, that your claim about PP is true (and it is provably NOT true--ask for references, if you wish); do you not see that this has nothing especially to do with coercion at all (from them, or from the people who drove them)? As an extreme example: a terrorist can inform his prisoners about all aspects of cooperation [e.g. not being tortured/beheaded] and resistance [e.g. torture/beheading], while still exerting coercion, yes? Information and coercion can, in fact, coexist, Mike.
It is religious "advisors" to pregnant women who do not tell the whole story.
You'll need to explain that statement a bit.
Post a Comment